Rates Technology Inc.

I have been hearing more and more rumblings in the VoIP industry regarding Jerry Weinberger of Rates Technology Inc. (RTI). I don’t get too many people coming to me about patent issues so when I heard about this company, I decided to delve into this potential story a bit more. What intrigued me is that apparently RTI has no products… They exist to collect revenue from other companies.

I did some research and found that Rates Technologies has sued Nortel, Sharp Electronics and others. Apparently in 1998 the Wall Street Journal quoted Mr. Weinberger in an article titled "Payoff Pending," on December 7, 1998:

In the end, Mr. Marshall might have to sue some company for patent infringement — and do so successfully — before the industry takes his rights seriously. Mr. Marshall "had better be prepared to spend more than $1 million on prosecution, because that’s what would be required," says Gerald J. Weinberger, president of Rates technology Inc., a Hauppauge, N.Y., company that says it has gone to court six times to prosecute patents in the telecommunications field. Mr. Weinberger says an aggressive stance in court is crucial to any enterprise based on patent licensing. "You don’t get any licensees unless the parties become convinced that you will litigate," he says

So I decided to call Jerry Weinberger and get his side to the story. In my discussion I told him that a few of the smaller companies had spoken with me about him. According to Weinberger, RTI, a Delaware company owns all right title and interest in the patents. Jerry Weinberger is RTI’s President and is one of the Patents’ inventors. According to Wenberger, the telecommunications patents are very broad and well established.

He tells me that his company is not generally targeting small companies. He has agreements in place with 76 large companies such as Huawei Technologies, Lucent, and Cisco at this time. He says the larger companies understand how intellectual property rights work in the US while the smaller ones usually don’t.

The Patents at issue are the ‘085 and ‘769 patents and their foreign counterparts in Canada, Mexico, and the ‘769 in Japan counterpart.

The following are statements from an e-mail from Jerry Weinburger:

When an infringer will not discuss their alleged patent infringement with RTI, there is little else that RTI can do except to pursue its remedies for the (willful) infringements in a court of competent jurisdiction. The remedies which RTI then seeks include damages, treble damages, a permanent injunction against further making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing of the infringing products and services for the remaining lives of the Patents, payment of RTI’s legal fees, and a product recall of all examples of those infringing items.

Although infringement is based upon a specific evaluation of a company’s product(s) the ‘085 and ‘769 patents generally apply to hybrid cellphones, gateways, IP Phones, IP PBX’s, edge routers, core routers, PC computers, ITSPs, and VoIP products, services and technologies, among several other telecommunications products, services and technologies.

Companies who decide to be covered under RTI Covenant Not Sue ("CNS") agreements are making a combined business and patent determination. The larger companies are easier to deal with, because they have many in house patent attorneys, and they do not feel that they are being roughed- they are making an informed business decision. Smaller companies tend to not respect the intellectual property of others. All makers, users, sellers, and importers are responsible for an infringement, and infringement is determined based upon direct, induced and contributory infringement; all allowing for interpretation of the Patents claims under the Doctrine of Equivalents.

After it became impossible to get them covered, RTI recently filed suit for willful patent infringement against Centrepoint Technologies, Inc. for much less money than Mitel and Alcatel (they certainly are a smaller company).

Mitel Networks was sued for $945 Million; Alcatel was sued for $1.155 Billion; and their default is pending in USDC EDNY. Hello Direct, GN Netcom and GN had been sued by RTI for patent infringement, and they recently settled with RTI; the terms are being kept confidential.

I spoke with Jerry Weinberger for about two hours and was fascinated by the legal side of the VoIP business. This is an area I don’t get a chance to write about too often so I was fascinated to learn what companies in the VoIP market have to deal with in the course of becoming a successful company. Of course, RTI is only one company with patents you need to negotiate with. Here are some other salient points worth noting:

In total they have agreements in place with 700-800 companies and have litigated 25 times in 15 years.

Occasionally he tells me smaller companies want to negotiate and/or sue. Litigation he says costs about 2 million dollars.

I asked Mr.Weinberger how he got involved in this business and he told me he invented least cost routing in the late 1970’s. This technology seems to apply to most VoIP technology. Having been in the call center business since birth or so I recall when least cost routing was about the most complicated technology telecom and certainly call centers had to deal with in the 1980 timeframe.

I also told him that I have heard complaints that his company doesn’t produce anything… They just collect revenue from others. He mentioned that if they made products, they would have the right to tell competitors to cease and desist. Besides he says, his company does do other things besides sue for patents. He just doesn’t compete with companies he gives coverage to.

He went on to say that he doesn’t extract royalties for the lifetime sales of a product… He only asks for a one-time fee. He says that it may actually benefit smaller companies to pay quickly as they can become a large company and not have to pay a much larger fee when they get bigger.

