EFF Patent Busting - Prior Art Needed for VOIP 170
JumperCable writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking to bust an overly broad patent by a company called Acceris. Acceris claims patents on processes that implement voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) using analog phones as endpoints. These patents cover telephone calls over the Internet. Specifically, the claims describe a system that connects two parties where the receiving party does not need to have a computer or an Internet connection, but the call is routed in part through the Internet or any other 'public computer network'. The calls must also be 'full duplex', meaning that both parties can listen and talk at the same time, like in an ordinary phone call. To bust these overly broad claims, we need 'prior art' — any publication, article, patent or other public writing that describes the same or similar ideas being implemented before September 20, 1995."
Phone patches for radio? (Score:3, Informative)
In CB radio, and possibly Amateur (Ham) radio you could have a phone patch device which would interface between the radio transciever and the phone system. With two such gadgets you could bridge a gap in the PSTN. Not really legal with amateur radio as you were not supposed to compete with commercial services.
I am sure that emergency services used phone patches on their VHF radios, though. Some documentation on that might be of some use.
TFA talks about it being full duplex. The impression I have is that this system would have used one frequency and a VOX to switch between transmit and recieve. It is possible there were true full duplex systems though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You've got that reversed.
>Not really legal with amateur radio as you were not supposed to compete with commercial services.
Autopatch [wikipedia.org] has been and still is "legal".
Re:Phone patches for radio? (Score:4, Informative)
(note to mods: I know I've posted this 3 times in reply to different people, but I maintain it's not redundant until people actually grok the concept and stop posting/modding up non VOIP references.)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent is overly broad. So we are NOT stuck to "VOIP only" to break it...sheesh!!
JON
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual patent [uspto.gov] says "internet OR computer network", although I give you that the claim indeed explicitly mentions "an internet protocol".
But note that the set of statements in a patent claim can be invalidated by a wider type of prior art. So a claim of using internet for some purpose is invalidated by prior art that does exactly the same thing on a computer network, since internet is just one type of computer network.
So if HAM radi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression he somehow used it for free long distance.
Re: (Score:2)
While it maybe was an is illegal for Ham operators to connect to phone lines, they did so during wars to help sailors make phone calls back home.
Vocaltek? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There were ISDN router boxes touted around that time as
well....I can help (Score:2)
So yea, I can vouch that Vocaltec/Net2Phone was around back in 1994-1995 and had software "out on the market". If I recall right, the company was Israeli.
Here's the oldest reference I got (Score:3)
Maybe they have the answer themselves (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent anything but insightful, it's funny (Score:3)
OT - Sig Reply (Score:2)
It's nice to see you're a fan of Brians's "Common Errors in English" [wsu.edu], but Paul specifically asks that you link to the main page [wsu.edu], rather than the errors page...
Re: (Score:2)
VOIP Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, Cisco's IOS v11.3 [wikipedia.org] implemented this functionality, which puts it around 1999 [cisco.com]
The PDF to the H.323 standard is at http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T -REC-H.323-200606-I!!PDF-E&type=items [itu.int] but I believe it was finalised in 1996, which puts it a bit too late. I think we'd need to be looking at SS7 Gateways to bust this patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of secure, high-quality, low-bandwidth, real-time, full-duplex (two-way) digital voice communications over packet-switched computer communications networks"
Everything else in the patent (like using standard telephones at the ends) is pretty obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, I claim keeping text in a computer file.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
EFF: "Your Honour, this idea is obvious, you'd have to be a bli
Re: (Score:2)
Re:VOIP Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
From the EFF site: CRITICAL FEATURES OF PRIOR ART NEEDED:
1. The system must have the ability to connect an audio telephone call from a calling party to a receiving party.
2. The telephone call must be "full duplex," meaning that both parties must be able to talk and listen at the same time. For example, regular telephone calls usually are full duplex, whereas walkie-talkie conversations in which a person cannot receive transmissions from others while he or she is transmitting generally are not.
3. An ordinary telephone and telephone line are the only equipment the receiving party needs to have. The receiving party does not need to have a computer or an Internet connection to receive the call.
4. The transmission of the call is routed in part through a "public computer network" and in part through the PSTN. This implies that the transmission must cross at least one gateway between the "public computer network" and the PSTN. The Internet is one example of a "public computer network," but the patent does not define what else would qualify as a "public computer network."
Additional Features:
1. The caller must only have to dial the destination number and no additional phone numbers
ISDN? All of ISDN? Anybody? Is this thing on? (Score:2)
ISDN phones directly call regular analog voice phones as well.
