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."

17 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Everyone should switch to IAX2 then... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 Cassini2 · · 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.

  2. Re:Patents ought to be like Trademarks by idontgno · · 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.
  3. No more Gotcha! patent suits by raju1kabir · · 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 denis-The-menace · · 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
    2. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by Theaetetus · · 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.

    3. Re:No more Gotcha! patent suits by digitig · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is about British Telecom. They've probably only just heard of VOIP.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  4. I got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...99 patents, but SIP ain't one.

  5. Re:who cares by timftbf · · 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...

  6. Hyperlink Patent by Saint+Gerbil · · 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/

  7. Luckily not affected by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:who cares by serviscope_minor · · 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.
  9. FSF Implementation by PPH · · 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.
  10. Re:who cares by sa1lnr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Excuse me, but before it was sold off BT was making about £3 billion a years gross profit.

  11. Prior Art: MMUSIC by anwaya · · 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 · · 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.