So how does it work? Generally his company contacts your company and shows you their patents. Your company then checks with its patent attorneys to see what infringes and what doesn’t. If you want to be covered, you pay a one-time fee based on five tiers — according to highest parent companies’ worldwide sales… They do not deviate from these tiers. In exchange you get a covenant protecting you from a lawsuit.

My correspondence with Jerry Weinberger ended like this. I leave it to you to determine how to take it:

Please feel free to give a contact number for RTI (631-360-0157), for companies who would like to get to RTI, before we get to them.

  • VoIP Blog - Rich Tehrani
    August 25, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    Rates Technology and Alcatel

    In my blog entry on Rates Technology Inc I mentioned Alcatel as in default. Specifically:After it became impossible to get them covered, RTI recently filed suit for willful patent infringement against Centrepoint Technologies, Inc. for much less money …

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    November 30, 2005 at 10:16 pm

    Blackberry Up To Their Neck

    Yes indeed Blackberry is up to their neck in, well you know. Their service is in jeopardy of being shut down in the US but few analysts think this will happen. They could be forced to spend a billion dollars…

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    December 27, 2005 at 6:14 pm

    Rates Technology Sues Google

    Many months back I wrote an article on Rates Technology Inc.– A company with a patent portfolio currently being used to persuade VoIP equipment and service vendors to pay a fee in exchange for protection from a patent infringement lawsuit….

  • Search Engines Web
    December 27, 2005 at 9:53 pm

    ////Mitel Networks was sued for $945 Million; Alcatel was sued for $1.155 Billion; and their default is pending in USDC EDNY. Hello Direct, GN Netcom and GN had been sued by RTI for patent infringement, and they recently settled with RTI; the terms are being kept confidential.
    Many of these Companies have massive legal teams, they could have just as well investigated the patents beforehand and honorably contacted the patent holders to make an arraigement. (counting only those claims that were held up in court – of course)
    If the reverse was the case – these companies would themselves, probably be suing for Patent infringements.
    What is being lost is the Sheer GENIUS of those involved – to have thought of all these prototype patent holding ideas before so many others.

  • Mark Evans
    December 28, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    Who’s Rates Technology Inc.?

    In Canada, we’re super-sensitive to litigious patent holders given how NTP Inc. has tortured Research in Motion for the past four years. So, it’s fascinating to see R…

  • Jay
    December 29, 2005 at 2:50 am

    This lawsuit is crap. I remember years and years ago using net2phone, prior to the filing of either patent being allegedly infringed on. It was a very crude VoIP technology at the time, but definatly counts as prior art. Also, I’d like to point out that Google is *not* a telephone network, they specialize in data, and all a VoIP transmission is is a series of data packets being sent back and forth through the internet.
    I’m also wondering how these patents actually can be applied to VoIP in the first place. There is no physical or software device that routes calls in an efficient manor on either side, all of that is taken care of by routers and infrustructure via peering agreements and the nature of the internet. Moreover, Google Talk uses a point to point communications, which doesn’t need a PBAX or PBX past the initiation of the call. There’s more, but I’ll stop there.
    I think greed is playing a part in this case, and I hope all the patents used are invalidated against VoIP. The patents in question are suitable for traditional phone lines, modified with the gadgets discribed in the patents, but really can’t be used against VoIP technology. This just really seems to be another case where patents stifle real inovation and invention.

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    December 29, 2005 at 9:37 am

    Rates Technology Inc. (RTI) Articles

    My blog entry on Rates Technology has been getting a great deal of traction. As you may recall the company is suing Google over the VoIP portion of its Google Talk program. I noticed Playfuls.com a site out of Romania…

  • Anonymous Coward
    December 30, 2005 at 2:55 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with Jay. Go stuff your idiotic patents up the bottom-end of your digestive tract. You haven’t contributed one bit to the development and innovation of VoIP so there is absolutely no point from a societal perspective why you should be rewarded from its evolution.
    I’m glad I live in FREE Europe. The US has fallen prey to the military-industrial complex and corporate interests a long time ago.
    By the way my initial blog entry was disallowed because I intented to put an anti-softwarepatents site as my URL. Talk about censorship!
    The address is http://www.no software patents . com without the spaces.

  • Rich Tehrani
    December 30, 2005 at 3:16 pm

    Sorry about the censorship problem. This is not intentional and is likely part of the software that controls blog spam. I’m looking into it.

  • Anonymous Coward
    December 30, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    No problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer companies gaming the system.
    Thanks once again!

