| Author |
Message |
ed56
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Jun 08, 2007
Posts: 831
|
"Cox asserted that those two patents – U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711 and 6,282,574, which cover the translation of text-based names into routing addresses for Internet-based communications – were not just invalid but also unenforceable. That’s because, according to Cox’s filing, Verizon “failed to disclose all non-cumulative, material prior art of which Verizon was aware to the Patent Office” during the patent-review process."
See http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543439.html
Background info on prior art:
In the Vonage case, there appeared to be "prior art" for this, though the courts did not see any concrete evidence . . . while the rest of the Voip community was aware of working groups and prior art previous to Verizon's patent (see http://techdirt.com/articles/20070417/005814.shtml).
A Better explanation is here:
http://gigaom.com/2008/01/18/here-comes-trouble-an-antidote-to-software-patents/ |
_________________ Time Warner Road Runner / Motorola SB5101 Cable Modem / Lniksys E2000 / Vonage VDV21 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours | |