Slashdot Log In
Intel Patents the "Digital Browser Phone"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Nov 19, 2006 08:05 AM
from the move-over-skype-yahoo-and-google dept.
from the move-over-skype-yahoo-and-google dept.
tibbar66 writes, "This sounds like an invention that has been invented many times before (e.g. Skype). Yet on October 10, 2006 Intel was granted a patent for a 'digital browser phone.' The patent was filed on Feb. 25, 2000. Here's the abstract: 'A telephone system wherein all the functions of a digital telephone can be accessed and implemented on a personal computer alone, thereby eliminating the need for a telephone set. By means of the computer display and mouse, keyboard or other input/output command devices, a user accesses and implement all digital telephone functions without the physical telephone set, the personal computer also providing the audio function. A graphical representation of a telephone set or other telephone-related form is provided on the computer display and accessed by the mouse, keyboard or other command device, this being accomplished by a computer program providing graphical interface implementation. A significant advantage of the system is computer access to and utilization of digital telephone functions from a remote location with communication via Internet, LAN, WAN, RAS or other mediums.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Actually it's Intel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually it's Intel (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. But if the patent office doesn't read the proposals, why should the Slashdot submitter? (Granted, the other option is that the patent office did read the proposal, but the patent office worker was so ignorant it sounded like a new idea to him/her.)
Currently there are so many variations on this theme already in existence (Skype, Jajah, even Ekiga etc., in a sense), that it boggles the mind such a patent was granted. Yet, TFP says that the filing date was "February 25, 2000". How many of those were around circa 2000? Skype only began around 2002-2003 IIRC...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually it's Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
I helped port one from win3.1 to win95 in 1996... It worked over the LAN and Internet... It looked like a phone... It supported GSM encoding, and full-duplex audio if your sound card was good enough. The company name was 'Telit', and does not exist anymore.
From archive.org:
--jeffk++
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doubtless - but that doesn't change the fact that the submitter
1) incorrectly attributes the patent to MS rather than Intel
2) tries to cite Skype as prior art when it didn't exist at the time of filing
Even for a slashdot summary, that's pretty poor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not proposing any theories here, but I do think you may be in danger of assuming incompetence where there's corruption.
What would these guys have to say? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone repeat after me ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or any SIP or H323 application that predates Skype ?
Isn't it time for Americans to revolt agains the patent crazyness ?
It's *not* impossible! (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to work here in Europe: after a big campaign of small IT businesses and citizens, the European Parliament rejected a proposal for introducing software patents in the EU.
Sure, the "war" is far from over, but we have won each "battle" so far. But I fear that we have a big probability of losing, unless software patents are challenged also in the rest of the world.
So, please, if you live in the USA or in Ja
In-depth analysis on why these patents should fail (Score:2)
An article [oxfordjournals.org] and book [slashdot.org] just out show why rejecting software patents is the only sound policy from the perspective of every discipline that has looked at them, be it IP law, economics, or computer science.
It's an intel patent not MS (Score:2, Informative)
Assignee: Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA)
So what happened to actually reading the submission before posting them on
Also Skype is from 2002 [wikipedia.org] and the patent was filed in 2000, so that makes for a poor prior art.
Re:It's an intel patent not MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever, as someone else here said, Vocaltec [vocaltec.com] started the ball rolling back in 1995. Maybe they only patented in Israel, not the US, but that won't help Intel here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen devices like that (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have a cd that came with a serial modem containing software that fits the description of the patent, and the copyright notice is 1999. When I took a look into the manual it was the Feb 1999 edition, and the 'last modified' date of installer on the disk is 3.3.1998.
veracity check (Score:3, Funny)
USPTO, wake up or go away! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entitled "Mistakes" [despair.com] and says:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's cheap to file a patent.
The reason you file one is so that way, when you find someone has violated your patent, you SUE them and use your patent documents as slam-dunk evidence in court (provided that it predates THEIR patent and adequately describes the device THEY creat
Consequences and [OT] patent rumor (Score:4, Interesting)
And the off-topic part, Apple came up with an interesting yet-another-patent one for a configurable input system (patent screenshots included) [macrumors.com]. In short: "The concept is based around adding physical/tactile controls over a touch-sensitive pad. By having such a modular system, an iPod or laptop could become even more multi-functional." As much as this patent is interesting and could help transform computers into something more versatile and useful, it's still a patent which impedes anyone else using the idea at the commercial level.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPod clickwheel was a true innovation, that no one has come with before. So my opinion is that it was a valid and fair patent.