  • Rich Tehrani
    December 30, 2005 at 3:37 pm

    No problem. I understand your feelings. I tried to post the same site myself as a test just now and it wouldn’t let me.
    While I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it. Otherwise large companies would steal every idea immediately and put the little guy out of business. I guess I am a capitalist at heart and want to see smart people rewarded for their efforts. I also remember all the software makers put out of business or crippled by Microsoft in the 1980s. Who remembers Quarterdeck, PCTools, WordPerfect and others?
    Of course I think the system is out of whack at the moment and I feel your anguish. There needs to be a middle-ground between where we are today with multi-billion dollar patent settlements and no patent protection at all.
    Our country is run by lawyers it seems and until that changes we can’t expect the patent system to change.
    One ray of hope is that recently I have heard that the USPTO, the agency managing patents might be making some changes in patent enforcement to reduce these huge settlements. Perhaps this middle ground will indeed be reached in the US someday.
    Have a Happy New Year.

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    December 31, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    RTI Patents

    Thanks to TechDirt I decided to poke around in the actual RTI Patents that have caused the web outcry since RTI sued Google. Jerry Weinberger the man behind RTI patented least cost routing back in the late 1970s and this…

  • Joe Marshall
    December 31, 2005 at 10:28 pm

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • small inventor
    January 3, 2006 at 10:39 am

    Hey, Rich,
    Large corporations steal inventions from little guys all the time – patented or not they just don’t care…
    Other than the threat of injunction and the possibility of huge damages there is really NOTHING to prevent large corps from stealing all the IP from little guys.
    The so-called “patent reform” is nothing more than a request by the big guys to legitimize stealing patented inventions from small entities: if patent enforcement gets too difficult the value of patents held by small entities is reduced to zero.

  • Rich Tehrani
    January 3, 2006 at 11:11 am

    These are very valid comments. I agree to some degree. The question becomes how much is a reasonable amount to charge for a patent? A billion? Trillion? What is the limit? What is fair? I don’t have the answers but am just pointing out what seems to be horrifying to many readers of my blog. The massive amounts being charged by companies who own the patents.

  • JasonMR
    January 3, 2006 at 11:57 pm

    “I guess I am a capitalist at heart and want to see smart people rewarded for their efforts.”
    Capitalism has as much to do with “reward for effort”, as Socialism has to do with “freedom”. They are merely attributes attached by propagandists, nothing more, and nothing less. I would rather refrain from such polarising statements, as you are very likely to alienate interesting discussion mates. Ignoring the fact, that you only want to compensate “smart people”.
    The discussion on and about patents is completely of topic. Any intellectual exchange on reform of patents, is like a discussion about the treatment of acne: chatter about symptoms, and attempting to manipulate the symptoms instead of treating the cause. Patent law, just as any other IP law, is all about just compensation of mind workers (not in the form of a modern slave – the employee!) and the result of their efforts.
    Be it artists, designers, inventors, programmers, engineers, or enterpreneurs, we are actually all sitting in the same boat.

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    January 4, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Rates Technology and Mitel

    I recently received this e-mail regarding Mitel and Rates Technology. The e-mail came from Simon Gwatkin, VP Strategic Marketing Mitel Networks.Hi Rich,I read your blog (and others) re the Rates Technology lawsuits. I noticed the mention that we were b…

  • Mark Evans
    January 4, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Mitel Addresses Rates Connection

    Amid Rich Tehrani’s coverage of the brewing patent battle between Rates Technology and Google, Mitel Networks was mentioned as…

  • Ed_0x1b
    January 18, 2006 at 11:22 pm

    In the beginning, one had to submit a physical model of the innovation when applying for a patent. Discontinued for the convenience of patent clerks, this served as an important check against semantic patents and perpetual motion machines, as well as proof of function. We need to resurrect this requirement if we are to escape the tyranny of Intangibles with Privileges. Patents are for progress in nature, progress among humanities creations is privileged with copyright. Or at least it was.
    ah for the good old days – IMHO

  • Rich Tehrani
    January 19, 2006 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for the profound comments.

  • VoIP & Gadgets Blog
    February 13, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Microsoft killed the Blackberry Star

    First there was IBM’s OS/2 and then came Microsoft Windows 95/98 and OS/2 was no more. In the battle for the most used wordprocessor, Wordperfect put up a valiant fight but alas, Microsoft Office took over – same with Lotus…

  • Klim
    March 21, 2006 at 2:25 am

    If the reverse was the case – these companies would themselves, probably be suing for Patent infringements.

  • Orlowski Zygmunt
    August 6, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    Perpetual motion machines* (the latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy “from nowhere.” The existence of a perpetual motion machine is generally accepted as being impossible according to current known laws of physics. In particular, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two
    subcategories, referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind. There is a chance that the accepted laws of physics are wrong, but a lot of evidence is needed to regeneralize these.

