Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Patent Lawsuit Targets Google Talk

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

December 30, 2005, 2:05 PM

A company that holds patents on the way voice over IP (VoIP) calls are placed said on Friday that it was suing Google over its use of certain technologies within the Google Talk instant message application.

New York-based Rates Technology Inc. has no products. However, it is one of several patent companies now in existence whose entire business is based on collecting royalties from firms that use technologies covered by patents they own.

The company estimates that damages resulting from the case could reach $5 billion based on estimates of a four-year-long fight to win concessions from Google.

RTI president Jerry Weinberger claims that the company does not normally sue other businesses in order to get them to pay up for their patents. Instead, it usually asks for a one-time $5 million fee to cover licensing.

But in the case of Google, "every once in a while we run into utter arrogance," Weinberger says.

The claim of not suing companies to force payment is not completely true, however; the company has a past of only going after larger corporations using its patents.

Mitel Networks is involved in a $945 million suit with RTI, and Alcatel has been sued for $1.155 billion. Hello Direct, GN Netcom and GN have also been sued, but they settled with RTI privately. Also being sued are Cablevision and Vonage, however details of those suits were not available.

Altogether, 25 companies have been sued over the past 15 years, although RTI has successfully negotiated deals with over 700 others. In all, the company has netted billions through licensing alone, and billions more through litigation.

Some of these companies include Yahoo, Microsoft and Verizon, and negotiations are underway with AOL and eBay over its Skype offering.

Mark Evans, a Canadian blogger and writer for the Canadian National Post, took RTI to task earlier this week in his Web log.

"The key issue is whether these broad patents will deter innovation if patent 'trolls' can easily solicit licensing fees out of companies developing new technology," he said, calling for a review into the broad patents that the USPTO awards inventors.

Add a Comment (62 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By rjriley5000

edited Jan 1, 2006 - 10:17 AM

PIAUSA.org has a great deal of inside information on issues involving independent inventors and the small to medium sized businesses which they are linked to.

eBay, Google and RIM (Blackberry) are in my opinion examples of "patent pirates". They are young successful companies with lots of money who are rather full of themselves. Both have acquired a reputation for refusing to negotiate to acquire other's patent property.

Microsoft is in my opinion another "patent pirate" who had a scorched earth litigation policy but the Eolas case was an eye opener for them. While they still project the image of a no holds fighter the reality is once a case is up for trial they scramble to settle.

PIAUSA.org is a decade old organization which represents the interests of inventors and innovation driven small and medium sized business. We have a different perspective which will add balance to coverage of patent litigation, public policy, and legislative issues. Journalists covering such issues benefit from our unique insight. We have the ability to bring journalists in contact with high end inventor-entrepreneurs and top intellectual property experts.

Examples of areas of our expertise include Blackberry, eBay, Google and other patent litigation and patent reform.

Call or write for on record comments.

http://www.piausa.org/general_info/about_us/

Ronald J Riley, President
Professional Inventors Alliance
www.PIAUSA.org RJR"at"PIAUSA.org Change "at" to @"
RJR Direct # (202) 318-1595

Score: 0

By tonynot

edited Jan 1, 2006 - 1:24 PM

C2 Global Technologies Inc. (C2 or the Company) was incorporated in the State of Florida in 1983 under the name MedCross, Inc. which was changed to I-Link Incorporated in 1997 and to Acceris Communications Inc. in 2003. Subsequent to the receipt of shareholder approval of the proposed name change at the 2005 Annual Shareholder Meeting held on August 5, 2005, the Company amended its Articles of Incorporation to effect the name change from Acceris Communications Inc. to C2 Global Technologies Inc. The new name reflects a change in the strategic direction of the Company in light of the disposition of its Telecommunications business, as discussed below.

C2 owns certain voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) patents which it seeks to license, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,243,373 and 6,438,124 (together the VoIP Patent Portfolio). Following the sale of the Telecommunications assets, described below, licensing of intellectual property constitutes the primary business of the Company.

The Company achieved two major milestones in the quarter ended September 30, 2005 that are expected to contribute to the long term success of C2:

· Completed the disposition of the Telecommunications business, recording a net gain on sale of $6,387 and the accompanying extinguishment of $23,462 of third party obligations. The completion of this transaction resulted in the extension of related party debt through to December 31, 2006, and the securing of funding to pursue our business strategy through the same date, via a Keep Well agreement with our controlling shareholder, Counsel Corporation (Counsel).

