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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually it's Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
I helped port one from win3.1 to win95 in 1996... It worked over the LAN and Internet... It looked like a phone... It supported GSM encoding, and full-duplex audio if your sound card was good enough. The company name was 'Telit', and does not exist anymore.
From archive.org:
--jeffk++
Re: (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: (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.
PGPfone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is the priority date. So, forget 2000. What is needed is prior art, published, yes, on or before Feb. 25, 1999.
Tons of prior art (Score:2)
Speak-Freely [sourceforge.net] - a unix and windows VoIP software, is the sourceforge continuation of a project at Fourmilab (speak-freely.org) [archive.org] which is developpement of code released on UseNet during 1991.
PGPfone [pgpi.org] - was released in 1995 [wikipedia.org].
Microsoft's own NetMeeting [wikipedia.org] was a late comer, being only available with Windows 95 OSR 2 (circa 1997).
Roger Wilco [gamespy.com] - not the Space Quest caracter [wikipedia.org], but a VoIP software specialized
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would these guys have to say? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
It's *not* impossible! (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to work here in Europe: after a big campaign of small IT businesses and citizens, the European Parliament rejected a proposal for introducing software patents in the EU.
Sure, the "war" is far from over, but we have won each "battle" so far. But I fear that we have a big probability of losing, unless software patents are challenged also in the rest of the world.
So, please, if you live in the USA or in Ja
In-depth analysis on why these patents should fail (Score:2)
An article [oxfordjournals.org] and book [slashdot.org] just out show why rejecting software patents is the only sound policy from the perspective of every discipline that has looked at them, be it IP law, economics, or computer science.
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: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.
Apple Was Selling This in 1993 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that dates it, in so many ways. I had a 270MB Disc around then, the only partition I have nowadays which would fit on that is
Who the hell thought anyone wanted to save all that digitized speech anyway, the NSA? It would be illegal here (Germany) for privacy reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The Byte article was interesting, though, for showing just how lame Apple machines were in those times. It was 1994 and macs were just getting SCSI DMA? Apple integrates a DSP that isn't fast enough to emulate (then) current modem standards? It's no wonder their business went down the drain.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen devices like that (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Star Trek can't be prior art (Score:2)
veracity check (Score:3, Funny)
USPTO, wake up or go away! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entitled "Mistakes" [despair.com] and says:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's cheap to file a patent.
The reason you file one is so that way, when you find someone has violated your patent, you SUE them and use your patent documents as slam-dunk evidence in court (provided that it predates THEIR patent and adequately describes the device THEY creat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consequences and [OT] patent rumor (Score:4, Interesting)
And the off-topic part, Apple came up with an interesting yet-another-patent one for a configurable input system (patent screenshots included) [macrumors.com]. In short: "The concept is based around adding physical/tactile controls over a touch-sensitive pad. By having such a modular system, an iPod or laptop could become even more multi-functional." As much as this patent is interesting and could help transform computers into something more versatile and useful, it's still a patent which impedes anyone else using the idea at the commercial level.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPod clickwheel was a true innovation, that no one has come with before. So my opinion is that it was a valid and fair patent.
On the other side, this Apple's new patent application just defines a particular use for an touchscreen... something that has been around for ages.
Re: (Score:2)
?? My point was that patent are, as implemented right now, impeding innovation instead of encouraging it. In the actual system, yes, the clickwheel is a valid and fair patent. I see no disagreement anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, patents are supposed to encourage investment in research and development by granting a limited-time monopoly, thus aiding the patentor in recouping their investment and making a profit. They are also supposed to ensure that knowledge becomes public, as the patent is supposed to go into enough detail that a skilled practitioner in the relevant field could reproduce the subject of the patent.
Preventing others from using the subject of the patent in their own products/
Re: (Score:2)
If the owner of the patent markets a product that uses the features described in the patent the R&D costs are recouped though the sale of the product. Preventing others from using the subject of the patent for it's term is the prerogative of the owner of the patent. Is there really much difference between refusing to license
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively: If the iPod's clickwheel could be used by other manufacturers, than Apple wouldn't have bothered with the R&D required to come up with it, since the ROI would have been negative
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).
It's the other way round (Score:2)
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).
It's the other way round: Patents used to be valid for 17 years from date of issue (allowing 'submarine' patents). Since 1995, they are valid for 20 years from date of filing.
That's a broad summary of the situation; for the details see a law site, e.g. here [bpmlegal.com].
Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
1973 invention (Score:2, Informative)
WTF? (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're also right: it really isn't possible to issue software patents in a s
prior art up the wazoo (Score:2)
Surely, a patent that deserves to be dismissed.
sloth jr
when the revolution comes (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing out a lot of reasonable items. (to the unwashed masses of
One thing, though, I can't follow your logic of going back two years. Priority is claimed for February 26, 1999. Where do you get the other one year from ?
