Net2phone Sues Skype 187
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't RTFA... (Score:1)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Informative)
This seems quite similar to the 'tracker' functionality of BitTorrent, which is essentially the same thing. I imagine there exists some sort of prior art from the 80s, but I can't think of any at the moment...
Re:I'm Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
The patent is not justified as well. Many p2p clients did direct connection back in the 90s. Haven't read it and IANAL, so maybe there is some stuff in it that is outside what p2p networks did...
Anyone here who went through the
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
in this case, the point in the middle is telling either side which ports to use, since with UDP you can control that a little better when you make a raw packet, which is what allows the NAT routers to handle the state table.
Re:The patent was filed in 1995 (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Presence Servers in VOIP, IM have Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Many Instant Messaging protocols and the major standard VOIP protocols use presence servers to keep track of the users. When you want to call somebody, you check with the server to see if they're logged in (and optionally whether they're busy), get their IP address, and connect to them, or alternatively the server tells the destination client that you're going to call them or that you want them to call you. (There are other kinds of IM protocols that funnel all the messages through the central server, and some of the protocols support relay servers which let you connect directly within an administrative zone and go through the relay to get to other zones.)
H.323 [techabulary.com], dating back to 1996, is the most common VOIP standard, and it uses a presence server to communicate the IP address (and also UDP port number) of the endpoints. SIP is a newer protocol that everybody _says_ they're going to support, and many vendors have their own proprietary protocols (e.g. Cisco Skinny) that either predate H.323 or provide additional functions that it doesn't use, but basically almost everybody out there supports H.323 at least as a fallback. SIP's proxy servers make it a much more flexible protocol for the long run.
At least based on the summary and an initial reading of about half the claims section, their first method doesn't have any fundamentally new concepts. It might implement some of the standard concepts in novel ways, and perhaps that's what they're arguing, but at the level of the summary there nothing new there. Their second method says in the summary that they use email, and unless they mean something other than SMTP, it's a pretty crude mechanism to use for automated processing, but saying "email your IP address to the human at the other end so he can read it and call you" doesn't strike me as either novel or non-obvious to someone skilled in the trade.
Re:Presence Servers in VOIP, IM have Prior Art (Score:2, Informative)
W.r.t. STMP, Microsoft's "Remote Help" does exactly this. It'll email an XML attachment to the "helper" which tells the remote desktop client where to connect.
If you want prior art, look no further than FTP -- PORT and later PASV both communicate an IP address for "direct communication." (granted, there's no "database" involved.)
Check the date (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Check the date (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Informative)
Meh. PTO, I'll make this easy for you. This patent has "obvious" and "prior art" written all over it.
FTFPatent:
A point-to-point Internet protocol exchanges Internet Protocol (IP) addresses between processing units to establish a point-to-point communication link between the processing units through the Internet. A first point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) storing in a database a respective IP address of a set of processing units that have an on-line status with respect to the Internet; (b) transmitting a query from a first processing unit to a connection server to determine the on-line status of a second processing unit; and (c) retrieving the IP address of the second unit from the database using the connection server, in response to the determination of a positive on-line status of the second processing unit, for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet.
ICQ? Jabber? SIP? Napster? Bittorrent?
A second point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) transmitting an E-mail signal, including a first IP address, from a first processing unit; (b) processing the E-mail signal through the Internet to deliver the E-mail signal to a second processing unit; and (c) transmitting a second IP address to the first processing unit for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet.
Ok - I don't have time to read the whole patent, but WTF is an E-mail signal? Just the email address? So, the bright idea here is to use an obvious and invented wheel to resolve a peer's IP address, and to then send the e-mail address. fscking brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?
Damn. It doesn't take much to make a few million these days.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
A first point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) storing in a database a respective IP address of a set of processing units that have an on-line status with respect to the Internet; (b) transmitting a query from a first processing unit to a connection server to determine the on-line status of a second processing unit; and (c) retrieving the IP address of the second unit from the database using the connection server, in response to the determination of a
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
So if you don't use SMTP to connect the remote clients together, you're not infringing, I guess.
Shitdrummer.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
It's indeed quite possible that IRC is prior art for this. And although it corresponds roughly to the summary paragraph in this case, this is often not the case.
That said, what's most objectionable about this is that it's a software patent, not so much whether or not it's new or non-obvious. After all, there's no macro-economic rationale for having software patents, just some legalistic arguments and some based on "natural rights" (although the patent system is an economic policy tool, and not something to "reward" or "justly treat" people; "sweat of the brow" is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for obtaining a patent).
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
(although I do not know if it had the servers right from the start)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
I don't doubt that examples from the 80s exist.