So there is no "Internet Protocol" but there are both required "public" networks.
Voice over Frame Relay and X.25 was old hat for the "Dimension" premises telephone switches sold and rented by AT&T back in 1986.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art should NOT be the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. All this patent covers is bridging between the Internet and POTS networks. It shouldn't need "prior art" to be struck down, it should be struck down merely because it's fucking obvious! I mean, it'd be one thing if it were a patent on one particular clever method of connecting the two networks, but the idea in general should not have been patentable in the first place.
Re:Prior art should NOT be the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it does count as that obvious. If you remember the earliest days of free internet telephony, the biggest limitation (aside from the annoying lag) came from needing both parties to have a computer with an always-on connection (or risk missing calls).
Companies like Vonage exist to make a free service un-free solely because they act as a POTS bridge. Think about that. People will pay for something free (well, "free" presuming you would have intenet access anyway) because that one little "fucking obvious" step counts as such a massive leap forward in functionality.
The USPTO has made some phenomenally bad calls in the past, but I don't know if I can really disagree with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a difference between *useful* and *obvious*. With regards to the obviousness clause, all that matters is that the claimed invention not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. So if its functional or not, the idea is that if an average given person with ordinary skill in the art could have conceived the same thing, it's not a valid patent.
Of course, this is all pretty irrelevant, as the Federal Circuit pretty much gutted the obviousness clause
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Back in '94, I was talking over speakfreely to an overseas friend on my Indy when my mother dropped by, and asked what I was doing. I told her, and she thought that would be horribly expensive since I was talking to someone on the other side of the planet. When I told her that it used the internet connection, so I only paid for the internet connection (mind you, a 128 kbps BRI was expensive enoug
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Graham Article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Another example of prior art (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there's no reason that the PSTN itself should not be prior art, but I doubt it would qualify under the ridiculous standards for invalidating patents. To invalidate a patent you have to show that every aspect of the claim was anticipated exactly by the prior art. Unfortunately to be found in violation you need merely come close.
Break Stupid Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you an unemployed lawyer, by any chance?
ISDN (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
Their claim seems to be broader than just "Internet Protocol" -- which is part of what EFF objects to: the breadth of the claim.
From the summary and TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Didja ever have ISDN service? It went like this:
1) Call the phone company and order an ISDN line.
That's not a public computer network. It's all going through the phone company.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. What's the procedure for getting Internet service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISDN is packet-switched, and is designed to carry multiple types of data, not just calls. All data is carried by asynchronous "cells", as they are called by the guys with bell-shaped-heads. Each cell has a header, with routing information, and a payload of data. Yes, I've seen the Wikipedia article that claims otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISDN is synchronous; that's why they need framing bits. I think you are referring to ATM - asynchronous transfer method. I'll agree that almost all telco's use ATM for high speed transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Or one could encapsulate ISDN over tcp/ip.
Patents are a way to make life miserable.
I have an old Russian book, dated 1986 (Score:3, Interesting)
which describes Adaptive Communication (connecting voice phones using packet switching).
This book also referencing
Bellamy J.C. Digital Telephony. John Wiley and Sons, 1982
May be something can be found in that book too?
Electronic Cafe ISDN jams (Score:2)
http://ecafe.com/nye96.html [ecafe.com]: Electronic Cafe Telebrations (see the rest of ecafe site). The Electronic Cafe was a pioneer in using ISDN modems with special synching to allow music jams with remotely based musicians, piping video and audio into cafe club spaces.
Also, Google: electronic cafe isdn history
This event happened in May, before the September date specified.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/dance/p9a_earlier_seasons. html [usc.edu]
1994-95 Revisited
Zapped Taps(tm)/Alfred Desio Performed in 4
Re: (Score:2)
Both musicians could hear both sides I thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Public networks are the issue, not the Internet. So, it doesn't f*cking matter. Do you work for Verizon or something? You have posted all over the place with the same stupid argument. Yeah, it doesn't work if it is a PRIVATE network, but if it is a PUBLIC network, then so be it.
Hence, any system that used two phones and then sent the data across a public network, ostensbily in digital format, would work.
Somebody please .... (Score:1)
Neuromancer as Prior Art? (Score:1)
Didn't Wintermute ring a number of phones, in a bank of pay phones, as Chase walked past it? Later it spoke with the characters over the phone several times, calls that originated from the 'internet' to a land-line.
Could the fictional realm of the 'matrix' in Neuromancer be considered akin to the internet? Wikipedia claims: "In Neuromancer Gibson first used the term 'the matrix' in reference to the visualiz
Heinlein (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To a limited degree. The purpose of prior art is to show that the "CONCEPT" of an idea existed prior to the pantent. If I write about a process or product first, it is hard for someone else to claim the invention of it.