  • Orlowski Zygmunt
    October 22, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    Clean energy
    The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
    The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
    http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/paradox.html
    and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
    I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
    1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
    2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
    3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „swing cycle” /39 A5-pictures /;
    / this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
    4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
    / this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
    Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.
    The METOZ has an even-arm lever of a 1.72 m length. The centre of gravity of the lever lies beneath the lever suspension point. The METOZ is equipped with two cylinders of a 1.6 m diameter each. Piston sidewalls do not contact directly with cylinder walls. The lever swing changes between and .
    Figures ( 3 x 13 x 4 = 156 ) present temporary, consecutive action situations at intervals of . The middle figure presents the machine and the side figures the position of the left and right cylinder and the mathematical description of these situations.
    In the past I have made two models, which confirmed the legitimacy of my theoretical assumptions concerning the METOZ machine. I have got photographs.
    I am looking for a person who would be interested in my invention. I can offer ample information. I look forward to hearing from you.
    http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html
    13 – 03 -2005 Gdynia, Polska Zygmunt Orłowski
    P.S. The term “gravitational paradox” use in this description relates to the mathematical and physical description of the action of the METOZ-machine.
    THE EARTH GRAVITATION CAN BE THE SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY.
    Comment for METOZ
    ——————————————————————————–
    By
    Orlowski Zygmunt
    Poland 2005
    index html
    Comments concerning machine “METOZ”
    “METOZ” is able to realize the cycle “deflection” and the cycle “straighening.” Both cycles are in accordance with current physic’s laws. “METOZ” as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
    I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
    we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for “METOZ.” We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623–1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine “METOZ”. Now turn up the following questions:
    1/ why the implementation of the cycle “deflection” is impossible?
    2/ why the implementation of the cycle “straightening” is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding “METOZ” live in XVII–th century and they not know that:
    a/ the idea of an “energy” will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
    b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
    QVESTION!!!
    WHAT KIND OF RATIONALY ENTERELY / ARGUMENT/ CAN BE DREAMED UP THE OPPONENTS OF BUILDING THE MACHINE “METOZ’ IN XVII CENTURY.
    ——————————————————————————–

  • Traditional mesothelioma treatments
    November 2, 2006 at 5:05 am

    These are very valid comments. I agree to some degree. The question becomes how much is a reasonable amount to charge for a patent? A billion? Trillion? What is the limit? What is fair? I don’t have the answers but am just pointing out what seems to be horrifying to many readers of my blog. The massive amounts being charged by companies who own the patents.
    Perpetual motion machines* (the latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy “from nowhere.” The existence of a perpetual motion machine is generally accepted as being impossible according to current known laws of physics. In particular, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two
    subcategories, referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind. There is a chance that the accepted laws of physics are wrong, but a lot of evidence is needed to regeneralize these.
    If the reverse was the case – these companies would themselves, probably be suing for Patent infringements.
    -Mesoman

  • VoIP Blog - Tehrani.com
    November 14, 2006 at 10:32 am

    Caritas/Comcast VoIP Patent Victory

    The VoIP market won a victory in Texas yesterday with Comcast defending itself successfully against a $2.2 billion lawsuit brought on by Caritas Technologies. The company was formed by four men, including David Farber, who many consider the grandfather…

  • The other Patent Holder
    November 30, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    There is another patent out there that could potential help all the companies being sued by RTI. However we have never been contacted by any of them.
    The patent, numbered 5799071 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.
    Our patent is available for licensing for reasonable fees.!!!

  • SZYMON SIEJKA
    August 1, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    WHERE I CAN SEND MAIL WITCH MY PROJECT ABOUT PERPETUM MOBILE TO GET ONE MILLION DOLAR TOO..
    IM FROM POLAND AND IM 26..
    PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON…

  • Msn
    December 8, 2007 at 10:48 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • estetik
    December 11, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Perpetual motion machines* (the latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy “from nowhere.” The existence of a perpetual motion machine is generally accepted as being impossible according to current known laws of physics. In particular, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two
    subcategories, referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind. There is a chance that the accepted laws of physics are wrong, but a lot of evidence is needed to regeneralize these.

  • Estetik
    January 4, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    The patent, numbered 5799071 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • estetik
    January 18, 2008 at 7:28 am

    So, it’s fascinating to see Rates Technology Inc. jump into the spotlight by suing Google for infringing on its VOIP patents.

  • estetik
    January 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Thank uo VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • prefabrik
    February 22, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Thank you VOIP technology

  • prefabrik yapı
    August 2, 2008 at 4:12 am

    good voip thank you.

  • kabin
    September 1, 2008 at 10:24 am

    good process very nice.