I do remember using "Freetel" in 1995 (my freshman year) for internet telephony. It really wasn't much different from what skype is today, except for the reliability factor. They also did not have any equivalents for "SkypeIn" and "SkypeOut".
I don't know what ever happened to Freetel. Dialpad quickly overtook them.
I also remember some collabrative whi
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
It was orignally intended as a protocol that did not need a direct client program. You can make easy commands via a line terminal.
The thing about net2phone is that I think it negotiates NAT which IRC DCC does not do without port forwarding.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
no it isn't (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't worry, proof of prior art exists: the entire Internet.
This is the networking equivalent of patenting the fork.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:2)
Don't worry, proof of prior art exists: the entire Internet.
This is the networking equivalent of patenting the fork.
I think you'll find they're thinking of the P2P nature of Skype to get around NAT/firewalls etc that will not allow a direct connection between sites - so they discover a third party and shuffle all comms via that third party also running skype. This is why Skype will always use bandwidth even if you're not in a call.
Re:It's junk, but the defense will cost big $$$$ (Score:2)
Actually, this is a healthy process. Being awarded a patent is only half the battle. This case is as much a referendum on the patent as it is a tort against Skype.
It's DNS! (Score:2)
Re:It's DNS! (Score:4, Interesting)
Take a look at BOOTP from 1985 (client transmits MAC address to BOOTP server announcing it's presence, BOOTP server returns an IP address, routed and ARP complete the query portion transforming public presence identity, in this case a publicly routable IP address, to the MAC address).
Prediction: Net2Phone loses case, Skype loses money, lawyers make money.
Yay for another irrelevant patent case (Score:1)
and more... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on.. how much more broken can our patent system get?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yay for another irrelevant patent case (Score:1)
Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It is now! (Score:1, Funny)
x. Profit!!!
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
How about RFC 959 [ietf.org] (FTP, dated October of 1985)?
One mode of operation explicitly outlined on page 9 transfers a file from one server to another under the control of a 3rd machine. The 3rd machine logs into both FTP servers. It initiates a passive recieve on one server and a 'normal' send on the other. The DATA (IP address and port) is passed from the reciever to the sender so that they form a direct connection with each other and complete the transfer.
If a bi-directional transfer is needed, just do that
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
cool, you're "My Pr0n" directory is 20 Gigs!!! let's ftp that off there then...
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
I keep trying and it doesn't work. Must be a problem at your end :)
DCC? Direct IM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe Net2phone will go after AOL and the guy who wrote mIRC, too.
Re:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:1)
I guess you can patent common sense these days
Re:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:2)
ping someserver.com
First, a DNS lookup is made to discover the IP address of someserver.com.
Next, ping uses that information to transmit information directly to the someserver.com server, including the IP address of the sender so that the server at someserver.com can respond.
Finally, someserver.com sends a reply directly back to the sender's IP address.
Jefferson warned us there would be patents like this one...
Re:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:2)
Re:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:2)
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Un-freakin'-believable.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Yeah, go after someone easy first, set a precedent, and THEN go after Cisco...
Proir art- ICQ (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Proir art- ICQ (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, does prior art have to be prior to the filing or the granting?
Re:Proir art- ICQ (Score:3, Informative)
surely many other system employ such an obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
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=15
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.
Re:surely many other system employ such an obvious (Score:1, Flamebait)
Which is exactly why the patent lawyers took over the one country that outspends everyone else on military first. That it has a president that thinks things like 'national sovereignty' are just outmoded nonsense, and believes himself Emperor of the World, is very helpful.
You see, the idea is to make sure there AREN'T any nations lef
Artificial 3rd world nation (Score:2)
More freedom and liberalisation is needed to create wealth
Absolutely agreed! When I see descriptions of problems in the 3rd world (see any charity commercial), many of the problems DON'T require a pile of cash to solve. Many such as the unsanitary conditions could be solved with a shovel and a few hours work.
The combination of lack of knowledge and being way too busy just trying to get enough food is what really prevents those simple solutions from working (or being tried at all). That and, of course,
i'm switching! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:i'm switching! (Score:2)
It's brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Borrow Skype stock. Sell it.
2) Sue Skype. Skype stock goes down
3) Buy Skype stock at low price (as much as you can). Return the stock you borrowed, keep the rest.
4) Get bitchslapped in court. Skype stock goes up.
5) Sell Skype stock at high price.
6) Profit!!
Notice the lack of the ??? step... this is foolproof. Hell, I should go sue someone for something - it doesn't even matter what, the way the market works all you need is a little publicity for your lawsuit, and you're golden!
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
On a slightly unrelated topic, stop moderating my parent post as funny! It's insightful! Insightful goddamit! Jeez people - I give you gold...
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:4, Informative)
FUD is a big volatility driver in the market.
