Apple, AT&T, Verizon named in $7bn VoIP patent claim

"The suits ask for a trial and award of $2.83bn from Apple, $2.38bn from Verizon, and $1.83bn from Verizon." Um right.

I tried reading it. Honest!

Looking at that first patent (US 8542815 B2), the "summary of the invention" weighs in at 5206 words, or 7 pages of Monospace 10 point. The word "may" appears 98 times, e.g. "The process may involve classifying the call.." - if we crudely assume that each one is independent of the others then 2**98 possible configurations would be covered by this patent (two orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the Earth in grams). I haven't the faintest idea what isn't possibly covered by this "invention" - quite plausibly my sigh of dismay just now was in violation of it.

So I can't comprehend it, let alone refute it. But since it was filed over three years after I started using Skype I'm doubtful that that torrent of words that "summarises" this beautiful flower can all be untainted by prior art.

That patent seems so general

That every VOIP implementation ever would violate it. As would VoLTE.

You can't patent ideas, only implementations. Or at least that's how it is supposed to work.

Prior Art...

A fairly well known UK based company introduced TDM and VoIP call routing equipment in 1997.

Anon for obvious reasons

Voip-Pal?

The Voip-Pal patent went snicker-snack, I guess.

The patents don't look any different than what a network router already does...

Best route choice. Calling one route private, and another public doesn't change the routing... TCP has been doing this ever since the ARPANET existed.

"You think that's air you're breathing ?"

Hard to see how this is news of any kind. When it comes to articles like this on patent trolls it's like listening to the traffic report during the morning commute. Most of the time there is no point to the report since all the usual jams are on all the usual roads.

Let me know when they win such a suit, that is news.

To make this Patent Troll situation worse is that the company has merged into a pinksheet shell on the OTC so they can scam even more people by printing/selling worthless stock. OTC: VPLM

A quick skim through the two patents suggests that my Asterisk box is in violation of both of them.

Seeing as the first release of the Asterisk PBX was 1999, I claim prior art...

Burn the trolls...

I seriously hate patent trolls. I mean what recourse is there against them except hitmen? They WANT to be in the courtroom because they are lawyers, so suing / counter-suing them does no good.

The problem isn't just the trolls

It's the corrupt system that allows them to thrive. The US Patent office needs to be torn down an remade with people who care about innovation and will protect it, not issue protection for any old idea.

Re-examination should be the first step

The first step of a patent claim should be a full and detailed re-examination of the patent by the patent office paid for by the complainant including notification of re-examination procedures to any potential violating parties identified by the complainant.

That would A. strengthen the hand of legitimate patents, so encouraging settlement and reducing the need to go to court; and B. mean that if the patent office rejects the patent on re-examination, any subsequent legal action would be between the patent troll and the government as the complainant would first have to overturn the patent office's ruling before pursing a case against the defendants.

If the patent office finds the patent valid, it doesn't stop the defendants could still arguing that a patent invalid in court, but then that's at their cost.

For legitimate well-founded patents, the cost of re-examination would balance against the potential financial upside of winning. For trolls, they'd be discouraged from testing weak patents because they'd both have to pay and run the risk of losing the patent in the process.

Time related damages?

Considering the "big names" they are going after and the size of the damages they are claiming, might there not be an argument to say they deliberately delayed making contact about licensing deals until the the "infringing" products were ubiquitous?

A good lawyer should be be able to make a good case for that since the troll must have been aware of the infringing VOIP products much sooner since their only reason for existing is to licence and/or sue. They job is to look out for alleged infringements. They should have been in "talks" years ago, not "months" ago.

A reasonable judge might even invalidate the patent as having lapsed through the implied willfillness not to enforce their rights.