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.'"
DCC? Direct IM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe Net2phone will go after AOL and the guy who wrote mIRC, too.
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Un-freakin'-believable.
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:DCC? Direct IM? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.