Intel Patents the "Digital Browser Phone" 170
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.'"
Actually it's Intel (Score:5, Informative)
What would these guys have to say? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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...
USPTO, wake up or go away! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've seen devices like that (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.
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:2, Informative)
I think someone at the USPTO needs a cockpunch.
1973 invention (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (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://
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?
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.
Re:Actually it's Intel (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:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:1, Informative)
Roderick Simpson
[Original story in Wired 3.10, page 140.]
Re:More Slashdot ignorance (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 reference predates the patent owner's-inventor's date of invention, otherwise it is not prior art. The inventor is also free to argue in return that he/she/they conceived of the invention and began to diligently seek to reduce it to practice prior to the date of the reference, and thus can push back the date and show that the reference is not prior art.
Patent attorneys know that it is far easier to invalidate a patent under section 102(b) then under section 102(a), and routinely look for art that predates the patent filing by more than a year because failing to do so magnifies both the expense of invalidating a patent and the uncertainty in the likelihood of success.
The grandparent stated "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." The grandparent is absolutely correct.
I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.
Umm, the earlier the priority date, the smaller the universe of potential prior art in a field, and the greater the likelihood of validity? Drop the smart-ass tone. The patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. sec. 282. If you can prove that the patent is invalid, then demonstrate your skills. Those of us who contribute legal knowledge free of charge to these discussions have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the entirety of patent practice just to support an elementary point.
Could this be Dialogic after being bought by Intel (Score:3, Informative)
The nice thing is that there were computer telephony applications that provided these types of interfaces and services connecting a computer with the telco switches to deliver services a lot earlier than 1999 (or even 1998).
I haven't read things in detail, but it seems the magic words so far were "digital signals," "telephone interface," the computer serving as the telephone handset, and something about connecting with a switch for these services. If that's really what the claims lay out, then I point you to Visual Voice - a VB toolkit for writing computer telephony applications on windows 3.1 with visual basic 3 and 4. If memory serves, that would be around 1995, before Windows 95 was released. I believe you could use Dialogic T1 cards (satisfying the digital signal claim) and I think there was a sample app that had a telephone interface. What I don't remember is if you could use the microphone and sound card to provide the other end of an interactive phone call; I know you could use them for playback and recording of audio files through the phone, but I don't remember if it supported them live/interactively.
If not, I am pretty sure there were other tools/options in the 16-bit windows environment that did this. Some modems used the sound card to provide telephone/speakerphone use. That was single line and analog, but the extension to a digital signal is fairly obvious; I wonder if ISDN modems offered this feature - that would be digital.
And then there's Quicknet - a company I worked for from 1997 to 2000, their Phone Jack hardware and MicroTelco services were created well before this patent (1999 for sure, 1998 also pretty sure) and would seem to provide the same services.
All-in-all, while it's definitely a lot harder to prove obviousness, if there isn't direct prior art to negate this patent, I think there are enough pieces of the patent in prior implementations of phone services that this patent might be invalidated as being obvious. Of course, that assumes the person making such a ruling actually applies the "obviousness" based on people in the field, and not people in general.
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 is difficult to believe there is no prior art for something this old-school.
So what is going on here? I bet most of the original claims were rejected, leaving the description badly out of sync with the claims.
Contrast this with another patent filed in 2000 and issued in 2006 (one that I am very familiar with):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
In this patent, all the claims went through, so the claims match up much better with the description.