· Was awarded patents in VoIP technology from the Peoples Republic of China and in Canada, corresponding to U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company History
In 1994, we began operating as an Internet service provider and quickly identified that the emerging Internet Protocol (IP) environment was a promising basis for enhanced service delivery. We soon turned to designing and building an IP telecommunications platform consisting of proprietary software, hardware and leased telecommunications lines. The goal was to create a platform with the quality and reliability necessary for voice transmission.

In 1997, we started offering enhanced services over a mixed IP-and-circuit-switched network platform. These services offered a blend of traditional and enhanced communication services and combined the inherent cost advantages of an IP-based network with the reliability of the existing Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).

In August 1997, we acquired MiBridge, Inc. (MiBridge), a communications technology company engaged in the design, development, integration and marketing of a range of software telecommunications products that support multimedia communications over the PSTN, local area networks (LANs) and IP networks. The acquisition of MiBridge permitted us to accelerate the development and deployment of IP technology across our network platform.

In 1998, we first deployed our real-time IP communications network platform. With this new platform, all core operating functions such as switching, routing and media control became software-driven. This new platform represented the first nationwide, commercially viable VoIP platform of its kind. Following the launch of our software-defined VoIP platform in 1998, we continued to refine and enhance the platform to make it even more efficient and capable for our partners and customers.

In 2002, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent (No. 6,438,124, the C2 Patent) for the Companys Voice Internet Transmission System. Filed in 1996, the C2 Patent reflects foundational thinking, application, and practice in the VoIP Services market. The C2 Patent encompasses the technology that allows two parties to converse phone-to-phone, regardless of the distance, by transmitting voice/sound via the Internet. No special telephone or computer is required at either end of the call. The apparatus that makes this technically possible is a system of Internet access nodes, or Voice Engines (VoIP Gateways). These local Internet Voice Engines provide digitized, compressed, and encrypted duplex or simplex Internet voice/sound. The end result is a high-quality calling experience whereby the Internet serves only as the transport medium and as such, can lead to reduced toll charges. In conjunction with the issuance of our core C2 Patent, we disposed of our domestic U.S. VoIP network in a transaction with Buyers United, Inc. (BUI), which closed on May 1, 2003. The sale included the physical assets required to operate our nationwide network using our patented VoIP technology (constituting the core business of the I-Link Communications Inc. (ILC) business) and included a fully paid non-exclusive perpetual license to our proprietary software-based network convergence solution for voice and data. The sale of the ILC business removed essentially all operations that did not pertain to our proprietary software-based convergence solution for voice and data. As part of the sale, we retained all of our intellectual and property rights and patents.

In 2003, we added to our VoIP Patent Portfolio when we acquired U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373 (the VoIP Patent), which included a corresponding foreign patent and related international patent applications. The VoIP Patent, together with the existing C2 Patent and its related international patent applications, form our international VoIP Patent Portfolio that covers the basic process and technology that enables VoIP communication as it is used in the market today. Telecommunications companies that enable their customers to originate a phone call on a traditional handset, transmit any part of that call via IP, and then terminate the call over the traditional telephone network, are utilizing C2s patented technology.

The comprehensive nature of the VoIP Patent, which is titled Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System, is summarized in the patents abstract, which describes the technology as follows: A method and apparatus are provided for communicating audio information over a computer network. A standard telephone connected to the PSTN may be used to communicate with any other PSTN-connected telephone, where a computer network, such as the Internet, is the transmission facility instead of conventional telephone transmission facilities. In conjunction with the acquisition of the VoIP Patent, we agreed to give the vendor 35% of the net earnings from our VoIP Patent Portfolio.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 12:43 PM

The way of voice over ip is.
1.Digitalize your voice from analogue input.
2.Convert into TCP/IP packets.
3.Tx and Rx (Perhaps Encrypt and Decrypt).
4.Analogurize Digital data to your speaker.
Duh!!

Score: 0

By yizuman

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:47 AM

Stop the Software Patents!

http://noepatents.eu.org...php/NO_Software_Patents

http://www.eweek.com/art...2/0,1895,1880085,00.asp

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 8:47 AM

This has a very simple explanation: very,very deep pockets.

Score: 0

By WINT0005

edited Dec 30, 2005 - 9:46 PM

I want to contact with my close friend.

Score: 0

By barcrest

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 11:45 AM

The teleporter can teleport a couple of atoms last time i read anything about it..