  • hekimboard
    September 16, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Thanks for the profound comments.

  • film izle
    September 19, 2008 at 7:29 am

    good process very nice.

  • sihirbazlik
    September 21, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Thank you VOIP technology

  • burun estetigi
    September 28, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Perpetual motion machines are divided into two
    subcategories, referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind. There is a chance that the accepted laws of physics are wrong, but a lot of evidence is needed to regeneralize these.

  • film izle
    October 7, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Thanks for the profound comments.

  • sikis
    October 18, 2008 at 3:52 am

    How much is RapidRepair asking to install these drives?

  • youtube
    October 18, 2008 at 6:14 am

    WHERE I CAN SEND MAIL WITCH MY PROJECT ABOUT PERPETUM MOBILE TO GET ONE MILLION DOLAR TOO..
    IM FROM POLAND AND IM 26..
    PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON…

  • Plastik cerrahi
    October 22, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    What about tag pages? I’m finding that alot of my traffic is coming from tag pages. I didn’t see any settings for true/false with regard to tag pages. Thx.

  • film izle
    October 27, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    This is not intentional and is likely part of the software that controls blog spam. I’m looking into it too..

  • estetik
    October 31, 2008 at 9:36 am

    In particular, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two
    subcategories, referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind.

  • izlekop
    November 4, 2008 at 3:24 am

    Thank uo VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • plastik
    November 11, 2008 at 8:21 am

    I’m confused. Why would I download brushes that I can only use for personal use? What can I use these for then? Just to play around? For artwork that I GIVE away??? Seems very odd to me.

  • Estetik
    November 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    it’s not all bad news – some things apparently went right with WordPress 2.3. This isn’t the first scandal to rock WordPress. It was previously found that WordPress

  • Estetik
    November 12, 2008 at 9:33 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D.

  • estetik
    November 13, 2008 at 7:27 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • söve
    November 14, 2008 at 6:17 am

    Thank uo VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • müzik dinle
    November 17, 2008 at 8:30 am

    Thank you VOIP technology

  • Chat
    November 17, 2008 at 11:39 am

    they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • oto kiralama
    November 18, 2008 at 6:49 am

    Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
    You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.

  • Göğüs Estetiği
    November 18, 2008 at 8:51 am

    For those of you thinking that if they implement this it will eliminate some of the waiting and lines… Get real! They are not going to replace some of the other security theater with this, they are going to use it on top of what they are already doing.

  • Estetik Cerrah
    November 18, 2008 at 10:08 am

    good process very nice.
    http://www.GogusEstetik.com/ Göğüs Estetiği
    http://www.burunestetik.de/ Burun Estetiği
    http://www.FueSacekimi.com/ Saç Ekimi

  • sohbet odaları
    November 22, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    good Site thank you web admin

  • film izle
    November 23, 2008 at 4:39 am

    For those of you thinking that if they implement this it will eliminate some of the waiting and lines… Get real! They are not going to replace some of the other security theater with this, they are going to use it on top of what they are already doing.
    http://www.filmkalesi.com/

  • Estetik
    November 24, 2008 at 10:07 am

    My only real problem with google analytics is that it doesn’t work very well with a lot of ASP pages, which a lot of clients use nowadays. It can also get kind of hairy when trying to get it to understand what a conversion is. 😀 Instead of just any click, it needs to be one specific click haha.

  • Burun
    November 28, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Ok, I have an inkling (pun not intended) to modify that book image to the right to say “Schneier on Squid.”
    “The closest the squid industry has to a rock star.”

  • seks hikaye
    December 26, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer companies gaming the system.

  • Film izle
    December 27, 2008 at 10:26 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D.

  • Pixelim
    January 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    VoIP is getting more important day by day, but there are some powers all around that wants to block VoIP growth. We hope that is going popular more and using by everyone soon.
    Pixelim Media
    http://www.pixelim.com

  • film izle
    January 14, 2009 at 8:41 am

    Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer companies gaming the system.

  • process
    January 15, 2009 at 2:10 am

    patent issues exist anywhere.
    it may hurt process,but long term, it’s a protection and help tech process.

  • videolar31
    February 4, 2009 at 9:16 am

    good videos whatch

  • şişme oyun
    February 9, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    VoIP is getting more important day by day, but there are some powers all around that wants to block VoIP growth. We hope that is going popular more and using by everyone soon.

  • animal pictures
    February 18, 2009 at 10:21 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D.

  • haber
    February 18, 2009 at 10:23 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D.

  • film izle
    February 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • Web Hosting
    March 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    hi..Perpetual motion machines* (the latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy “from nowhere.” The existence of a perpetual motion machine is generally accepted as being impossible according to current known laws of physics. In particular, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.
    thanks
    very nice page

  • mp3 indir
    March 9, 2009 at 9:34 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D.