As an example, Heinlien's Waldo was the first mention of waterbeds (or the concept thereof), and so is prior art for any patent on them.
Also, prior art does NOT have contain EVERY concept o
phone companies (Score:2)
Only solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they have, and in a sane world that would in itself have ended the discussion at the USPTO. Since the first telco stuff was crude circuit switched equipment a better example would be ATM, which also easily predates the patent. But apparently the USPTO and the courts are still allowing a fresh patent for doing ordinary old things by simply adding "over the Internet" to them. We seriously need a law of one single parag
Simon Hackett's Etherphone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon really pulled out all the stops (Score:2)
The attacks on VoIP are getting more and more vicious by the day and I'm glad the EFF is stepping into the fray.
Infonet used to have it (Score:2)
Telecom 95 in Genève (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggest that you look into the PR messages released at the Telecom 95 exhibition, and then do some research on those that cover telephony over TCP/IP.
TeamSpeak/Ventrillo? (Score:2)
Etherphone (Score:2)
The obvious prior art is... (Score:3, Informative)
I've not read the patent, but if the claim is really as broad as indicated, it would seem to include the PSTN currently used for 'analog' calls.
The PSTN, by definition a Public Network, is made up of analog access lines connection analog 'terminals' - your phones - to what's known as a Class 5 switch. Class 5 switches are connected together at what's known as a Tandem, providing connectivity between all the users within an area. Access to the long distance network is via a connection to a Class 4 switch, usually at the tandem, but not always. Class 4 switches are interconnected (internetworked??) with other switches, and eventually a sufficient network is formed that allows you to call anyone with a phone.
The Switches (Class 5, Class 4, etc) used in this network are very much computers, and have been for quite some time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5ESS_switch [wikipedia.org].
The analog to digital conversion used to be done in the CO itself, and sometimes still is, but usually it's done at the Digital Loop Carrier (DLC) closest to the customer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_loop_carrier [wikipedia.org]
This network even has its own routing and control protocol, SS7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS7 [wikipedia.org].
Plainly, the only thing really new about VoIP is that it abtracts the physical transport and allows the control plane traffic to be transmitted on the same path as the bearer plane traffic.
CDMA (IS-95) carried voice over IP (Score:3, Informative)
The question is whether the Sprint or Verizon IS-95 infrastructure constitutes a 'public network'. I would think so.
Wikipedia includes a lot of detail about IS-95, as do books on CDMA available on Amazon, so presumably Qualcomm does not mind publication of high l
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a common misconception because some dope wrote a paper last decade calling it harmful. In the real world it "just works". I've built and sold products that do it.
Long distance calling cards (Score:2)
Found one! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-721578/ip
M2 PRESSWIRE-24 February 2004-ip.access: ip.access and RigNet deliver GSM Abis over IP via satellite; ip.access and RigNet partner for implementation of GSM-over-IP-over-satellite solution; Successful trial paves way for delivery of GSM services to remote locations(C)1994-2004 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Also looks interesting:
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/toast.html [tu-berlin.de]
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/toast-igp.h
Here's one. (Score:2)
So just look at the Cypherpunk discussions for starters. You know, from the folks who started the EFF.
Here are link from a quick Google search for "cypherpunk voice internet":
March 1 [corante.com]
Blue Boxes (Score:2)
All telephony? (Score:2)
Now, they obviously didn't mean to include POTS as a computer network, but if they're too vague to exclude it by some distinguishing feature, then it's impossible to determin
Re: (Score:2)
Office voicemail? (Score:2)
These products came out around 1995... (Score:2)
WebPhone, CUSeeMe, Net2Phone,
Much dotcom boomers which I even remember using. CUSeeMe for example has been around forever, NeVoT is an example of something that ran on older stuff. I used to do it while messing around with modems. ICQ had it (I don't know when exactly).
NEVOT (NetworkVoice Terminal) is a media agent that provides packet-voice communicationsacross internetworks. It operates
Prior Art pre-1995 (Score:2)
How about software available for download? Here's a usenet post from 1994 containing links to available software. This is just the first result I got searching the newsgroups via Google's advanced search function (search terms "phone internet duplex", filtered dates Jan 1 1981 to Dec 31 1994) [usenet post below ===== divider].
Google's patent search for the same terms and dates gave this result:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4866704 [google.com]
Abstract
An asynchronous, high-speed, fiber op
Was Komodo Tech around prior to 1995? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The principles were kown earlier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A companies cell network would