« Reminder: VON Europe Spring 2007 "Early Bird" Promotion Ends on Friday, April 27th | Main | The next Chris Brogan / Jeff Pulver Call-In Internet TV Show: Live on Ustream.tv, Today at 12 PM EST. »
April 23, 2007
Free World Dialup and Verizon's patent on "name translation"
I am at a loss to explain how the patent office granted Verizon a patent on "name translation" given the extensive coverage of Free World Dialup (FWD) as the first instance of Internet to PSTN calling in October 1995. Daniel Berninger dropped by pulver.com last week to remind me about the accomplishments of FWD between September and November 1995. Daniel and I met when he volunteered to help with FWD while still at Bell Labs. Implementing name translation was one of the many challenges overcome before FWD went live. Absent name translation, calling someone requires knowing and entering the 12 digit IP address of the destination device.
Verizon's patent claims (listed below), causing Vonage so much trouble, describe the general process of name translation implemented by FWD during the Autumn of 1995 and every VoIP service through the present. The claims describe a "server" that matches a call setup "name translation" request received from a "calling device" regarding "information relating to call routing via a public switched telephone network." The server applies an if-then-else type logic and forwards a reply specifying the destination "numeric Internet protocol address" to the calling device via the "public packet data network" (i.e. the Internet).
FWD's PC to Phone implementation involved extending the capability of VocalTec's Internet Phone via Vocaltec's published API. Callers needed only the standard Internet phone software. Connection to the PSTN was accomplished by FWD provided software and FWD voice modem firmware downloaded and installed by volunteers. FWD utilized the Internet Phone network of Internet Relay Chat (IRC) servers for the name translation function (i.e. providing the call device with "information relating to call routing via a public switched telephone network".)
The IRC server's reply of a "numeric Internet Protocol address" to the calling device (i.e. calling party's PC running Internet Phone) involved a conditional analysis in order to match the request to the appropriate destination FWD server. In other words, the IRC server operated in FWD's architecture in the manner described in the '711 name translation patent two years before Verizon's application.
I could have applied for a patent on the name translation function in October 1995, but I viewed the not inconsequential cost of the FWD project as a contribution to the public domain. I even published a book "The Internet Telephone Toolkit" with a detailed description of FWD written in January 1996, two months before Eric Voit filed the patent application for Verizon. Nothing in the description section of Verizon's patent would surprise members of the IPhone email discussion list I managed, yet the prior art disclosure does not reference FWD or the IPhone mailing list.
In November 1996, I gave a presentation to the VoIP Forum in Dallas. The meeting included participation from Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Nokia, Motorola, and Vocaltec for the purpose of making ITU H.323 the basis for a VoIP open standard. How do these companies feel about the Verizon's assertion it owns the idea of name translation? How did Verizon accomplish this when the notion of name translation in H.323 traces back to the original ITU working group in 1993?
It seems something must have gone wrong somewhere for an asset of the public domain to end up in a patent. Please let me know if you have ideas or want to volunteer in an effort to restore VoIP name translation to the public domain.
-----
Patent - 6,104,711 - Enhanced internet domain name server
See number search at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
District Court found Vonage infringed on Claim 20 of the patent '711.
15. A method comprising:
receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet data network;
executing a conditional analysis in response to the name translation request;
if the conditional analysis produces a first result, translating a name included in the name translation request into a first destination address;
if the conditional analysis produces a second result, translating the name included in the name translation request into a second destination address; and transmitting a response message containing the first or the second destination address to a calling device for use in establishing communication at least partially through the public packet data network.
20. A method as in claim 15; wherein:
the first and second destination address includes a numeric Internet Protocol address; and the second destination address further includes information relating to call routing via a public switched telephone network.
-----
Tags: Vonage, Free World Dialup, Verizon, VoIP, Jeff Pulver
Posted by jeff on April 23, 2007 12:12 AM | Permalink
Additional resources: #140conf events | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
Please Mr. Pulver, in all seriousness, my family can no longer afford to pay $68 a month for our phone. Vonage offers a better price for better services because of the technology you and others developed. I would believe that Vonage and others built their businesses on the facts that this type of technology was in the hands of public domain. As an example of Verizon's mock at VoiP, what they offer is at an inflated price, you have to furnish the hardware, etc., yet they are the supposed keeper of the keys, whereas all other Voips furnish the routers, are cheaper by at least 25% and make it much easier for families and individuals to make the switch.
It is an undue assumption that voip is a luxury, but households such as mine have a need for dsl and have to pay for this service, why then should I have to pay for a technology that you and others intended to be at least affordably available with the assistance of voip providers? My understanding is what I have to pay for Voip service has to do with voice-over maintainance and phone number portability. There is no way I would concieve of there NOT being a price hike in Verizon's service cost for their Voip services if they are successful in their claims...who would they be competing with except the usual in-house competition as work-around stategy of anti-trust laws. But this exactly why local/long distance phone cost so much! I wish freedom of speech was applicable here, although the incentive for profit has made great advances in technology and is appreciated, however your group was able to make an advancement at whatever cost, yet handed it out...please don't let them mock your efforts and your intentions too.
Posted by: Javier Guerra at June 9, 2007 03:22 PM
Well Jeff it seems that once again the US patent office is in error. It is amazing in the amount of clout given to companies who generate over 100 million a year. Technology has always been driven by individuals with the vision of sharing intellectual property with others in an attempt to help the masses. Companies like Verizon offer very little in creative development but have the best legal staff money can buy. I hope you will stand up for the masses. We are sick and tired of proprietary technology...
Posted by: Steve at May 31, 2007 06:01 PM
Jeff, It seems as if you may be in one of the best positions to help by serving as an expert witness for Vonage in the appeal against Verizon.
Posted by: Aaron Moore at April 30, 2007 06:15 PM
Well I can say this, its corporate greed!!!! I would sue Verizon for stealing YOUR idea
Posted by: Jim at April 28, 2007 08:34 AM
Jeff, What exactly do you describe in your book about internet telephony? Because it seems to me from a reading of your blog that the content of that book should be protected by copyright and you'd have every right to take version to court for theft of intellectual property from that book, sue them for every cent version's ever made and seek a further ruling that anything in the public domain protected by an open license remains the full property of the public domain forever.
I could understand feeling that such a case would be fun for you, or worth persuing just for the sake of the money, but for the sake of the greater good it would be great to see a precedent set in a US court to protect IP that's placed by the author(s)into the public domain. More power to you, whatever you decide. May justice prevail.
Posted by: nate at April 27, 2007 12:44 AM