  • sohpet
    March 11, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    This is not intentional and is likely part of the software that controls blog spam. I’m looking into it too.. Thanks..

  • chat
    March 12, 2009 at 10:03 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • cinsel sohbet
    March 15, 2009 at 8:35 am

    Thanks for the news

  • örgütube.com
    March 18, 2009 at 2:57 am

    over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • hobi
    March 18, 2009 at 3:00 am

    twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s
    http://www.orgutube.com

  • aşk şiirleri
    March 29, 2009 at 6:16 am

    No problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer companies gaming the system.
    Thanks once again!

  • Авто купить продажа
    March 31, 2009 at 11:01 am

    The 40D has proven to be a product.

  • Dekorasyon
    May 7, 2009 at 8:55 am

    problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer com

  • mirc
    May 16, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • film izle
    May 20, 2009 at 9:48 am

    thank you corc. switch or a plain old telephone, etc.they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and

  • film izle
    May 27, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer com

  • film izle
    May 27, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Thank you for sharing, I maybe used it to make free template of any kind hope you don’t mind. Soon it will available at my site.

  • güzel sözler
    May 29, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer com

  • Andrew jones
    May 30, 2009 at 8:59 am

    It’s rightly said in the article.Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), is a technology that allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line.

  • sarki sozleri
    June 8, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer com

  • film izle
    June 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    One ray of hope is that recently I have heard that the USPTO, the agency managing patents might be making some changes in patent enforcement to reduce these huge settlements. Perhaps this middle ground will indeed be reached in the US someday.

  • Güncel Haber
    June 11, 2009 at 3:53 am

    Thanks. Any intellectual exchange on reform of patents, is like a discussion about the treatment of acne: chatter about symptoms, and attempting to manipulate the symptoms instead of treating the cause. I’m also wondering how these patents actually can be applied to VoIP in the first place.

  • video izle
    June 11, 2009 at 5:51 am

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D

  • film izle
    June 12, 2009 at 4:30 am

    problem. Thanks for accepting my comment and my apologies for the maybe slightly inflammatory language. I’m just so fed up with this whole software patent system as administered by the US: It’s quite obvious that it doesn’t contribute one bit to innovation but only serves to enrich entrenched capital interests and little lawyer com

  • hotels cheltenham
    June 13, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    “Please feel free to give a contact number for RTI (631-360-0157), for companies who would like to get to RTI, before we get to them.” – LOL certainly will!!

  • chat
    June 20, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Thanks a lot for the add-on. Is it possible to create one for Chrome or internet explorer ” any one gave answer

  • sohbet
    June 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Thank you VOIP technology

  • Chat
    July 1, 2009 at 5:01 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • medyum
    July 2, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    There is another patent out there that could potential help all the companies being sued by RTI. However we have never been contacted by any of them.
    The patent, numbered 5799071 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.
    Our patent is available for licensing for reasonable fees.!!!Medyum

  • msn indir
    July 7, 2009 at 9:28 am

    thank you corc. switch or a plain old telephone, etc.they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and

  • hikaye
    July 7, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Large corporations steal inventions from little guys all the time – patented or not they just don’t care…
    Other than the threat of injunction and the possibility of huge damages there is really NOTHING to prevent large corps from stealing all the IP from little guys.
    The so-called “patent reform” is nothing more than a request by the big guys to legitimize stealing patented inventions from small entities: if patent enforcement gets too difficult the value of patents held by small entities is reduced to zero.

  • film izle
    July 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • sinema izle
    July 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    I just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 30D

  • Diyarbakır
    July 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    It’s rightly said in the article.Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), is a technology that allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line.

  • yatak porno
    August 4, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    thanks

  • aşk sözleri
    August 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Thank you VOIP technology

  • dış cephe
    August 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    I think when it comes to celebrity, the same is also be true. The celebrities who are “minor” now are swarming to Twitter and Facebook, much as unknown bands swarmed to MySpace. Those who have direct, honest connections with their fans will endure. Those who don’t might catch the flame of fame briefly, but they will not endure as brands. Why? Because no matter what, the “packaged goods” platforms of movies, networks, and sports leagues are still important, and it will soon be the players and celebrities with a guaranteed base of hard core fans – or followers – who can call the shots with those powers that be. You think Brooke Burke won’t get a better deal now that she’s in dialog with over a million fans on Twitter? Owning and cultivating your own platform means you no longer are in thrall to “star makers” – together with your community, you make your own star. That’s a kind of celebrity I can get behind.