Score: 0

By LRN

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 11:44 AM

"New York-based Rates Technology Inc. has no products". It's too late to do something. Everyone got to wait until International Patent Organization (can't remember name) takes patents from RTI for "not using".

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Dec 31, 2005 - 11:06 AM

I think patent trolls is an appropriate term for any patent not accompanied by a marketed product. I know some people want to say prototype product, but I don't think that's any better than no product since anyone can easily develop one working model and then leave it sit on a shelf to collect dust. A real test of a patent is if they market it to a venture capitalist who will help fund it, or else to actual customers.

Your ideas may be great, but they may also be obvious, and it serves no honest benefit to anyone to reward obvious solutions.

Score: 0

By Jwec

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 7:39 AM

Actually the teleporter has already been invented although it can only telport a laser beam across a room.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:28 PM

No, I thought they were able to transfer some other things to, like atoms....

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 6:53 AM

how to reform the patent laws?!

well a time limit could be introduced...

but then there are a lot of patents for ideas that cannot be brought to product because the technology doesnt exist yet

there is bound to be a patent on the teleport machine concept

what normally happens is much like this Google case - the owner of the patent licences it to someone that HAS a product that CAN use the idea

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 6:47 AM

to those that say the company should have a actual product - that is not the idea behind a patent - a patent is to give the person with the idea breathing space while they develope the idea and bring it to market, it is to stop others from stealing the idea and incoperating it in their own product

also like copyright the idea itself is protected

I dont have any problems with a company assigning a seperate company to 'police' it's patents - this seems no different to getting a solicitor or lawyer, one that is qualified in patent law

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Dec 31, 2005 - 10:57 AM

I admit your argument is compelling, but it has created the problem we see today... the so-called creator has an obvious idea that is not accompanied by tangible evidence of the idea. They use that as leverage to take money from people who are successful, rather than find ways to be successful on their own. If your idea has merit, you should demonstrate proof.

This whole mentality of "I'm going to sue you for my incompetence and ineptitude." has got to go! I liken these complaints to the McDonald's Coffee suit, and the RealPlayer vs. Microsoft complaint. In a nutshell, "we don't have anything going for us, but you do, so we're going to take some of your success."

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:07 AM

i'm a little tired of the McDonalds coffee suit concept, do research before making such a claim. She was scalded because it really was ten degrees approx more thanit should be, by doing so it's less caffenated and might make people buy more and it saved mcdonalds some odd million dollars on economy of scale so one suit didn't phase them. mcdonalds shoulda have gotten hit with a class action suit.

as for the main topic, a very difficult thing whether or not to protect an idea or to sit on it. they better address this when they handle the patent reforming.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 5:25 AM

Life-less companies...
They got no products! Why patent?

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 1:28 PM

So they can sue Google?

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:28 PM

For Money ofcorse!!

Score: 0

By TheBeastH6

posted Jan 3, 2006 - 11:56 AM

Fo cash.

Score: 0

By fusionspill

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 8:03 PM

everyone is just pissed google is doing better then anyone in a short amount of time

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 7:26 PM

This is total bulls***. If you didn't make it, you don't own it. Period.

I hope google wins. (and it's not often I'll back a large company like Google)

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:28 PM

This time im not backing Google. Im going for the other company.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jan 3, 2006 - 9:39 AM

Yeah, root for the company that thrives off of litigation and the USA's outdated patent system, not the company actually furthering the use of and advancement of the technology.

Brilliant.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 6:23 PM

This is asinine.

What about Skype, Yahoo IM, and AOL IM?

They're only going after Google because they have the most money.

Just like the suits against MS, there's no way in hell this should be allowed.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:29 PM

It can be so funny when people cant read.

Score: 0

By BklynKid

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 12:27 PM

Did you even read the article?

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 11:48 PM

i agree completely, this is complete and total bullsh*t.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 8:40 PM

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 7:23 PM

Or MSN... I believe (but can't confirm) that WLM contains something like this...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 7:38 PM

I almost said that, but I wasn't sure, so I left it out.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 6:16 PM

I find it strange how there are companies like these. Would it be possible that they are doing this on behalf of other companies? But then again, in the cost-reducing corporate world, integration would eliminate the need for such company.

But frankly, there should be something saying that the owner of a patent must have a tangible, sellable product using that patent in order for it to be valid (e.g. NTP has to manufacture the Blackberry in order for the patent to be valid). That ought to stop patent trolls like these.

Score: 0

By fourte3n

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 4:39 PM

this should be illegal, full stop. if you are not the inventor or you dont own the product. you dont own the patent.

