Prior Art On Verizon Patents

greenbird sends in word that Techdirt has up information from Daniel Berninger documenting prior art in the Verizon patents being used to destroy Vonage. "...due to the fun way the patent system works, introducing that kind of prior art to the USPTO for it to review the validity of Verizon's VoIP patents will take quite a bit of time and effort — much longer than Vonage has to fight Verizon in court." From Berninger's note: "In particular, the claims in both patents were anticipated by open standards assembled by the VoIP Forum (H.323) in 1996 and published in January 1997 with the participation of members from Cisco Systems, Microsoft, IBM, Nortel, Intel, Motorola, Lucent, and VocalTec Communications, among others... The Eric Voit patent applications reflect, in particular, contributions made by VocalTec Communication to the VoIP Forum during 1996 and formally published at the same time as a separate document."

Comments

Re:Fun way?

[suresk]

Actually, the USPTO has given up on even pretending to examine the patents. Applicants can now use a Fast Track process which entails them researching and disclosing prior art on their own.

It's more basic then this

[hcmtnbiker]

The article links to a wikia article on the subject, which provides a very nice summary of the arguments. My question is how is this stuff even patentable?

Patent 6,282,574 clearly states that no one except Verizon can legally translate an IP to a telephone number and vice versa. The rest of the patents are basically saying Verizon owns the only right to transmit other various phone communications over TCP/IP.

WTF? How can someone be awarded a patent for their idea for an application layer protocol that depends on something like TCP/IP to even opperate?

Re:It's more basic then this

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent #1 - 6,282,574 - Method, server and telecommunications system for name translation on a conditional basis and/or to a telephone number

Upheld - claim 27 of the '574 patent.
26. A method comprising:

receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet data network;

translating a name included in the request into a destination telephone number associated with a name included in the request; and

transmitting a reply containing both the destination telephone number and a packet data network address of a telephone gateway coupled between the public packet data network and a telephone network through the public packet data network to a calling device.

27. A method as in claim 26, wherein the address is an Internet Protocol address.

Claim 26 is spurious because the phone companies had been doing network-based address translation over public packet networks for many years. This is how 800 number lookups worked, for example - the 800 number is mapped to an area code+local exchange number suitable for routing over the PSTN. The classic telecommunications packet networks used by the phone companies are different than the TCP/IP data networks we're familiar with - the links are synchronous and connections have to be set up and physically reserved in advance. But they're still packet-based.

As for Claim 27, that seems to be a good description of the Domain Name Service which existed for decades. Now, Verizon's lawyers may argue that it means something other than that. Tough, it's ambiguous because the terse way it was drafted ("A method as in claim 26, wherein...") can be interpreted in any number of different ways. They shouldn't be allowed to impose the most convenient interpretation for themselves many years after the fact.

Re:It's more basic then this

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Not quite.

Claim 26 is using a domain name server (or some other database server connected to the internet or some other PUBLIC net) to translate a name to a (POTS bridge server address, phone number) tuple.

It doesn't cover the old 800-number translation because that request went to a server that was connected to a phone-system internal net that wasn't accessible to the general public. This claim covers emulating the behavior using a publicly-accessible server.

(In other words they're patenting letting the general public use open standards - such as a domain name server hack - to create a cooperative replacement for a necessary internal component of their for-pay services.)

Claim 27 is ditto when the bridge server's address is an IP address.

what is it with stupid questions?

[plasmacutter]

Patent 6,282,574 clearly states that no one except Verizon can legally translate an IP to a telephone number and vice versa. The rest of the patents are basically saying Verizon owns the only right to transmit other various phone communications over TCP/IP.

WTF? How can someone be awarded a patent for their idea for an application layer protocol that depends on something like TCP/IP to even opperate?

you apparently want me to spell it out so i will..

c - o - r - r - u - p - t - i - o - n

Re:no

[|Cozmo|]

Not only that but at least where I work we're not allowed to look for prior art. The lawyers won't let us due to liability for double damages should it be discovered in the future that we're infringing on someone else's patent and it was possible that we knew about it.

Re:Fun way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they require PhD's.

Re:Scamming the patent office

[terrymr]

From wikipedia:

"In the United States, inventors and their patent agents or attorneys are required by law to submit any prior art they are aware of to the United States Patent and Trademark Office so that the patent examiner can take the prior art into account when examining the patent application."

Now is a telephone company going to claim that they had no knowledge of discussions within a standards setting body which was setting standards for making telephone calls over IP - the very subject of this patent ?

A patent examiner is GS-5 $38K job to start

[tlambert]

A patent examiner is GS-5 $38K job to start

http://usptocareers.gov/jobsearch.asp

Key requirements (redux):

- US Citizenship
- Ability to travel
- BA or BS from a community college accredited by ABET _or_ 2nd year coursework in 5 of 7 areas: physics, chemistry, architecture, computer science, mathematics, hydrology, or geology
- Registered as a professional engineer by a state, DC, Guam, or Puerto Rico
- Pass a written test for "Engineer In Training" or professional registration test
- 60 semester hours of courses in basic sciences/physics/math/engineering

So you've got to really want to be a patent examiner, be willing to live with a salary far below what you'd get in private industry with the same paper qualifications.

And then you get to do the scut work for a couple of years.

If you want to have your pay grade go up, you need time in grade and even more qualifications.

So it's pretty much the same deal that entry level teachers get, only you don't get the summer off.

-- Terry

Re:A patent examiner is GS-5 $38K job to start

[backbyter]

Actually the link provided will show that the starting levels are:

Patent Examiner, GS-5/7/9 ($38,435/$47,610/$55,518)
or
Patent Examiner, GS-11 ($63,885)

Rates above are for starting salaries (Step 1 of 10 in each grade with step 10 being $11k-$19K higher than base)

You're not going to be staying at these beginning levels very long unless you're very slow.

As you gain proficiency (and pass qualification testing) you're looking at making up to $133,702 (GS-14, Step 10) without being in a supervisory position.

The above are BASE salaries. Now add in "bonuses" of up to 30% (IIRC) for exceeding your quotas. Miss your quotas and expect "counseling".

Re:A patent examiner is GS-5 $38K job to start

[thebdj]

A patent examiner is GS-5 $38K job to start Actually, starting examiners are typically taken at GS-7, with a starting pay around $56,000. I should know, I was one before I left that nut house. You would have no way to pull people into the NoVA/Maryland/DC area with $38k, which would be like taking an engineering job in the midwest at about $25k. Trust me, the salaries are relatively comparitive to starting salaries for engineers coming out of college.

Key requirements (redux):

- US Citizenship
- Ability to travel
- BA or BS from a community college accredited by ABET _or_ 2nd year coursework in 5 of 7 areas: physics, chemistry, architecture, computer science, mathematics, hydrology, or geology
- Registered as a professional engineer by a state, DC, Guam, or Puerto Rico
- Pass a written test for "Engineer In Training" or professional registration test
- 60 semester hours of courses in basic sciences/physics/math/engineering I do not know which section you took this from, but for EE or CIS, the requirements are basically a degree. Nothing more to it. The minimal requirement at the USPTO in most areas is a BS in an appropriate area of study.

Re:Fun way?

[NormalVisual]

The USPTO's examiner positions start at the GS-5 pay grade, which can run anywhere from $38,435 - $49,964, depending on time in service. The highest grade you're likely to achieve working there after many years is GS-13 (tops out at $113,151), unless you can weasel your way into a GM rate after 15 years or more.

For the qualifications they're demanding, those are ludicrous salaries, and some of the qualifications themselves just don't make sense.