British Telecom Claims Patents on VOIP Session Initiation Protocol

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Telecom Claims Patents on VOIP Session Initiation Protocol

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 1, 2013 @02:36AM from the assuredly-not-bogus dept.

An anonymous reader writes with bad news for operators of SIP gateways. From the article: "VoIP-to-PSTN termination providers and SIP vendors will be watching their inboxes for a lawyer's letter from BT, which has kicked off a licensing program levying a fee on the industry, based on a list of 99 patents .. The British incumbent is offering to allow third parties to use the Session Initiation Protocol under a license agreement... BT is requesting either $US50,000 or a combination of 0.3 percent of future revenue from affected products, plus 0.3 percent of the last six months' sales for products as 'past damages.' It's kindly offering a discount for customers that pay up within six weeks of receiving a BT letter of demand, and there's a premium to $US60,000 and 0.36 percent of revenue for those who hold out."

73 of 116 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Brits by clickson · 2013-05-01 02:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Geth them!
1. Re:Brits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  They would have to enforce this in the US as in the UK I believe you cannot yet patent software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_Kingdom_patent_law
2. Re:Brits by Lumpy · 2013-05-01 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Why? The US Congress will gladly roll over and support them. Every single man and woman in the US Congress, as well as the White House completely supports this kind of BS.
  If they did not, they would pass a bill that invalidates all software patents and make software not patentable.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 02:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

BT is just another failed Tory privatisation, retarding and overcharging for UK telecoms ever since. Its only redeeming feature is that it is set up by regulatory-captured Ofcom to be the less awful alternative to Murdoch and Branson's brands.
Ah, the true nature of competition where there is natural monopoly.
1. Re:who cares by timftbf · 2013-05-01 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, much of the BT set-up makes a whole lot of sense.
  There *is* a natural monopoly in putting copper (or glass) in the ground or on poles, and the part of BT that does this is a distinct entity.
  The parts of BT that sell everything from residential phone lines to corporate GigE circuits have to buy from the infrastructure part of BT on *exactly* the same terms as any other telecoms service provider. It's about as much of a level playing field as you're ever going to get...
2. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  is a distinct entity.
  This makes me laugh. Openreach is part of BT and operates in the interests of BT shareholders - where these shares also convey ownership of the retail arm. No amount of handwaving by Ofcom, which essentially behaves as BT pleases, is going to enable this system to be any fairer.
  Also, "competing bill-printing services" - as with the privatisation of electricity and gas - is a joke. At least the privatisation of water companies was honest, in that there are no alternatives, because, well, there is still only one water pipe to your house.
  The original solution worked just fine: a single company provides not just the physical infrastructure, but also the bill-printing services. That company, e.g. British Gas per the Gas Acts, happened to be owned by the people with a requirement to operate at least break-even over a particular accounting period (e.g. 2 years for BG). Now it's just about middlemen and other leeches (e.g. here the patent trolling arm of BT and the lawyers working on its behalf) taking their slice of the pie without needing to be productive.
3. Re:who cares by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-01 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  BT is just another failed Tory privatisation,
  It's a success compared to what the old public BT used to be like. Most privatisations have been disasterous, this one was already a disaster, so it's not been too bad.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:who cares by sa1lnr · 2013-05-01 03:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Excuse me, but before it was sold off BT was making about £3 billion a years gross profit.
5. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  As a past employee it's interesting to see how much red tape between branches of the company there is. The regulation means that BT isn't allowed an advantage compared to their competitors. That means you're frequently banned knowledge/access that would be extremely useful to your job, because an external entity wouldn't have that knowledge. It gets even more ridiculous if you're working for two different departments at the same time, because often it means for two related projects you have to develop one pretending you have zero knowledge of the other.
  Yes the shareholders are the same so they're all operating to the benefit of the same people, but there's still plenty of distinction made.
6. Re:who cares by Cederic · 2013-05-01 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  the less awful alternative
  