Score: 0

By pumazig

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 5:45 PM

i agre, why are you able to patent something if you dont make the product yourself?
so if i was like this company i could find a cure for cancer, patent it, never produce any of it myself, and never let any pharmecutical company produce it, but sue anyone who did.
stuff like this is flat out bs.

Score: 0

By sd.green

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 4:24 PM

RTI and NTP Inc are just plain parasites, producing nothing in support of society. Clearly the Patent Laws and Copyright Laws need a complete overall to stop these twits.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 4:32 PM

While this is painfully apparent to all here, it is unfortunately, moot when the news shows get more viewers showing the latest Iraq footage, and the latest shopping tips.

Sheeple couldn't care less unless it shows up on the 6 or 10 o'clock news.

Score: 0

By TomA102210

posted Jan 3, 2006 - 11:28 AM

"Sheeple couldn't care less unless it shows up on the 6 or 10 o'clock news."
---------------------------------------------
I see you're trolling again with the much overused word, "Sheeple" again, tool. Is everyone a sheeple except you?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 5:41 PM

Yeah, if only there was a betanews channel...NOT :)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 7:09 PM

With a comment ticker at the bottom of the screen?

heh

Score: 0

By TheBeastH6

posted Jan 3, 2006 - 11:58 AM

YES!

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:30 PM

Yah thad be perfect lol.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 10:31 AM

lmao

Score: 0

By itanshi

edited Jan 1, 2006 - 9:10 AM

yeah that'd be great, no joke, that said it'd show the Sony rootkit story since NO ONE else on tv is, sigh

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jan 2, 2006 - 11:19 AM

Try calling your local TV station and ask them to report on it. They may not even know about it.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 3:25 PM

You know, what goes around comes around. I'm not worried about it. Life has a crazy way of balancing itself out in the long run. Most times you never even hear about it but it does happen. These guys will probably get cancer or something like 10 years down the line or they'll f*ck with someone they really had no idea about and get their children kidnapped and murdered; or be murdered themselves, despite the huge amount of $$ they've got.

It's all gravy cause I know this company will get it's just "reward". Who knows, we may get lucky and see justice served in the form of a high-powered explosive at their main headquarters. Let's just hope it gets "you know who" and not just the equally-lazy-a*sed employees work there.

One way or another, things will break even at the very least.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 4:29 PM

Ah, you speak of Karma. The Yin-Yang of the universe.

Unfortunately, while I do believe in Karma to some degree, it is mainly due to the fact that I believe it comes from society and not some ethereal being or force. People get what they deserve only because others make sure that they do, not because the "universe" loves / hates them.

Score: 0

By TomA102210

posted Jan 3, 2006 - 11:41 AM

"Unfortunately, while I do believe in Karma to some degree, it is mainly due to the fact that I believe it comes from society and not some ethereal being or force. People get what they deserve only because others make sure that they do, not because the "universe" loves / hates them."
-----------------------------------------------
I do believe you are starting to come around, tool. Karma is strictly man made; nothing more, nothing less. Actually, the universe is indifferent and people get what they deserve not only because others see to it that they do but also because the people themselves see to it that they do.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 5:57 PM

I somewhat feel along the same lines as you, though not entirely.

I don't believe we've really discovered all there is out there. I know there's psychics in this world, and there is little explanation for how they can do what they do.

About the only explanation I have for that is that everything is somehow connected. I mean, sure, there's gravity...but there has to be something more to enable such things to exist. Perhaps it's something dimension related? Who knows?

Point being...I believe people get what they deserve because others make them, but I also believe their own actions will somehow be communicated to those around them and affect(to a very minor degree) how you interact with them.

Score: 0

By Ainvar

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 3:05 PM

quick somebody patent breathing so everybody in the workd can be sued.

Something needs to be done about this, our creative thinking is being smashed to nothing by nasty lazy people who would rather be a parasite on society's back then a productive part of it.

I agree they are no better than spyware companies and no better than people who abuse the system.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Dec 30, 2005 - 3:31 PM

"no better than people who abuse the system."

They *are* people who abuse the system. That is *exactly* what they are doing. Their lawyers, they've read our patent-law, probably laughed their assess off for a while, and proceeded to get rich off of it.

It's the American Way, man.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:31 PM

Google is the same way.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jan 3, 2006 - 9:36 AM

wtf?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 30, 2005 - 2:19 PM

"New York-based Rates Technology Inc. has no products. However, it is one of several patent companies now in existence whose entire business is based on collecting royalties from firms that use technologies covered by patents they own."

