Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (20482)	3/28/2007 10:43:37 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Timing does mean something, especially when a wave is at its crest and "natural outgrowths" fall from the sky that may be perceived and acted upon by multiple originators. In the case of Vonage v Verizon, for example, despite my not knowing the specifics, I could easily see how some dotted lines on a patent could be almost identical in scheme to other implementations that were conceived at roughly the same time, when the drivers were apparent to all, and the trajectory along with the recent trend in technology history was clear for all to see. As a case in point, I once developed an algorithm for a VoIP startup that was designed to alleviate congestion, or offload traffic to alternative provisions, during peak hours or when quality conditions, as a function of latency and jitter, became severe. Little did I know that someone else (Tom Evslin, when he headed up ITXC) was at the same time c. 1998 concocting an almost identical scheme, which I'm fairly certain he had patented, whereas I did not. No major consequence ever ensued, because my outfit never left the launch pad. Otherwise, who knows... I suppose I could have filed, too, but I merely designed the application around off-the-shelf components and systems, although the software could have been construed as unique. But, had the startup found its wings, I could very easily see how that situation could have led to a major pissing contest, despite neither of us ever learning of the other's design until years later.

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (20482)	3/28/2007 12:05:58 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 46821

Yep, and the unfortunate truth is that patents often serve to protect the ineptness of the patent holder, at developing new markets around their invention. Developing a new market takes as much creative thinking and innovative hard work (arguably more), as the creation of some collection of "property rights" that new market might be based on. Viewing it that way (and I know not everyone does), it seems equally unfair that a patent holder automatically gets the fruits of the market development efforts of another party (or even multiple parties), just by squatting on a technology or property right until the undeveloped swampland turns into Disneyworld.