Subject: Re: [Sip] News flash: Verizon appears to have exclusive rights to IP telephony and SIP proxy operations

From: "Mark R. Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:19:03 -0400

There were some requests for transcripts for the Verizon vs. Vonage  
case. I got frustrated by the lack of general detailed information on  
the issue. Most of the court documents are sealed, but I've collected  
a bit of the available public info on a personal page, http:// 
200ok.info/

The best document there is the Claim Construction by Judge Hilton.  
Certain ways of deploying SIP systems would be infringing, but others  
not. Some interpretations in this thread earlier are too broad.

I do not believe it's willful infringement if the patent is invalid  
or unenforceable (see http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2004/ 
Warren02.aspx). But are these "network design" patents actually  
covered by prior art? I don't think this is a head-in-the-sand moment  
for those of us who design SIP-based systems.

Mark R. Lindsey  | ECG |  +1-229-316-0013  |  [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:41:09 -0400

From: "Mark R. Lindsey" <[email-masked]>

   Warren02.aspx).

If the patent is invalid or unenforceable, it's not infringement at
all!

What you mean is that if you proceeded based on a careful and rational
belief that the patent is invalid or unenforcable -- but the patent
*was* valid -- it's not willful infringement.

But of course, that means that you looked at the patent based on
actual patent law, and not on your wishful thinking about what patent
law ought to be.

   But are these "network design" patents actually covered by prior
   art? I don't think this is a head-in-the-sand moment for those of
   us who design SIP-based systems.

I've not seen anyone present the slightest evidence that there was
prior art, only claims that (from more than a decade after the fact),
the invention was obvious.

Dale