Basically they make money off of screwing people. They're no better than the spyware companies...

Patents are designed so people's ideas can be their own. This is to encourage innovative thinking. Now these bas****s have found a way to twist it...make innovative ideas so nobody can use them without getting sued. We are in dire need of patent reform.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Dec 30, 2005 - 2:15 PM

"Jerry Weinberger claims that the company does not normally sue other businesses in order to get them to pay up for their patents."

And he lies too...

He just lost against a suit they filed with nortel...most likely covering the same patents.

RTI is a patent holding company...this is how they make their money. Unfortunately for them, Google *probably* has a bit more than they do.

Score: 0

By pjlasl

posted Dec 30, 2005 - 2:13 PM

Sounds like an easy way to make money. Patent something and then just watch when someone uses what I patented, and sue them.

Score: 0

By VMSBIGOT

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 3:18 AM

But the whole point of patents is to protect your IP investment.

Supose you design "The Next Best Thing". It has cost you your life savings and a second mortgage on your home. Cashed out life insurance and your kids college fund to develop it. After doing all this work, one of your neighbors, who has money since he didn't invest it all in developing it originaly, builds it before you. So what happens? If you have a patent, you can at least sue and get royalities. If not, your SOL.

Patents/Copyrights are there to protect the small inventors from the large companies, but by doing so, it allows groups like this to exist.

Typicall d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't. I guess that they could change the law to have a limit against a large company on how many patents that they own, but is this any more fair? Take Intel, and the thousands of patents it owns on processor design and production. Is it fair to allow other to steal their hard earned work?

Patents are kinda like police. Everyone complains about them, but would you live in a city without them?

-VMSBigot

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 7:39 PM

You know something, you're right... if this was still 1776, and venture capitalists weren't a dime a dozen.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Dec 31, 2005 - 6:52 AM

awww, come on, we're talking about software patents, there.
Don't tell me you have to invest that much to create a stupid vague patent to cover something such as voice over IP without even _developing_ any software !
In Europe, software patents are not legal, and for a good reason. It's impossible to search for prior art, because patent examiners are fairly incompetent about IT, so they grant patents about just anything... such a system is not viable, there are hundreds of thousands of software patents about everything !
Anyways, patents for software are a bad idea, since software is already protected by copyright laws... which are about that, keeping people from copying software - actual lines of code.
Software patents are granted for unimplemented ideas, which is not only stupid, but also unfair, because the ones doing the actual costly work of implementing them are most likely the ones who'll have to pay the "inventors".
Finally, patenting ideas is like patenting algorithms, or mathematic formulas... Once it has been created and formulated, why couldn't it be used by everyone ? After all, it's only by copying and using ideas, improving those, that the state of art and technology can advance.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 1, 2006 - 9:33 PM

Yes but I find it stupid when someone shows you how to do something using a piece of code or making a program from a book and they copyright the code. Copywriting code is like copywriting the letters i am writing on here.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Jan 3, 2006 - 4:14 AM

It's called copyright, not copywrite, and its role is simply to protect intellectual creations from misappropriation.
If someone copies a piece of code from a book, the fact of copyrighting the code is only allowed if the copied code is free of rights, or if it's explicitly said so.
One can only protect by copyright code that (s)he actually writes.
Most open-source licenses require that if portions of code are included in a product, the original copyright notices must remain (eg. "this software contains portions of code (c) John Doe 2005" etc)

Score: 0

Jul 3 - 6:45 PM ET Netflix box by Roku to get more content providers

Jul 3 - 6:30 PM ET US Justice Dept. sued for info on cellular tracking practices

Jul 3 - 6:27 PM ET Next Patch Tuesday has few security updates, big Vista reliability fix

Jul 3 - 5:49 PM ET BlackBerry Pearl users can test voice input for Google Maps

Jul 3 - 5:30 PM ET Adobe pushes its Flash 10 beta 2 refresh

Jul 3 - 4:39 PM ET Nokia and InterDigital start to disassemble their running feud

Jul 3 - 4:34 PM ET Do-it-yourself phone manufacturer declares its independence tomorrow

Jul 3 - 4:16 PM ET Study: US broadband access up overall, but down among the poor

Jul 3 - 3:54 PM ET Beta test a portable Web browsing device

Jul 3 - 3:20 PM ET Nvidia: 'Previous generation' GPUs failing at high rates