 |
 | |
|
| 
Elcabong
Cuba SI, Castro NO
join:2000-03-09
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Next up in news You can't sue the patent office over patent infringement. The patent office only issues patents, it doesn't use them. | |
|
| | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Next up in news Someone didn't get it. | |
|
| | |
Elcabong
Cuba SI, Castro NO
join:2000-03-09
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Next up in news Yeah, I only get intelligent jokes. | |
|
| | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Next up in news Suuuuuuure. | |
|
| MOTO6809
join:2007-11-05
Springfield, MA
| said by hayabusa3303  :verzion sues patent office over patent infringement on voip. LOL | |
|
MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
 ·Windstream
| Gotta love the vagueness of patents Yay, so now they own the exclusive rights to attaching a digital camera "to an input port" of a conferencing system. Not any specific method of doing so, naturally, but any and all methods by which a camera can be connected to a central unit of a video conferencing system.
I should run patent the idea of attaching a USB joystick to said central conferencing system. That should be all the information I need -- not how, why, which joystick, or what its function would be. 20 years from now when somebody figures out that part, they'll have to pay me to do it.
The patent office should be reserved for true inventions. This is just a pathetic grab to say "we got another patent."
--
John M - Cranky network guy | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Gotta love the vagueness of patents said by MooJohn :Yay, so now they own the exclusive rights to attaching a digital camera "to an input port" of a conferencing system. Not any specific method of doing so, naturally, but any and all methods by which a camera can be connected to a central unit of a video conferencing system. I should run patent the idea of attaching a USB joystick to said central conferencing system. That should be all the information I need -- not how, why, which joystick, or what its function would be. 20 years from now when somebody figures out that part, they'll have to pay me to do it. The patent office should be reserved for true inventions. This is just a pathetic grab to say "we got another patent." go actually READ the patent before you come spouting off | |
|
| | |
| | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Gotta love the vagueness of patents Don't post it for me post it for the other dude. Might also want to post a link for anger management for him too. | |
|
| | | | birdfeedr
Premium
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Gotta love the vagueness of patents said by BF69 :Might also want to post a link for anger management for him too. Anger management? For MooJohn?
Cranky, yes. Angry? I don't think so. | |
|
| | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| said by BF69 :go actually READ the patent before you come spouting off Actually there is no need to. Like all other technology patents this one is sure to describe the invention in purposely vague terms. Which means if anyone wanted to use the "technology" in this patent they still have to figure it all out from scratch. No one should be able to make money on a patent that doesn't make it easy for others to use the so called innovation. If someone has to pay as much as the patent owner did to develop the product(or sometimes way more when the patent owner never actually develops the thing), than the owner of the patent doesn't deserve anything. Patents are supposed to be a shortcut to others and in return the patent owner gets paid. Currently patents hurt innovation, instead of helping. They really need to require that technical blueprints and prototypes be included with all patents. | |
|
| |
MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
·Windstream
| Sorry I didn't ask your permission before expressing my opinion. Your position is clearly more valid than mine.
There are two portions of the patent that state exactly what I said:
quote:
It should be understood, however, that the intention is not to limit the invention to the particular embodiments described. On the contrary, the intention is cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
and
quote:
The various embodiments described above are provided by way of illustration only and are not intended to limit the invention. Those skilled in the art will readily recognize various modifications and changes that may be made to the present invention without strictly following the example embodiments and applications illustrated and described herein.
Note the phrase "spirit and scope." In plain English, that's another way of saying they stake claim to basically any videoconferencing method using a terminal setup via a set-top box. It's an intentionally broad scope.
It's fine that they want to invent something that can do this. It's not fine that they can prevent someone else from accomplishing the same thing using a completely different method. It's like inventing a portable music player and then saying no one else can have a portable music player, even if the original unit was a radio and the new unit played MP3s. It's music and it's portable so you owe me money!
--
John M - Cranky network guy | |
|
| | | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Gotta love the vagueness of patents Here's a little ditty to help you and others that are patently challenged:
"The name of the game is the claim." - Giles Rich | |
|
| |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | You should take your own advice. | |
|
|
| 
sjohnson
join:2001-02-28
Sioux Falls, SD
·Golden West
| Re: WOW Agreed. I have no need for P8 anymore, but bought it at launch and kept it for 3 years. Regardless of the naysayers, it's like a reliable pickup truck: nothing fancy, but gets you there all the time.
--
Don't confuse me with the facts... | |
|
| | |
| | |
sjohnson
join:2001-02-28
Sioux Falls, SD
·Golden West
| Re: WOW I never had that problem, but agree it would be a show-stopper for a business.
I took my adapter to work. Impressed the owner enough that he ordered one strictly for outgoing calls. Saved a bunch over POTS business LD plans.
--
Don't confuse me with the facts... | |
|
C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
·Verizon Online DSL
| It has to be asked... All these patents for VoIP tech, but are there any products out (or that will be out) that use it?
Patenting is much a joke now, with as many entities that file for them and then get to sue someone else for using something like what they patented. I'm just asking if Packet8 here is the real deal.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| 
sheik28
Premium
join:2000-10-15
New York, NY | Re: It has to be asked... most of their patents go towards their technology. So, yes they have plenty of products that use their patents. | |
|
| | joemaloy
join:2004-12-21
Tonopah, AZ
 ·StarBand Communica..
| Re: It has to be asked... I don't know how they are getting away with getting these "PRIOR ART" patents. way back when I was using Microsoft's "netmeeting" to do VOIP video conferencing . Yahoo had a similar product.
Good thing I don't work at the PTO. Vonage needs to take all those patent suits back to court. | |
|
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Newport, OR | Packet8 Still Sucks If their patents are like their billing practices, they are predatory, insane and managed by idiots.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
|
|
|
|
Packet8 Racks Up VoIP Patents
BBR reviews on Packet8
·
Next up in news
·
·