Slashdot Mirror
British Telecom Claims Patents on VOIP Session Initiation Protocol
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."
Geth them!
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.
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.
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
...99 patents, but SIP ain't one.
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...
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Excuse me, but before it was sold off BT was making about £3 billion a years gross profit.
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.