The problem with tort "reform" is that all that's sure is that tort
rules will change. There's no reason to think they'll change for the
better. In fact, since (as you point out) the "reforms" will be written
by lawyers, tort reform will most likely serve lawyers. The rest is a
crapshoot, b
Bret,
I agree with you on every point.
I would say that is the Evolution's major stopper, because small
companies just afraid to develop anything,
knowing that someone big can have some broad patent.
All the Best!
Sergey.
Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
On 2/21/07, *Sergey Kuznetsov* <[E
On 2/21/07, Sergey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's easy!
Dan Ravicher of Public Patent Foundation (pubpat.org) does that.
In reality that only solves the minor half of the problem. The biggest thing
america needs in this particular arena is tort reform. If the loser has to
pay
That's easy!
Dan Ravicher of Public Patent Foundation (pubpat.org) does that.
Here is his last email ( you can see the success stories on his web-site ):
PUBPAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TESTIFIES BEFORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON PATENT REFO
Hi,
I'm selling my Digium TDM400p with 1*FXO and 3*FXS modules (also known as
the TDM31B configuration). Current new price is 314,16 Euro (incl. VAT), I'm
willing to part from it for a bit less. If you're interested, please e-mail
me.
I'm located in the Netherlands and will be attending the FOSD
Anyone interested in my Aastra 9133i SIP phone?
$135US +shipping from Canada.
Like new with all original packaging. I only used it for testing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:25 A
Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
Brian,
Do you have the referenced patent numbers? The USA Today article did not
mention the, and a VYER cursory search did not reveal any more information.
Sincerely,
Trevor Hammonds
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fn
etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Verizon&FIELD1=&co1=AND&
TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
This is where I read up on some of what I thought could be the patents
they
were talking about in the article.
--
..
Steve Totaro wrote:
Lacy Moore - Aspendora wrote:
Did anyone really think this was going to last?
The US patent system is so screwed up that they will issue patents for
anything. Common sense and logic are not in their vocabulary.
There is one and only one way the big corporations can fight o
Brian,
Do you have the referenced patent numbers? The USA Today article did not
mention the, and a VYER cursory search did not reveal any more information.
Sincerely,
Trevor Hammonds
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz-
> [
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Paul wrote:
The US needs some fresh legislation related to the patent system.
Perhaps some lower cost ways to challenge bogus patents long before you
get sued would help. Right now it looks like the only way to deal with
them is to wait until the threats and bullying get sta
A "gateway interface device"?!?! Isn't that like patenting a way to "heat
your home", or a way to "put on shoes by tieing laces"? I don't know what
this "Gateway interface device" specifically says, but couldn't that
technically make a modem illegal, or even a phone? Can anyone shed light on
th
Lacy Moore - Aspendora wrote:
Did anyone really think this was going to last?
The US patent system is so screwed up that they will issue patents for
anything. Common sense and logic are not in their vocabulary.
There is one and only one way the big corporations can fight open
source in the US,
Maybe they granted the patents for common sense and vocabulary to
amazon, verizon or j2/efax?
Lacy Moore - Aspendora wrote:
> Did anyone really think this was going to last?
>
> The US patent system is so screwed up that they will issue patents for
> anything. Common sense and logic are not in t
Did anyone really think this was going to last?
The US patent system is so screwed up that they will issue patents for
anything. Common sense and logic are not in their vocabulary.
There is one and only one way the big corporations can fight open
source in the US, and I'd say they're using it t
Yes I found what I need... and this need is http://www.unlimitel.ca
On 2/20/07, Mike Lynchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes our products are offline.. we are updating our inventory...
taking the same logic back at you ..
http://ilpdb.com/index.php?f=contact
Remove the contact link from
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Mike Lynchfield wrote:
yes our products are offline.. we are updating our inventory...
taking the same logic back at you ..
http://ilpdb.com/index.php?f=contact
Remove the contact link from your site if you dont have a contact method..
AHAHAH.. we even now ?
Thanks fo
A "gateway interface device"?!?! Isn't that like patenting a way to "heat
your home", or a way to "put on shoes by tieing laces"? I don't know what
this "Gateway interface device" specifically says, but couldn't that
technically make a modem illegal, or even a phone? Can anyone shed light on
t
Hello,
Looking to buy:
QTY 1 Cisco PA-MC-2T3 or PA-MC-2T3+
Please let me know if you have any.
Thank You,
David Vance
VoIPTeck Solutions LLC
2810 Sweet Home Road
Amherst, New York 14228
877-635-8647 ext 222
716-462-6783 ext 1001
Fax 716-250-2804
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM dav
The judge in the pretrial hearings disagrees with your finding that the
claims are too broad:
[from
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20070220/vonage.art.htm ]:
> In total, Verizon has 48 different "terms," or patent claims in
> dispute. In pretrial rulings, Verizon has succeeded
The US needs some fresh legislation related to the patent system.
Perhaps some lower cost ways to challenge bogus patents long before you
get sued would help. Right now it looks like the only way to deal with
them is to wait until the threats and bullying get started.
Brian Fertig wrote:
>I read
Mike Lynchfield wrote:
UPDATES is a way to FIX things on a earlier version and SHOULD BE FREE
one who make you pay for updates is a SCAM/THIEF
I share this sentiment only to a very limited extent. Nobody should be
expected to bear responsibility for an infinitely long liability tail.
A warr
Neat - looks like you've started defining some headings for a feature x
provider comparison matrix. I like where this thread is going.
Derrick Moennick wrote:
Craig,
Like support? Continual upgrades to the software package, the ability to
upgrade to the next package for the difference in price
I read up on Verizon's claims against Vonage and found their patents are
in
no way shape or form precise enough to hold any weight. They are so broad
that
Asterisk could never work around the patens of Verizon but just remove
them
instead.
--
::.
Brian Fertig
Sr. Data &
Verizon is suing Vonage for violating 48 patent claims, to shut Vonage
down:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20070220/vonage.art.htm . If
Verizon is granted a monopoly on operating under those patents, what
other VoIP services will have to shut down? Is Asterisk either immune,
or
The CLEC is a CLEC in Central Pennsylvania called CTSi. They have had no
issues setting the Point Code, there are just some questions on the LOA.
Nicky.. remember just because you set a name on Asterisk it won't go out
the CLECs trunks, you have to contract with a provider to provide the CN
Hey Matt,
You have done something that I have been trying to do for many months. My
CLEC will not allow us to pass Caller-ID-Name. Will you share with us the
CLEC are you using?
Nicky Smith
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, February
Bump. Nothing heard.
On 2/19/07, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings folks,
I'm currently dealing with a company to let me set Caller-ID-Name on
outbound calls. So far pretty happy with their services. The basic service
works like this:
* CLEC sets Point Code to point to this company
28 matches
Mail list logo