On the other side, this Apple's new patent application just defines a particular use for an touchscreen... something that has been around for ages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
openh323 (Score:2, Insightful)
It also stinks that they get to sit on it for 6 years from date of filing. Patents used to be valid for 20 years from date of filing, now a company can sit on it, tweek it, and get 17 years from date of issue (AFIK).
It's the other way round (Score:2)
Patents used to be valid for 20 years from date of filing, now a company can sit on it, tweek it, and get 17 years from date of issue (AFIK).
It's the other way round: Patents used to be valid for 17 years from date of issue (allowing 'submarine' patents). Since 1995, they are valid for 20 years from date of filing.
That's a broad summary of the situation; for the details see a law site, e.g. here [bpmlegal.com].
Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
1973 invention (Score:2, Informative)
WTF? (Score:2)
Easy out of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, I swear that gov has fallen apart over the last 5 years. Patents as screwy as this show either an actual attempt by the gov. to hire idiots (hard to believe considering the economy of the last 6 years), that it is purposely trying to allow BS patents to major companies (conspiracy theorists unite), or that it is being severely underfunded( Bingo ) .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're also right: it really isn't possible to issue software patents in a s
prior art up the wazoo (Score:2)
Surely, a patent that deserves to be dismissed.
sloth jr
when the revolution comes (Score:2)
More Slashdot ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
What a patent actually COVERS is what is in the CLAIMS. The abstract means NOTHING. Here is the text of the three principal claims of this patent:
1. An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
3. A method, comprising: receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; generating graphical display information and events based on the received digital data; transmitting the graphical display information and events over an asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; receiving a key press and hook state command over the asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; translating the key press and hook state command to a different format; and transmitting the translated key press and hook state command to the PBX over the synchronous digital communication link.
6. A computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to: convert received light events and display updates to a graphical format; cause a first display device to display a digital telephone including the light events and display updates; convert received input device data that is related to the displayed digital telephone into a packetized format, wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; and transmit the packetized input device data over the asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link.
Also, the patent was based on an earlier application filed on February 25, 1999. For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier. Having to go back these two additional years makes it much harder to shoot down this patent than it would be if the relevant time frame was 2000, as implied by the lead post.
I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.
Plus, as has been pointed out above, the patent owner was Intel, not the hated Microsoft.
But, after all, this is Slashdot, so why be burdened by any actual facts?
Could this be Dialogic after being bought by Intel (Score:3, Informative)
Right about the claims, wrong about the merit (Score:3, Informative)
That said, the oddball nature of the claims is also pretty retro. PBX phones worked this way when 8 bit CPUs were hot stuff, and you wanted to minimize what was going on in the phone. It i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, a reference needs to have existed as of February 25,1998 in order to conclusively invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(b).
You are free to argue that a reference dated between between February 26, 1998 and February 25, 1899 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. sec 102(a) or other similar provisions, but then you also need to prove that the referenc
Read the claims, not the rest of the patent (Score:3, Informative)
Only the claims have any real standing when testing a patent... the first claim is for:
An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
So this patent only covers an interface that communicates over a synchronous digital link, ie, ye old PBX. It doesn't cover any of the VoIP/SIP/RTP solutions. The first claim is too broad, in that PBX's have had this sort of controller/logic etc, so the subsequent claims come into play.
Claim 3 talks about receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; so it's talking about POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), admittedly over the newer digital circuits. Again, not VoIP/SIP/RTP.
Claim 6 talks about a "medium" wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link;. So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.
Dialpad? (Score:3)
Prior Art (Score:3)
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that it was really novel then, but I don't actually know for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think someone at the USPTO needs a cockpunch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the companys timeline. http://web.net2phone.com/about/company/timeline.a
And here is the archive of their website from february 1997 http://web.archive.org/web/19970205073734/http://
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right; patents aren't about common sense. Patents are about suppressing creative thought because some fool got to an office first. Probably the single greatest stumbling block to technology and progress humanity has ever had the misfortune to allow to be thrust upon itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a mechanism already exists for that purpose; it is called "trade secret." The way it works, see, is that if your idea is complex enough to be non-trivial in terms of the resources required to instantiate it, then you just don't tell anyone how you did something, you simply develop it, and market it. If it is useful, you'll have a market window, and this gives you
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Claim priority over some earlier, what's this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Applicants hereby claim priority based on Provisional Application No. 60/121,755 filed Feb. 26, 1999 and entitled "Digital Browser Phone" which is incorporated herein by reference"
If I read this correctly, they claim priority over _someone_else's_ patent filing by referring to an earlier filing by themselves.