  The problem is that the two you named actually realise that they have customers and attempt to cater to them. Sure, customer service from one is pitiful and the politics of the other reprehensible, but BT act as though you should feel privileged to use their network and do their utmost to fuck over companies that actually try and help their customers.
  I hate BT.
7. Re:who cares by Cederic · 2013-05-01 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The regulation means that BT isn't allowed an advantage compared to their competitors.
  The regulations had to be changed because BT was exploiting their monopoly position to fuck over their competitors.
  Disclaimer: I may have once worked for a Telco
Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 02:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

All ITSPs then should ditch SIP for PSTN trunking and move to support IAX2. A much simpler protocol and it goes through NAT like a knife through butter.
1. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Albanach · 2013-05-01 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  All ITSPs then should ditch SIP for PSTN trunking and move to support IAX2.
  
  That would be to presume none of these patents implicate IAX2. After all, they're not claiming a patent on SIP, they're claiming patents on what SIP does. Providers would want to be sure IAX2 is not going to be found to be infringing before making the effort to migrate.
  What would be better would be concerted work on having as many of these patents invalidated as possible. Hopefully the remaining ones can then be worked around.
2. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Splab · 2013-05-01 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  Try pointing out that the UK is part of EU and so far, software patents aren't valid?
3. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-05-01 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  they're not claiming a patent on SIP, they're claiming patents on what SIP does
  And since SIP was developed from c. 1994-1999, they're just about to bump up against the 20 year window.
  A few petty lawyers here have the power to disrupt a global industry. I'm continually astonished that there's anybody who can't see that the system is fundamentally flawed.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Cassini2 · 2013-05-01 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Somehow, i suspect British Telecom was smart enough to get the US version of this patent, and software patents are fair game in the US.
5. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by digitig · 2013-05-01 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  And I'll expect that BT will point out that these aren't software patents.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
6. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2013-05-01 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  Somehow, i suspect British Telecom was smart enough to get the US version of this patent, and software patents are fair game in the US.
  Once again (from an embarrassed American), apologies for that...
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
7. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Splab · 2013-05-01 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Really? The SIP servers I'm running are purely done in software; but after posting that I realized that they are targeting american companies, not European, so guess it's a non issue (for most people).
8. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by tomwish · 2013-05-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  All ITSPs then should ditch SIP for PSTN trunking and move to support IAX2. A much simpler protocol and it goes through NAT like a knife through butter.
  The issue with IAX2 is that currently you are limited to Asterisk and its forks. I currently have Sonus and sansay products in my network and IAX2 is not an option. I agree that IAX2 is great for nat but have not seen any studies on high volume/high CPS. I peak during the day at 6k cps and 150k channels. You would have to get the big vendors to buy in and they never agree on anything.
9. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by digitig · 2013-05-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  The implementation might be in software, but the article says that the patents relate to the protocol, not the implementation of the protocol.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
10. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by odigity · 2013-05-01 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  Stop that!
  You didn't personally create the patent system, and it doesn't even seem like you agree with it, so why apologize for it?
  Bugs the crap out of me when people say "we" with regards to/ apologize on behalf of the actions taken by the government that claims ownership of you.
  You are an individual. They are a network of thugs. Stop identifying with them, and stop collectivizing all individuals who live within these imaginary lines called the U S of A.
11. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Cederic · 2013-05-01 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but he's part of the society that elected the sociopaths that passed the stupid laws. He also hasn't used his second amendment rights to remove the 'network of thugs' (to use your term).
  In other words, he's culpable. An apology is the least he can offer.
12. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Once again (from an embarrassed American), apologies for that...
  Stop that!
  You didn't personally create the patent system, and it doesn't even seem like you agree with it, so why apologize for it?
  Be still my child. "JeezUS" is here. The people need a sacrificial lamb. Let we who have not been touched by the sins of Intellectual Property suffer for the Original sins of those who have. In this way we may stand as a lasting reminder that those great founding fathers who came before us were flawed in that they trusted the majority of voters to not be apathetic idiots, and at least a portion of congress to not be corrupt.
  May our sacrifice of honor and faith in the systems that rule us be as a bacon of truth in the darkness of pre-morning to all other nerds who seek the good news that ye need not toil under the yolk of Artificially Scarce Ideas. Cast off your pointers and rejoice in the infinite sea of everylasting bits! Do not be sad or angry; Accept our martyrdom joyously for through it we achieve holy geek cred and secure our place at the right hand of dogs.
13. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by sydsavage · 2013-05-01 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  Mmm. Bacon of truth. <drool>
14. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by cardpuncher · 2013-05-01 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  They're not even patents necessarily describing what SIP does, they're really about providing a telephone service. One is a patent on rerouting calls between telephone exchanges in response to circuit failures defined in extremely old PSTN jargon ("tandem" exchanges are specifically mentioned). In the case of SIP, this is mostly going to be handled at the IP layer and not in the manner described, as far as I can tell. Another is a method for detecting whether conflicting features (eg call waiting and call forwarding on busy) have been selected for a particular customer line. They might potentially apply to anyone operating a telephone network (regardless of technology), but may equally not apply to everyone operating a telephone network. BT have taken this kind of thing to court before (the notorious hyperlink case), so the recipients of these licensing invitations not only need to evaluate 99 patents for potential infringement but factor in the cost of a potential defence.
  Libel tourism in the UK has been an increasingly serious problem having a chilling effect on free speech around the world. It was only going to be a matter of time before the world realised how to exploit the broken US system of patents and civil law. The fix is to change the law, not to offer up a different target.
15. Re:Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2013-05-01 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, I've done everything that I can do to help. I've ran for office (won the primary but lost the general for US House), I vote every election and try to be as active as possible. The truth of the matter is that the asshats in office right now represent us, and when they pull these moves and still get reelected it shows that we as a society are giving them our tacit approval.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Has anyone patented ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 02:43 · Score: 1

