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.'"
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 ?
Re:I've seen devices like that (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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).
Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Actually it's Intel (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.
Re:Consequences and [OT] patent rumor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy out of this (Score:1, Insightful)
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 ).
It's none of the above, though a few wealthy corporations are certainly applying political pressure to continue the disaster of patentable software. It's simply that the entire notion of granting patents to software is based on multiple fallacies. Therefore, it simply is not possible for the USPTO to do this job in a sensible way.
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.
Re:Easy out of this (Score:3, Insightful)
You're also right: it really isn't possible to issue software patents in a sensible way. However, if you're going have the stupid things it would be possible to issue them in a less senseless way, by simply not issuing the vast majority of them.
The problem currently goes well beyond software patents: we experiencing what happens when a wayward patent office issues thousands upon thousands of bogus patents of all kinds because it is no longer capable of making the required distinctions. It's just not good enough to issue a patent and let any claimed infringements get resolved in court, because an obvious or overbroad patent is still a patent and can be used to suppress competition just as much as a good patent. The only solution is to do what the USPTO did pretty well for centuries: don't issue bad patents. A patent office that cannot do that is a national liability. It's certainly no asset, much less capable of promoting the advancement of the useful arts and sciences, etc.
The fact that we took an already seriously damaged patent system and tossed software patents on top was just adding insult to injury.
Thanks again, Congress.
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah, that can't be right. I'm sure society has patents simply to suppress creative thought.
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (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 that "very temporary monopoly" you need to make a reasonable amount of income from your idea. What is great about it is that it doesn't involve lawyers, it doesn't involve the government, and it doesn't involve repressing everyone else's creativity. It also has built-in safeguards against simplistic ideas being given the status of unbreakable dams against progress.
You really don't understand how things work. It's not "society" operating here; it is corporations and the rich. And what they want to supress is your ability to do anything at all without paying them, either for a product, or for the use of an idea they've latched onto.
The fact that this suppresses creative thought is a side-effect, one that (a) only injures the general public and so (b) is not of concern to either the government, the corporations or the rich. What they're trying to do (and suceeding very well at) is suppress competition. What you think is of no concern to them. The system is designed to ignore what you think. That's why legislators make law, and you don't get to. It's trivially easy to bribe the very few legislators (think PACs, trips, speaking engagements, employment after politics, re-election support) but it is not easy to bribe the hundreds of millions of citizens at large. Not only do you have no input into the process, you're pretty well stuck in the loop of supporting the system from without by paying for these patents and for the bribes and for the legislators. All those costs are built into everything you buy that has one or more patents, with the single exception of the costs that are built into your taxes.
The system is locked-down. You can get a decent patent (meaning, one you have a slight chance of being able to defend in court) for about ten grand. But even if you can meet that financial standard (and of course, the vast majority of people cannot, nor is there any correlation between those who are creative and those who have such funding available), you have another, much higher hurdle to jump: You have to be able to pay for the defense of that patent in court. You on one side, with your house mortgaged (agin, if you have such a resource) and on the other, for instance, IBM, with (compared to you) absolutely unlimited resources.
But hey, don't worry about it. After all — it's not going to change.