nyt, I appreciate your detailed posts - but I think most of your words and arguing prowess are lost on the internet. :)
From what I can tell, our main fundamental disagreement is that you think infringers (everyone) had access to VPLM source code at some point in the past. I do not think this is true nor is it a requirement to be infringing on some of these patents.
I said "steal" because (presumably) there was no other way to obtain the original software implementation external to the patent holder (they would keep it secret if they could). Perhaps I should have used the word "use" instead of "steal" as the method of obtaining the patented software was unrelated to my point.
Using any software which implement sufficiently similar technology to existing patents would result in infringement, regardless of what software was used (the original, infringers, or something else). This depends on what is patented of course, but it is certainly possible.
For instance, for cases of combining and augmenting call data to include multiple network addresses and sufficient information to route between those networks (grossly generalized description on my part), then the original software which implemented the process is somewhat of a detail - it proves that it happened (which is important for the patentability and defense of said patent - as we've already seen in this case), but that code is not the only thing patented. If was to re-create that software, without seeing it originally, implementing the processes identically, then it could still infringe - even though what I wrote is a distinct new piece of software.
This is why there are so many infringers. They have all implemented a process that is sufficiently similar to VPLMs patented process, perhaps without ever seeing the original code. There is no escaping this, given the functional operations of those infringers, if the patent is deemed valid (in my opinion).
> That said though, such a complex thing as these codes and processes would, I would think, have to be held in a digital and/or written form, no?
In public? for public consumption? Hell no!
> That data set would have to be obtained somehow from the original source
> That would've had to have happened a long time ago, when it was available such as in the testing phases.
Not legitimately.
No offense, but I think your just wrong that somehow many other parties had an opportunity to obtain this source code; generally, I would bet VPLM source code has been private, forever.
> I could swear that "ideas" per se, were not patentable
People who say "ideas aren't patentable" mean that it takes effort to quantify and DO the patented thing. One can't just say "I have an idea. Your all screwed from doing it" without a lot of effort. In my opinion, that's what the phrase means.