The "Patent Extortion Letter Protocol"?
Protocols are APIs.
http://www.zdnet.com/oracle-vs-google-one-claim-that-should-not-stand-3040155046/
1. Re:Has anyone patented ... by Chrisq · 2013-05-01 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  The "Patent Extortion Letter Protocol"?
  Unfortunately you don't have to look far to find prior art
Re:Patents ought to be like Trademarks by idontgno · 2013-05-01 02:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because we don't have enough slavering mindless patent attacks in the courts right now?
You're trying to raise the bar on keeping patents, I'm sure. A noble goal. But the people who want to keep their patents will happily crank out their litigation tempo if that's what it takes.
Your proposal is full of blowback. The solution is worse than the problem.
Just say it out loud: Abolish software patents.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
No more Gotcha! patent suits by raju1kabir · 2013-05-01 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

There needs to be some sort of "horse has left the barn" exemption to patent enforceability. If a patent holder sits quietly and watches while an industry develops around something they believe to be infringing, it's not reasonable to allow them to wait until billions of dollars are at stake and then suddenly show up with a demand for payment.
That's not at all in the spirit of patent law. The purpose was to allow the patent holder the ability to exploit their own invention, not to allow them to sit on their asses doing nothing and then exploit everyone else's work.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
1. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-05-01 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's not at all in the spirit of patent law. The purpose was
  "The purpose was" is now irrelevant. The patent law now serves the interests of those who own the government just as they wish it to be.
  c.f. "You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision! "
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by denis-The-menace · 2013-05-01 03:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is what is also known as a "submarine patent"
  It lurks under the water while adoption builds.
  Later on, the "submarine patent" surfaces and sues everyone.
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
3. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Theaetetus · 2013-05-01 03:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There needs to be some sort of "horse has left the barn" exemption to patent enforceability. If a patent holder sits quietly and watches while an industry develops around something they believe to be infringing, it's not reasonable to allow them to wait until billions of dollars are at stake and then suddenly show up with a demand for payment.
  That's not at all in the spirit of patent law. The purpose was to allow the patent holder the ability to exploit their own invention, not to allow them to sit on their asses doing nothing and then exploit everyone else's work.
  Yeah... some sort of "you intentionally waited too long to enforce your rights, and as a result, the infringers are in an unreasonably worse position now than they would've been had you acted at little faster" rule. Or like you say, the "horse has left the barn, so why bother latching it up". We could even call it the laches rule.
4. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by PSVMOrnot · 2013-05-01 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  c.f. "You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision! "
  "Here is a unicycle. You will ride it wherever you go."
5. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by digitig · 2013-05-01 03:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is about British Telecom. They've probably only just heard of VOIP.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
6. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Frosty+Piss · 2013-05-01 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Later on, the "submarine patent" surfaces and sues everyone.
  Have they sued anyone? Or are they just asking people to license a patent that they legally own?
  A company has an obligation to look at the technology they use in their products and do a patent search to see if they are infringing on existing technology owned by someone else.
  Simply because BT had not until now chosen to require or ask for licensing doesn't give other people a free ride for ever. The onus is on YOU to do due diligence with your products that you market for profit, YOU bare the responsibility to properly license that which you do not own.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
7. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by sacrilicious · 2013-05-01 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  "The purpose was" is now irrelevant. The patent law now serves the interests of those who own the government just as they wish it to be.
  Stating the purpose is hugely relevant in terms of educating many who do not know. You're correct to state that that patent law is currently abused in ways directly contrary to the motivations of its creators. You're very incorrect to imply that educating people about this travesty is meaningless.
  