Could this be Dialogic after being bought by Intel (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
The abstract means NOTHING.
Gosh, you mean the patent office doesn't make sure that the abstract represents an actual, I don't know, abstract of the significant points of the patent? Their incompetence knows no bounds.
This is getting so bad that I'm starting to think that it's not incompetence but corruption. With the amount of money involved, the ambiguity and the lack of accountability it would not be at all surprising.
But, after all, this is Slashdot, so why be burdened by any actual facts?
Don
Re: (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 referenc
Re: (Score:2)
As to the rest, the original poster stated "I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested" and "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." Both statements are absolutely valid when read as a who
Re: (Score:2)
If you care, you can look up the entire history of this patent in the U.S. Patent Office at portal.uspto.gov.
If you look at the file history, you will see that the "synchronous data link" limitation (and other limitations) were introduced into the principal claims of the patent after the initial set of claims (which did not have these limitations) were rejected by t
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing, though, is IMHO overdone:
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.
Now think hard and tell me - for a system with TCP/IP in between - how to start-stop the communication (that is logon-logoff) if not by a key press / mouse click ?
Dilogic (Score:2)
This illustrates again what is wrong with the USPTO and software patents in general.
Re: (Score:2)
It was cool, you would click on an SA's name, the SA's phn number and a text message box would come up, you entered the text and sent the page. Alternately, you could just have it dial via PBX for you and call their office directly.
Something I wish I had as I navigate through address books in my email client and then have to manually dial out via our IP ph
First thing and still always forgotten (Score:2)
I simply wished, that after so many reminders as dished out by myself and others, the editors finally understood (and referenced) the independent claims (or maybe the claims, if independent sounds too difficult), please ?!
There is enough 'itsatrap' and FUD around. Let's be professional on
Oh goodie (Score:2)
Digital Equipment Corporation had this in '83 (Score:2)
I think I could now patent the spoon if I worded the damned thing correctly. The USPTO should be ashamed.
Dialpad? (Score:3)
Prior Art - Dialpad (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it took them 6years (Score:2)
simpsons already did that! (Score:2)
Hey Microsoft! 1997 called and they want their prior art back!
Did MS make P2P VTC and call it Browser-Phone? (Score:2)
Well IPR laws work well for controlling market share and holding customer hostages by first claim of a technology/science/engineering term an/or phrase. More USA dejure CorporatistCommunism mislabeled as legal competitive capitalism
Did it in 1991 (and I even have the t-shirt) (Score:2)
These were internet based telephones that ran using phone handsets hooked to sound cards in PC's.
The caller would call - and of course software on the PC was involved - making a connection over UDP.
So I would say that MS's patent claims were merely prettier versions of what was more than 6 years earlier.
But e
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that it was really novel then, but I don't actually know for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think someone at the USPTO needs a cockpunch.
Re: (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://
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would exactly make it patentable. ;)
That doesn't mean that there is any sound reason to dish one out, but your argument shows exactly that you don't understand the patent system.
You simply have too much common sense for patents !
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah, that can't be right. I'm sure society has patents simply to suppress creative thought.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
The system is designed for them, as I said, and they will continue to use it. I also said it wasn't going to change; I said the system benefits them; I said they had no concern for any of the rank and file; how much plainer can I be?
If anything is ever done, it will have to be done at the level of legislation. But again, I don't expect that to happen, because as I already explained, there is no way provided for the ran
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is that if it takes Joe three years to invent product X, but it takes Leroy 1 week to reverse-engineer product X, then Joe has been out-competed by the simple fact that his time is worth a lot less by direct market value, since Leroy's time can produce the same product in 1 week. Joe, therefore, is not entitled to out-compete Leroy in the marketplace, unless he can do
Objective patent test (Score:2)
Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sinclair "One-Per-Desk" - released in 1984 (Score:2)
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?
* I think Sinclair was sold under the "Timex" brand in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Around 1996 Apple had a geoport express modem with software.
You could connect this modem (which in fact only contained a ring detector and a D/A A/D convertor) to a quadra 660av or 840av.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'll be modded redundant, but this is what the thing claims, and not what you write:
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 r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember that lots of shit patents are filed, but then never used. This will sit in a cupboard forever as it
AT&T had one in the '80s (Score:2)
As I remember it, the AT&T system did all sorts of neat things like allowing you to transfer to someone by name -- and then you could let the system know where you were, and calls transferred to you would follow you to
Claim priority over some earlier, what's this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Applicants hereby claim priority based on Provisional Application No. 60/121,755 filed Feb. 26, 1999 and entitled "Digital Browser Phone" which is incorporated herein by reference"
If I read this correctly, they claim priority over _someone_else's_ patent filing by referring to an earlier filing by themselves.
Net2Phone Patent (Score:2)