Net2phone Sues Skype

robyannetta writes "Net2phone is suing Skype for patent infringement, arguing Skype violated patent 6,108,704 for 'the exchange of IP addresses between processing units in order to establish a direct communications link between the devices via the Internet.'"

I'm Confused

[Mikya]

Isn't this what every computer does when it communicates with another?

Obvious

[MichaelSmith]

One way is you store your IP addresses on a server and go to the server when you want the IP address of another machine. Sounds like dynamic DNS or probably 1000 other similar systems for enabling PTP communication.

The other way is to send an email with your IP address in it. Posting your IP address on slashdot isn't covered though so I supose that way is still not patented.

surely many other system employ such an obvious...

[Falcon040]

Thats obvious, A 'middle man' so to speak bringing two partners together, i.e. giving the phone numbers of each other to each other. Its ever so simple.

Hasn't ICQ been using this too? All communication doesn't go through a central server, surely not! And I really doubt ICQ would have been the first!

I can't believe how patents are being used to destroy competition and innovation. At this rate, those countries heavily restricted by patents are going to fall competitively behind those countries who compete to innovate and improve quality and efficiency.

It really is a pity that software patents continue to stifle innovation and competition.

More freedom and liberalisation is needed to create wealth: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185961&cid=153 49064 [slashdot.org] Instead of using restrictive patents to keep others from competing in an area.

The US alreasy became number one in software in the past. They did this because they didn't have software patents on simple obvious ideas, but they did have copyright to protect people's hard work. Now in the US, companies are employing patents to keep out competition, so the ultimate result will be technology and the high tech sector moving abroad. What is needed is the opposite of patents and restrictions on what you can invent - what is needed is liberalisation with the removal of software patents and removal of the patenting of concepts, numbers, ideas and discoveries.

Isn't this what SIP (SDP) does

[jedi_pj]

When I setup a SIP call, the RTP session is setup between the endpoints using the IP address of the end points passed in teh SIP messages.

Last resort

[loqi]

Does this strike anyone else as a last ditch kind of reaction? Net2phone is quite possibly looking at Skype as their doom. Why not fire off a salvo from the patent chest, when you've got nothing to lose? Maybe the patent cold war will finally boil over and more people will realize how ridiculous the situation is! Maybe pigs will fly! Yes!

Re:I'm Confused

[Pieroxy]

I don't know about the 80s, but in 1999 Napster sure did this.

Re:I'm Confused

[chrispl]

It's true.

Don't worry, proof of prior art exists: the entire Internet.

This is the networking equivalent of patenting the fork.

Re:I'm Confused

[Darko8472]

So, in other words they're also going to sue MSN, Yahoo!, ICQ, AIM, and every other company that's developed an IM protocol? This seems a little ridiculous to me.

Peace not war?

[PsyCHZZZ]

can't we all live happily together and stop sue-ing each other... this is sad.

Possible solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what might make frivolous patent suites like this less common? If, in the event of a court loss, the patent holder and the patent holder's lawyers had their hands hacked off and impaled on spikes lining the roof of the court.

It's harsh, but by God you'd think twice.

Counter sue

[ryanduff]

Skype should counter sue Net2Phone for wasting their time and money. Seriously though, if the legal system wasn't so f'd up in this country, nobody would be able to get away with suing for everything and anything just on a whim. If lawyers weren't so money hungry, they wouldn't approach a company and tell them they have a potential law suit just so they themselves can make money. If they can get you to go to court, they'll make money off you either way, regardless of who wins.

Re:I'm Confused

[Algan]

ICQ? Jabber? SIP? Napster? Bittorrent?

None of these was there in '95, when they applied for this patent. The only thing I can think of that might constitute prior art would be IRC.

Sue away the competition

[just_forget_it]

I always found Net2Phone to be just a shitty operation borderlining on spam. Of course that may be because I haven't looked at it since the 90's. But in this world it's becoming dangerous to have made something that is popular and everyone likes (Skype) because either some two-bit operation that failed at it in the 90's or a patent troll are going to sue you.

How do these patents get past the patent office anyway? Is there anybody even LOOKING at these things? Doesn't anyone EVER get denied? Or is it just a wide open frontier where anyone can claim ownership of an idea that a)they didn't come up with and b)have no plans to implement.

I think the solution is to start a technology and software branch of the patent office, and have TECHNOLOGICALLY LITERATE adjusters running it. I've said it before, but why do we seem to have no problem with technology being regulated by people that know nothing about it?

Re:The patent was filed in 1995

[HiThere]

But it doesn't predate gofer. It doesn't predate the hosts file being automated.

There may be a patent here somewhere, but anything that isn't covered by prior art it going to be minuscle. The problem is, it's going to cost a bundle to prove that. Justice!

King Id's Minstrel: "The golden rule means whoever has the gold makes the rules."