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:2)
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:2)
Patent what every telco switch does... (Score:1)
Seems funny they're just suing Skype (direct competitor), but not MSN.
BTW: Their algorithm looks very similar to a P2P tracker (like bittorrent) without the peers telling anything about how much datablocks they have/want.
Re:Patent what every telco switch does... (Score:2)
Most likely they think they might be able to win against Skype. Microsoft has many more resources...
Obviousness (Score:2)
If not, then the method described in this patent must be pretty obvious, and therefore not patentable...
Re:Obviousness (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Obviousness (Score:2)
Isn't this what SIP (SDP) does (Score:2, Insightful)
More like STUN (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally, two computers that are both nated have no way of directly contacting eachother.
STUN is a method by which they still can, by getting information on ip and portnumber for the other side from a third source. (in this case the Skype-network)
If we both know, that we're listening for UDP packets on :33115 and you on :22056 then we can communicate, trough double NAT if need be by both sending a single packet to the other. This will cause the NAT-routers to set up mappings, so that any response packets coming from the other side will get trough.
Kinda sorta. For a more precise explanation see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN [wikipedia.org]
I wonder how the patent filing-date compares to the earlier draft-versions of the RFC...
Re:More like STUN (Score:2)
Last resort (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Last resort (Score:2)
Re:Last resort (Score:2)
My considered reaction to this patent (Score:3, Funny)
If I got this patent right, it means... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think, the summary does the justice, however broad none the less. I'm not even sure if Skype works this way. But I think, the key word here is "E-Mail". I also think, it's safe to say, since it's using "E-Mail", there is no original invention here. It's just using whatever is already invented. So what's so patentable about this?
blah, it's late... I might be totally wrong on this.
From the Patent: (Score:5, Informative)
A point-to-point Internet protocol exchanges Internet Protocol (IP) addresses between processing units to establish a point-to-point communication link between the processing units through the Internet. A first point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) storing in a database a respective IP address of a set of processing units that have an on-line status with respect to the Internet; (b) transmitting a query from a first processing unit to a connection server to determine the on-line status of a second processing unit; and (c) retrieving the IP address of the second unit from the database using the connection server, in response to the determination of a positive on-line status of the second processing unit, for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet. A second point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) transmitting an E-mail signal, including a first IP address, from a first processing unit; (b) processing the E-mail signal through the Internet to deliver the E-mail signal to a second processing unit; and (c) transmitting a second IP address to the first processing unit for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet.
So......they Patented the internet????? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
Re:From the Patent: (Score:2)
Re:From the Patent: (Score:2)
Peace not war? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Peace not war? (Score:2)
can't we all live happily together and stop sue-ing each other... this is sad.
I love how this is modded Funny. I find it rather poigniant and sad. I'm so TIRED of reading about these goddamned lawsuits over frivilous and unnecessary and indefensible patents. Wanna talk about stifiling innovation? Patents, currently, are MUCH, MUCH worse than any copyright issues we bitch about here on /.
Possible solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's harsh, but by God you'd think twice.
What about DCC ? (Score:2, Informative)
System working as intended (Score:2)
No-case? (Score:2)
The patent in question is about using one (arbitrary) protocol to obtain access to a database server which holds online status and IP of the target. That's pretty much what ICQ and followers do, and with some stretch, IRC too. Patentable - probably not. Then still, if patented,
Counter sue (Score:3, Insightful)
Skype deserves trouble, but perchance not this (Score:2)
Net2Phone == VocalTec (Score:2)
Sue away the competition (Score:2, Insightful)
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
What about 'obvious'? (Score:2)
If you met the friend of a friend, hit it off, and said, "Hey, can you give me your phone number?", you are violating the spirit of this patent. That is the "exchange of in order to establish a direct communications link".
I smell vindictive litigious fools... (Score:2)
Now the litigious fool part - sounds like they're trying to patent the internet. Someone call Al Gore, Quick!
PowWow used point-to-point IP lookup from database (Score:2)
Strangely enough, the patent [uspto.gov] describes an IP and email address registration and lookup mechanism which appears to be identical to that used by Tribal Voice's PowWow [wikipedia.org] program.
PowWow worked by registering the user's email address, IP address and password with a database serve. If the password matched, the IP address associated with the email address was updated in the database. When someone wanted to chat with another user, they entered (or selected) the email address for the other user, which did
Re:Asterisk is next. (Score:1)
On the other hand, given the size of Skype + Ebay hopefully they have enough funding to kick nine colours of shit outta Net2phone and get this fscking "patent" overturned.
Re:Not good. (Score:2)
Anyway, you can always change your mind later. If Skype loses the case, you could get nervous, but hell, I'd still fight.