Replies to post #23371 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[GreenBackClub]

That's why overbroad patent claims are in fact very weak.

You are absolutely correct in that there is an intolerance in the courts for patents that are over broad or claim ownership to technology that is customarily considered to be in the public domain.

In my opinion, for most of us non-experts (myself included) it is impossible for us to definitively conclude that VPLM's patents are "overbroad".

If you read the patents themselves, listen to the CC (both of them) and have a good understanding of the VoIP standards that have been employed since the mid 1990s then perhaps you might have a better grasp on just how overbroad or specific the patents really are.

This is a mystery that I think everyone would enjoy learning more about.

[GTCar]

But we are not talking about physical products with this company, we are talking about a process and even if a company was using the technology previously without a patent, it might have been a trade secret but it still does not make a claim for prior art.

Unfortunately, you are trying to compare apples to oranges, it doesn't work.

In addition, the term that is used in the event of a product being sold to the public would be "patent pending" if one chose to release it prior to any approval by a patent office, but again, that does not apply per se here. Even if Skype or Vonage was using this technology, broad scope or not relative to VOIP, if they held it close to their chest as a trade secret, that does not constitute prior art, and that is the ball game we are in here, period...AIMOFOYSFM!