WhyDom

Clearly, to any one who has been in the VoIP industry before 2000, they will read these claims and think about how they were delivering VoIP calls to the PSTN by a) receiving a name translation request at a server connected to the internet, b) translating the name into the destination telephone number associated with the name, and c) transmitting the reply to the destination number through a gateway.  This is basic 1.01 of VoIP telephony.   Clearly, to any one who has been in the VoIP industry before 2000, they will read these claims and think about how they were delivering VoIP calls to the PSTN by a) receiving a name translation request at a server connected to the internet, b) translating the name into the destination telephone number associated with the name, and c) transmitting the reply to the destination number through a gateway.  This is basic 1.01 of VoIP telephony.    For example, the diagram showing this transmission was in a Novell article published on Feb. 1, 1999.   DialPad.com’s VoIP Software is shown below.

Russell Shaw, discusses his idea that the patent claimsin Patent ‘574 are so generic that the patent should not be enforceable.  However, the best defense to a patent is prior art.  The VoIP pundits believe the prior art exists, but the industry needs to use its resources to keep a few patents, more than likely created after the prior art, from damaging the VoIP industry.  During the Katz telecom patent suits in the 1990’s, the computer telephony industry put together an alliance seeking prior art as a defense to the Katz patents.  

The VoIP industry leaders today could do the same.   Such prior art revealed would provide clarity for all parties. See, Newton, Harry, “Send Us Your Pre-1989 Brochures,” Computer Telephony, Oct. 1996, pp. 16-26, for the Katz request.