  --
  - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
8. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by radarskiy · 2013-05-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any factual basis for thinking that in this case BT did in fact sit and wait, as opposed to attempting to negotiate in private before resorting to the courts?
9. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-05-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're very incorrect to imply that educating people about this travesty is meaningless.
  History is always valuable. But if anybody thinks the current government(s) is/are going back to the way it was, then they haven't been paying attention to history.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
10. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by jonbryce · 2013-05-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  They do actually offer their own VOIP service, which charges the same rates for calls as their POTS service.
11. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Bob9113 · 2013-05-01 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  We could even call it the laches rule.
  Nice! I've heard of laches before but didn't know what it meant. I will leave this page more knowledgeable than when I arrived. Thanks!
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
12. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Dragonslicer · 2013-05-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is what is also known as a "submarine patent"
  It lurks under the water while adoption builds. Later on, the "submarine patent" surfaces and sues everyone.
  As usual, Wikipedia states it well:
  
  A submarine patent is a patent whose issuance and publication are intentionally delayed by the applicant for a long time, such as several years.[1][2][3] This strategy requires a patent system where, first, patent applications are not published, and, second, patent term is measured from grant date, not from priority/filing date. In the United States, patent applications filed before November 2000 were not published and remained secret until they were granted. Analogous to a submarine, therefore, submarine patents could stay "under water" for long periods until they "emerged" and surprised the relevant market.
  Unless these are patents that had been filed 15 years ago and were finally granted just now, they are not submarine patents.
13. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by raju1kabir · 2013-05-01 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I do not have any concrete proof of the nonexistence of such an attempt. Like all attempts to prove a negative, I must rely in large part on the lack of evidence that an attempt has occurred. I've been involved with VoIP for over 10 years and never heard of such a thing. Nor does the article mention it. Nor do any of the other discussions of the topic.
  
  --
  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
14. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by girlintraining · 2013-05-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is about British Telecom. They've probably only just heard of VOIP.
  They heard about it years ago, but decided it was probably just a fad that would go away... like electricity.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
15. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'll do you one better. Just shorten patent duration to 5 years. Oh you waited too long, your submarine sank... Oh, that's not long enough? Well, it is for the majority so get to innovating faster and deal with it.
16. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-05-01 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Unless these are patents that had been filed 15 years ago and were finally granted just now, they are not submarine patents.
  Someone has already pointed out that the patents in question were issued from 1994-1999.
  So, they weren't published, and they seem to meet the other requirements for "submarine patents".
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
17. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Dragonslicer · 2013-05-01 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Someone has already pointed out that the patents in question were issued from 1994-1999.
  So, they weren't published, and they seem to meet the other requirements for "submarine patents".
  "Issued" and "published" are sometimes used synonymously for patents, though there's some ambiguity because patent applications are usually made public before the patent is granted. If these patents were issued between 1994 and 1999, then they must have been made public during that same span (maybe slightly earlier if you're talking about making public the applications for patents issued at the 1994 end). A patent can't be made public any later than it's issued. That's the point of patents, to publicly disclose your invention. I don't know for certain about other countries, but in the United States, a patent application is publicly disclosed a certain amount of time after it's filed (I believe it's 18 months), even though it may not be granted until months or years after that.
18. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Theaetetus · 2013-05-01 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'll do you one better. Just shorten patent duration to 5 years. Oh you waited too long, your submarine sank... Oh, that's not long enough? Well, it is for the majority so get to innovating faster and deal with it.
  That's a bit naive. Between a provisional application, and a two and a half year backlog at the USPTO, and then 1.5 years of prosecution (two rounds of back and forth, plus the delay to issue the patent) and you could have a patent that issues on its expiration date. And if you're in pharma, you still haven't cleared FDA-required animal testing, much less humans, and you're far from even selling a single unit of product.
19. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by HiThere · 2013-05-01 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  In the US it exists, and is called "latches" or something like that. But it requires lots of work from a skilled lawyer to use.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I got... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 02:50 · Score: 4, Funny

...99 patents, but SIP ain't one.
meh by Digital_Wonderbread · 2013-05-01 03:02 · Score: 1

All this bickering about session initialization is a non-starter. C'mon, I had to retrieve my password for this terrible joke.
Hyperlink Patent by Saint+Gerbil · 2013-05-01 03:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Reminds me of the hidden page patent.
I'm sure this will go the same way.
http://www.zdnet.com/bt-loses-hyperlink-patent-case-3002121257/
Good luck with that by mvar · 2013-05-01 03:09 · Score: 1

One must wonder if BT is willing to force the ISPs that already have a SIP trunk with them, to sign this deal. Or maybe that's where they're aiming at.. Either way good luck with this stupidness
1. Re:Good luck with that by omnichad · 2013-05-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  As others have posted, software patents aren't valid in the UK, so they're likely suing based on a US patent.
Luckily not affected by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I work for a VoIP provider, based in a UK and have several direct SIP links to BT - so they know we use it! The irony is they can't charge us these license fees because currently the law in the UK prevents them.
Re:Patents ought to be like Trademarks by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-01 03:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

No.
Patents ought to be like Trademarks
It's a statement of opinion of how the author wishes things to be not how he believes they are.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
FSF Implementation by PPH · 2013-05-01 03:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Sir,
We select the 0.3 percent of revenue payment option. We have enclosed a check for $0.00 to cover all past and future expected revenue.
Signed, The FreeTards

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:FSF Implementation by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-05-01 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Sir,
  
  We select the 0.3 percent of revenue payment option. We have enclosed a check for $0.00 to cover all past and future expected revenue.
  
  Signed, The FreeTards
  I can only hope you sent it postage due.
2. Re:FSF Implementation by Shimbo · 2013-05-01 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Dear FreeTards,
  You missed the 'greater of' part. That will be $50 000 you owe us.
  BT.
3. Re:FSF Implementation by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Dear BT,
  
  It seems an eternity since our last handshake; Indeed I don't believe we've ever so
  just let me say its a [division by zero error] to make your acquaintance.
  You knew we could never say no to you -- You, our one true Telecom of the Brits.
  However, being dwellers of basements we've not much monetary compensation to meet your demands.
  It seems the courts are in your favorable pockets, so we've had to file for bankruptcy.
  Subsequently we are bound to liquidate our worldly possessions and thus transfer them to you.
  Enclosed you'll find a link to ThePirateBay, which contains all that we own as renumeration.
  The MAFIAA ensures us the value therein is on the order of millions of trillions of any currency you fancy.
  Surely this will cover your fees far and above any amount you can possibly imagine, as it has for the MAFIAA.
  Neckbeardedly yours,
  The FreeTards.
more than "competing bill-printing services" by Chirs · 2013-05-01 03:54 · Score: 1

