Hi Lee,

Lee Howard wrote:

Brian West wrote:

Just an FYI http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005080914234645



Although Groklaw seems to think that these suits are about faxing, I don't think that they really are. See:

 http://www.hylafax.org/archive/2005-08/msg00107.html

That message isn't really well thought out, and seems more wishful thinking than analysis. You are correct that what Asterisk does is not relevant to the patents, as it is too new. The rest of what you said doesn't make a lot of sense. Be assured, the people being sued are in the FAX business. This is very much about FAX. I used to do a lot of store and forward voice mail and FAX through e-mail and proprietary communications in the mid 90's. However these days there is really little need to do this with voice. Store and forward now is pretty much only about FAX.

DID type FAX and voice to a retrieval box, and FAX and voice to e-mail has been used heavily for a long time. Also FAX to e-mail to FAX, very much like T.37 is old. I did that in 1994, and I didn't think it was very novel at the time. One of those patents has its origin in 1988, but Brian West has found www.pan.com proudly claim they did FAX to e-mail and e-mail to FAX gatewaying in 1987. :-) With enough searching I think they patents can be shot down thoroughly. However, you can never count on that, even if the evidence is clear and overwhealming.

Regards,
Steve

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Reply via email to