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

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.