We have all been following the various VoIP patent lawsuits. From the Rates Technology vs. Google Talk lawsuit, to Apple vs Cisco iPhone lawsuit, Verizon vs. Vonage patent infringement and many more. Well, Production Ad Absurdam has a couple of interesting recent posts regarding VoIP patents. In his her first article she addresses Web Telephony LLC v. AT&T and goes through some patent claims on VoIP, telephony, and more. In a follow-up post, he she cites my review of Vocaltec's Internet Phone from the 1996/1997 issue of CTI for Management Magazine to argue against various VoIP patents, since my review pre-dates many of these patent claims.
HeShe writes:
__________________________________
VoIP was invented — I use the word advisedly, these fellows were true inventors — in Israel in about 1995. They patented the technology and the patents are assigned to the first VoIP company to offer service: VocalTec, which released the Internet Phone software application in 1995. I’d just like to toss in here that I love the fact that VocalTec is still in business. Like Skype and the Gizmo project, Vocaltec was computer only, no handset. Just microphones and sound cards and speakers. Check out this passage from a review of Internet Phone 4 in the 1996/1997 CTI Buyer’s Guide for Management (page 29 of the .pdf file):
HeShe mentions my article in context of all the recent VoIP patent battles (Apple vs Cisco iPhone lawsuit), and Verizon vs. Vonage patent infringement. Perhaps Vonage could use my 1997 Vocaltec article in its current litgation battle with Verizon? Hmmmm. Could a subpoena be in mail for me to testify?
__________________________________
VoIP was invented — I use the word advisedly, these fellows were true inventors — in Israel in about 1995. They patented the technology and the patents are assigned to the first VoIP company to offer service: VocalTec, which released the Internet Phone software application in 1995. I’d just like to toss in here that I love the fact that VocalTec is still in business. Like Skype and the Gizmo project, Vocaltec was computer only, no handset. Just microphones and sound cards and speakers. Check out this passage from a review of Internet Phone 4 in the 1996/1997 CTI Buyer’s Guide for Management (page 29 of the .pdf file):
Internet Phone includes voice mail, call holding, call waiting, muting, blocking, caller ID, and directory assistance. Other communication and transmission features of Internet Phone include whiteboarding, file transfer, cross-platform communications, text chat, direct calling and public chat rooms.
Funnily enough, one of the bonuses included in the purchase of Internet Release 4 was Earthlink Network TotalAccess, EarthLink being another defendent in the lawsuit under discussion.
Not only could you have voice conferences with this software, you could also have video conferences with hands free, voice activation. All this and more, at least six years before Web Telephony was granted its patent. Incidentally, the (Vocaltec) review has a screen shot of the animated dialing assistant.
__________________________________
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
Just as an FYI, the proprietor of Productio is a she, not a he. The good Ms. Constance Reader is the author.
Erm, I dont think so.
I was using CUSeeMe in 1993 (CUSeeMe was available as both video & audio chat in 1992 on Mac). I also spend a bit of time on the IP mulitcast chat. The basic technology to carry voice over internet definitely predates 1995.
>>I was using CUSeeMe in 1993 (CUSeeMe was available as both video & audio chat in 1992 on Mac).
Thanks for the reminder James. I too was using CuSeeMe back then. I just didn't review CuSeeMe, so I couldn't cite that as evidence in any VoIP patent litigation. Anything that predates some of these patent claims is helpful, including my VocalTec review.
>>The basic technology to carry voice over internet definitely predates 1995.
Agreed. CuSeeMe certainly adds more credence to the fact that all these VoIP patent court cases aren't about protecting actual innovation - but about money and greed.
I'm all for patents - just not companies that acquire patents for litigation purposes to acquire wealth by strong-arming smaller companies and stifling innovation.
It may interest you to know that, according to some reports, one of Vonage's expert witnesses cited both VocalTec's Internet Phone and Net2Phone in testimony. When I read that I an important (and patently obvious, pun intended) lightbult switched on in my head.
The fact that these patents may be and invalid and certainly should not have been granted may be deemed irrelevant in these lawsuits. The jury -- and Verizon vs. Vonage was a jury trial -- was not asked to decide whether the patent was validly granted. They were merely asked to decide whether Vonage infringed. I've read the first patent involved and yes, Vonage did infringe...and so did every other telco on the planet that uses any sort of packet-based technology.
A person convicted of a crime under a law that is possibly unconstitutional can push his claim up through the court system to rule on the constitutional question. So can the losing defendant in a civil case. But as I understand it, such a process does not exist for patent cases.
> I just didn't review CuSeeMe, so I couldn't
> cite that as evidence in any VoIP patent
> litigation.
Hello,
i am researching for some time but did
not find any patent infridgement on "cuseeme"
, could someone confirm this or point me to
a related document ?
thanks
marc