> Can you provide any direct evidence of the "clear infringement" you stated is happening. If the infringement is clear to you, then you ought to be able to show it. How do you know for certain exactly what individual processes the accused companies are using?
We'll stick with my one example so far, routing cross-network communications.
1. Pick up your Apple phone.
2. Send a iMessage text to someone who is has iMessage turned on. See the blue?
3. Send a iMessage text to someone who is not an iMessage consumer. See the green?
This capability of transparently, passively routing between to two distinct networks is an example of infringing technology, as I understand it.
Generally, if a VOIP provider integrates their system with the PSTN, such that a user of their system can transparently connect and communicate with other parties through the PSTN, despite already being part of a private network (say Apple Messaging), then this system exhibits similar technology to that (which I interpret to be) in at least one of the patent claims.
I believe existing technology infringes, because I have (for my own purposes) read the patent(s) in detail and applied my best interpretation of it's technical characteristics to the reality that I know (using my Apple phone). It's that simple; and yes, to me it's that obvious (assuming I got the difficult patent parts right)
(To be crystal clear, this is my generalized example based on what I've read - but what I write doesn't matter . it's what is described in the patent, and how the language of that patent is legally interpreted, that matters - so I provide this only as an example to my thinking).
My statement about "simultaneously being true" is about the underlying technology. If the technology is useful enough such that it somehow arrives in 50 different infringers, then how can you argue it has no value?
I have no intention of "jacking" or "bending" your words.
I am very literal, though, so perhaps that explains any misinterpretations.