The last mile to the house is a natural monopoly. Once you get to some sort of switching station then you could have real competition with physical hardware from different competing ISPs colocated in the same offices and using separate upstream bandwidth. That's more than just "competing bill-printing services".
I have no idea if this is what they do in the UK, but it's *possible*.
1. Re:more than "competing bill-printing services" by gbjbaanb · 2013-05-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  We have this in that the cabinets and cables are owned by the infrastructure company and leased out to whoever wants it. Competing ISPs can also install their kit in the exchanges and use the cables to the homes. Competing ISPs can also install their own cables (eg fibre) to the homes as well (but this tends to be very expensive).
  The UK telecom situation is rather good, prices are cheap enough and service good enough to make our American cousins cry... just like our mobile ISPs.
I'm all ready to dump SIP ... by Skapare · 2013-05-01 03:58 · Score: 1

... and develop an all new protocol. At this point, it won't even need PSTN capability since we are moving away from that.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Patents ought to be like Trademarks by omnichad · 2013-05-01 04:02 · Score: 1

Not that part, the use it or lose it part. Patent trolling in general. I mean, BT just now figured out they can mangle the wording of a patent to apply it to something that's been in use for over a decade.
Prior Art: MMUSIC by anwaya · 2013-05-01 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative

The IETF MMUSIC (Multiparty Multimedia Session Control) Working Group started working on Session Protocols in 1993.

Initial Internet drafts for a Session Invitation Protocol and a Simple Conference Invitation Protocol were prepared in 1996, and merged to a single first draft of SIP by December 1996 (slide 10), with further drafts (2-12) leading up to the publication of RFC 2543 in March of 1999 (slides 11-13, ibid.).

I don't see anything that says BT had a hand in anything to do with SIP up to 1996. More than half the patents BT claims (Exhibit C) were filed after RFC 2543 was published.

I hope this information is a useful starting point for some SIP vendor.
1. Re:Prior Art: MMUSIC by scubamage · 2013-05-01 06:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I work on Voice R&D/Product Engineering for a major MSO (not going to list the name here), and we had to go through discovery for these lawsuits already. The most annoying thing is we actually have several people from the RFC working group working here, so it is... salty to say the least. But I will say, they're going after companies on the fortune 500 so you can bet that the whole history will be poured over by legions of lawyers. If the little SIP vendors are smart and able, they'll try their very best to delay until some of the big lawsuits are finished.
ah, so it's *math* by Chirs · 2013-05-01 06:36 · Score: 1

Being able to patent a communications protocol is actually worse than being able to patent a specific implementation of that protocol.
1. Re:ah, so it's *math* by digitig · 2013-05-01 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Er ... no. A protocol isn't math.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Annoying. by scubamage · 2013-05-01 06:51 · Score: 1

This whole thing is messed up. I work in voice for a major MSO, and we had to go through a bunch of fact finding and discovery for the BT lawsuit. The thing that is really annoying is that SIP, to my knowledge, is not the result of BT's work. It's the result of the IETF RFC process. That'd be like me jumping up and saying I have the patent on TCP/IP.
IETF protocol standard? by josepha48 · 2013-05-01 08:10 · Score: 1

WTF: SIP is an IETF standard, so these people should not be holding any patents, otherwise it is another useless standard. It would be like if http protocol was patented and they required you to pay to implement it.

--
Only 'flamers' flame!
1. Re:IETF protocol standard? by TheInternetGuy · 2013-05-01 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  WTF: SIP is an IETF standard, so these people should not be holding any patents, otherwise it is another useless standard. It would be like if http protocol was patented and they required you to pay to implement it.
  Seems the patents aren't on the SIP as such, but rather on SIP trunking. Some other posters have been touching on this, but it is not stated clearly in the summary or in any posts form what I could see.
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
YAY! by pjr.cc · 2013-05-01 08:52 · Score: 1

I say yay because i really dont like sip, i think its a horrible protocol and anything that would end its life is fantastic (even if it is a patent troll). Though its hard to see if BT are claiming ownership of any tech that does voip to pstn or just SIP.
With any luck, someone will develop a useful protocol to replace it, though my hopes arent high.