  • youtube
    August 14, 2009 at 8:28 am

    twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s

  • rap
    August 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    when it comes to celebrity, the same is also be true. The celebrities who are “minor” now are swarming to Twitter and Facebook, much as unknown bands swarmed to MySpace. Those who have direct, honest connections with their fans will endure. Those who don’t might catch the flame of fame briefly, but they will not endure as brands. Why? Because no matter what, the “packaged goods” platforms of movies, networks, and sports leagues are still important, and it will soon be the players and celebrities with a guaranteed base of

  • tarot
    August 18, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • chat
    August 26, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Large corporations steal inventions from little guys all the time – patented or not they just don’t care…
    Other than the threat of injunction and the possibility of huge damages there is really NOTHING to prevent large corps from stealing all the IP from little guys.
    The so-called “patent reform” is nothing more than a request by the big guys to legitimize stealing patented inventions from small entities: if patent enforcement gets too difficult the value of patents held by small entities is reduced to zero.

  • youtube
    August 29, 2009 at 3:48 am

    It’s rightly said in the article.Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), is a technology that allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line.

  • alevi sohbet
    August 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Given that they still have a silly religious devotion to keeping the front page “clean”, it’s a wonder their other products have done as well as they have. But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with “search” is actually less convenient than starting with clicks and build out the front page.

  • guzide
    August 31, 2009 at 3:23 am

    Thank you for sharing, I maybe used it to make free template of any kind hope you don’t mind. Soon it will available at my site.koçluk / toplu yemek/tabldot yemek

  • Vizyondaki Filmleri İzle
    September 6, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    thank you very much

  • kombi servisi
    September 7, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.

  • chat
    September 12, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Owning and cultivating your own platform means you no longer are in thrall to “star makers” – together with your community, you make your own star. That’s a kind of celebrity I can get behind.

  • video izle
    September 12, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Given that they still have a silly religious devotion to keeping the front page “clean”, it’s a wonder their other products have done as well as they have. But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with “search” is actually less convenient than starting with clicks and build out the front page. Thanks a lot

  • Hayko cepkin
    September 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Thank you..

  • chat
    September 18, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    thanks you have done as well as they have. But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with “search” is actually less convenient than starting with clicks and build

  • mirc indir
    September 19, 2009 at 1:34 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • özel ders
    September 19, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • telefon dinlem
    September 23, 2009 at 10:03 am

    WHERE I CAN SEND MAIL WITCH MY PROJECT ABOUT PERPETUM MOBILE TO GET ONE MILLION DOLAR TOO..
    IM FROM POLAND AND IM 26..
    PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON…

  • porno
    September 28, 2009 at 5:28 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • sikiş
    September 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • kral oyun
    September 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • kral oyun
    September 28, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • müzik dinle
    September 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    Many of these Companies have massive legal teams, they could have just as well investigated the patents beforehand and honorably contacted the patent holders to make an arraigement. (counting only those claims that were held up in court – of course)

  • sanjar
    October 1, 2009 at 9:56 am

    When I do a patent search on 3801903, I come up with ” PARTICLE STUDY APPARATUS INCLUDING AN AXIAL TRAJECTORY SENSOR” what does this have to do with RTI / VOIP / Least Cost routing .
    Regards
    Sanjar
    owner of US5799071 – Telecommunications cost-minimizing system –

  • Chat odaları
    October 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • islami chat
    October 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with “search” is actually less convenient than starting with clicks and build out the front page. Thanks a lot

  • konya chat
    October 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    thanks of

  • Bridal Makeup
    October 20, 2009 at 10:28 am

    We have VOIP in the office, good blog.

  • Chat odaları
    October 24, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    We have VOIP in the office, good blog….

  • CD Cover Creator
    October 26, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    At first I thought VOIP was going to be the best technology to come out as of late, but I was wrong. I still don’t see many people using VOIP like I thought they would.

  • Yasam Kocu
    October 28, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with “search” is actually less convenient than starting with clicks and build out the front page. Thanks a lot

  • Laptop
    October 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with Jay. Go stuff your idiotic patents up the bottom-end of your digestive tract. You haven’t contributed one bit to the development and innovation of VoIP so there is absolutely no point from a societal perspective why you should be rewarded from its evolution.

  • Dans
    October 30, 2009 at 7:30 am

    life must expect that everything can be everything all the time thanks

  • us drugstore
    October 31, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • peynir
    November 9, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    I’m really very useful to follow a long-time see this as a blog here Thank you for your valuable information.

