From: eli@spdcc.com (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.fax
Subject: more about faxback patent
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:28:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Nov15.202836.7026
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

! From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
! And your opinion is definitely wanted. After all your name is on the patent
! (Invoice and Payment Check, Steve Elias (Programmer), "Exhibit D".)
! You were there. You presumably have some idea of what Brooktrout was
! doing.

thank you!  
yes, i was involved in the project since its inception, years before
it was patented, as well as with doing the prototype...  about 90% of
the code in the prototype was code i wrote.  i am biased and i 
own Brooktrout stock and i'm friends with many people there.  

i now have brooktrout's press release from last month but will not
post it until someone posts the FRIA one first, or unless i get a copy
of it so i can post both of em.

to clear up possible misconception, i am NOT the Steve Elias
who writes books on intellectual property for Nolo Press,
though i'd like to read his book sometime!

! !first, the below uses one phone line.  the patented system
! !uses two, one for voice, one for fax only.
! 
! This is not clear. 

dude, i think the patent makes this very clear.
two phone lines.  it's shown on every diagram in there.
our prototype had two lines.

! Especially in the summary. Where it specifically
! says that the user and recipient can be the same.

this statement has nothing to do with the # of phone lines though.

! The claims section
! does specify a separate call for the commands and the delivery.
! But it does not address how the messages are input into the database.

it does say that the faxes are *already in the database* before
the user calls, and that the user can select from multiple faxes.

! The Globefax implementation does use two phone lines. One for voice/fax

ok, but it doesn't allow user to select from multiple prestored faxes!
aaaagh!  ;)

! to input commands and messages. The second for fax to perform
! the delivery. This is a superset of the Brooktrout patent model.
! Not a different model.

i think it's different, neither a subset nor superset.

! !second, the patent does not cover all fax store and forward.
! !it covers dtmf-directed retrieval of a *prestored* fax.
! !how the fax got there is actually not relevant, but it
! !has to be on the "system" before the user dials in.
! 
! The claims section says that the patent covers causing a selected 
! message to be sent. And that the message is stored. In the Globefax 
! implementation this is done. The fax is stored and forwarded in 
! accordance to DTMF encoded commands.

if you wanna talk generally, sure the globefax or whateverfax alleged
prior art sounds very similar!  however, patents are really specific
thangs and "loose" or "general" interprations aren't valid. (my opinion)

! !fairly close, i do admit.  i don't know what a court would say,
! !though in my opinion if FRIA's alleged prior alleged art is 
! !no stronger than the below, i bet the patent will stand.
! 
! What you are saying is that the Brooktrout patent covers:
! 
! 	1) user selecting destination via DTMF
! 	2) user selecting pre-stored document via DTMF
! 	3) system forwards stored document to recipient via another 
! 	   phone line
! 
! prior art demonstrates:
! 
! 	1) user selecting destination via DTMF
! 	2) user uploading document which is stored
! 	3) system forwards stored document to recipient via another
! 	   phone line

yes!

my bet is that the Globefax thang is different enough that nobody
wants to waste legal time fighting the patent if all they have is
Globefax-ish.  if FRIA is using Globefax in their legal fight,
i really am not worried about patent court!  bring em on!
who knows, i could be in for a surprise.  naaaaaaaaah.

! Part's 1 and 3 are the same. Number 2 is different. But the end result in
! both cases is the system has an indentifiable message stored in it's 
! internal database that it knows it has to forward.

sure, like you point out, some is the same, some is different.

! You say the difference is new and wonderful and different and is all that 
! the patent covers. 

yes indeed!  i think it was new enough and wonderful enough that we
patented it.  where we were coming from was the idea of complete voice
mail and computerfax integration, an idea that is just recently
getting some attention from the marketplace.

nobody was interested in any of these fax products/ideas back in the
mid-80s.  fax was a tiny niche and computerfax products would not sell
for beans.  Brooktrout started making fax boards anyway, a gamble.
shortly after i left Brooktrout in 87, they decided to patent the
faxback idea since the market wasn't interested in it yet.  i did some
glue code to them do this, they gave me a check, that's the Exhibit D
on the patent.

! I say that it is not new and wonderful or all that different and is not all
! the patent say's it covers.

well, it seems to me that you are giving a broad reading to the patent
and as far as i know, patents should be read "narrowly".
my legal basis here is minimal and amateur, i admit.

! !the above 3 lines is the abstract of the patent, but if you read
! !the rest of the patent you will see that it does not cover 
! !all types of dtmf/fax/voice products, only the dtmf-driven faxback of 
! !previously stored documents.  
! 
! It does cover that. I think it covers more. I don't see any mention in 
! the patent about how or when the documents are entered into the database.

i do -- they are in the database before the user dials in.
before is a way to specify "when".  how is not specified, i agree.

! Only that they are stored and then delivered. In fact claim 1 specifically
! just says "storing, at the first location, messages including the selected
! messages". The Globefax system stores the fax's to be delivered until
! they are delivered. So it would be covered by this claim.

i disagree.

each reader can make up his/her own mind on this.
if you believe it strongly enough, talk to the FRIA people
and ask if they would add this Globefax stuff to their case!

! There is no
! mention in the claims section of databases. Just this nebulous concept
! of messages be stored. That covers a lot of ground. There is no mention
! in the claims section of how the messages are put into the database.

agree!

! Another of their claims (2) covers sending the same prestored message
! to multiple remote recipients. I didn't type in that part of the Globfax
! document. But they also support that feature. Instead of specifying a phone
! number a "minicode" or "group address list number" can be used to specify
! the recipients. Again a direct example of prior art that demonstrates
! exactly what is claimed.

to me, some of it is the clearly the same and some is clearly different.

! Of course it may be that Brooktrout is attempting to limit their 
! interpretation of the patent. Hoping that at least that a smaller
! portion of it will be defensible. I think it was drafted to broadly. 

to my knowledge (a good amount), neither myself nor brooktrout nor
the patent office nor the patent court has changed their
interpretation of the patent, ever.  i believe the intent was to be
as specific as possible from the start!  that's what patents are about!

/eli

ps -- i will gladly honor posted or emailed requests to "take it to
email" if they exceed requests to keep posting on this subject.





-- 
/* eli@spdcc.com */