InvestorsHub Logo

BeerIsGood

09/15/14 10:34 AM

#21186 RE: lbird33 #21183

I believe Microsoft went as far as to hire people from Digifonica that had worked on these patents.

Maybe that's why MS stopped pursuing. These engineers said it wasn't worth the paper it's written on anymore. It's 10 year old technology.

BeerIsGood

09/15/14 10:41 AM

#21187 RE: lbird33 #21183

Is/was MS after this patent as well? What does VPLM's LI have that makes it worth so much more compared to this one?

Lawful interception for VoIP calls in IP based networks

https://www.google.com/patents/EP1389862B1?cl=en&dq=lawful+interception+in+ip+networks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7vkWVMzNPMWiyASlgoKQDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg

nyt

09/15/14 6:38 PM

#21205 RE: lbird33 #21183

MS "throwing in towel" does not prove the validity. That's why I provided a logical alternative set of possible set of reasons for ms actions. The dots were more connected in that theory, than the vast chasm that needs to be jumped to conclude that MS failing to meet deadline to continue its quest, directly equates to proof of validity of vp LI being a hugely valuable & foundational voip patent.

That's a big shark jump. If you choose to see that fact as proof of this, it is only your opinion, not proof of anything. Why don't you attempt to answer the question of why MS initiated this quest in the 1st place, 2 yrs later, and after their world class patent attorney team ignored their fruitless prior art search? Isn't that a good question?