  • mirc
    November 10, 2009 at 5:25 am

    Thank you, you answered the question I have been searching for which was whether or not to place keywords when blog commenting. http://www.hayda.net/

  • GrupMezar
    November 17, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Thanks…. 🙂

  • branda
    November 20, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • tuzcuoğlu nakliyat
    November 22, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Plugins You Probably Don’t Use But Should 11 Most Popular Cross-Platform And Free Softwares 13 Most Useful Free Scripts That You Should

  • oyun
    November 23, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Plugins You Probably Don’t Use But Should 11 Most Popular Cross-Platform And Free Softwares 13 Most Useful Free Scripts That You Should

  • kral oyun
    November 24, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • sikiş izle
    November 25, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    life must expect that everything can be everything all the time

  • sohbet
    December 4, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • oyun oyna
    December 6, 2009 at 7:15 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • kraloyun
    December 10, 2009 at 7:24 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • Blog
    December 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    I’m really very useful to follow a long-time see this as a blog here Thank you for your valuable information.

  • Chat
    December 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it

  • sex
    December 26, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc.

  • ucuz oteller
    December 27, 2009 at 7:52 am

    The patent, numbered 3801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing.

  • e-okul
    December 27, 2009 at 7:58 am

    But many of them are making progress, slowly but surely, and I suspect one day Sergey and Larry will realize that starting with

  • sesli chat
    January 5, 2010 at 10:24 am

    I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it

  • film izle
    January 7, 2010 at 5:26 am

    RFC 741 describes the Network Voice Protocol and mentions that it was first implemented December 1973, over twenty years prior to the filing of Weinberger et al.’s patents.

  • electric cigarette
    February 7, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    The 5 tier payment system is very interesting. Will have to look into this.

  • iş makinaları
    February 10, 2010 at 10:40 am

    This is an extremely strategic tie up and mutually beneficial.

  • prefabrik ev fiyatları
    February 13, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..

  • chat
    February 17, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • estetik
    February 25, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • güzel sözler
    February 26, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..

  • sohbet odaları
    March 3, 2010 at 8:26 am

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..

  • magazin
    March 9, 2010 at 7:06 am

    The 5 tier payment system is very interesting. Will have to look into this.

  • oto kiralama
    March 22, 2010 at 4:50 am

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..

  • Okey Oyna
    March 27, 2010 at 11:27 am

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..

  • el terminali
    April 5, 2010 at 8:35 am

    The 5 tier pp system is very exciting. Will have to look into this.

  • rüya tabiri
    April 8, 2010 at 9:59 am

    At first I thought VOIP was going to be the best technology to come out as of late, but I was wrong. I still don’t see many people using VOIP like I thought they would.

  • Kameralı Sohbet
    April 10, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc

  • Çet
    April 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • Almanya Sohbet
    April 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    At first I thought VOIP was going to be the best technology to come out as of late, but I was wrong. I still don’t see many people using VOIP like I thought they would.

  • indirmeden film izle
    April 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • sesli
    April 22, 2010 at 11:05 am

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc..Thank you for the information your provide.

  • dominant studio Witten Koln
    April 26, 2010 at 6:04 am

    just love reading these “scoops” in hindsight. The 40D has proven to be one hell of a product. Unless you’re hung up on the fact it is not full frame, this camera is almost a perfect value. More rugged than the XTi, not as expensive as the 5D, and a nice step up from the 100 dollars.

  • Bağlama Duaları
    May 10, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • check up
    May 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    What about tag pages? I’m finding that alot of my traffic is coming from tag pages. I didn’t see any settings for true/false with regard to tag pages. Thx.

  • Sesli Dunya
    May 23, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough. Now, whether the call is initiated through a switch or a plain old telephone, etc

  • ne nerede
    May 24, 2010 at 12:02 am

    The patent, numbered 36801903 was filed before RTI’s but issued after theirs. Although neither patent specifically call for the VOIP technology, nevertheless they do make reference to least cost routing between two points and that seems to be enough.

  • Orjin Krem
    May 25, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • Dans Kursları
    June 3, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Thanks to a very successful performance

  • estetik
    June 19, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • takı
    July 3, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • estetik
    July 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • Zayıflama lida fx15 ve biber hapı zlfvbh
    July 7, 2010 at 9:52 am

    in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • ankara oto kiralama
    July 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    First there was IBM’s OS/2 and then came Microsoft Windows 95/98 and OS/2 was no more. In the battle for the most used wordprocessor, Wordperfect put up a valiant fight but alas, Microsoft Office took over – same with Lotus
    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • hikaye
    July 17, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Thanks a lot Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • barkod sistemi
    July 17, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • demir
    July 21, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • Ivan, founder of Singapore Singles Dating
    August 3, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    I agree the copyright infringement issues are really a sticky problem. This issue is much worse in China. Hopefully lawmakers can protect copyright owners more!

  • canli mac izle
    August 8, 2010 at 5:43 am

    helloouu.. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • lpn to rn programs
    August 24, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

  • formula 21
    September 22, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Hi. I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it.

Leave Your Comment