The first patent (6,445,694) was granted on September 3, 2002 under the title “Internet controlled phone system”. The inventor is Robert Swartz of Highland Park, Illinois. I couldn’t find out what connection Swartz has with Web Telephony LLC except that they are both located in Highland Park, Illinois. The Field of the Invention is:

This invention relates to computer controlled telephone systems and more particularly to a telephone system which may be controlled using commands transmitted from a subscriber location over the Internet to a host computer which provides telephone services.

This is not an invention. It’s someone getting a patent on the idea of a telephone service that does everything landline telephone services do — primarily call forwarding and voicemail recording — but via the internet and according to user preferences as managed by the user over the internet. In other words, what if users could manage their telephone service preferences the same way that users manage their preferences on every other web-based commercial service that was already in existence? Put another way, it’s adding a user account interface with preference-setting functionality managed by the user to a network which, whether it was landline or VoIP service, had already been managed by computer networks for years. Sounds like prior bloody art to me. It’s as if you tried to get a patent on writing and publishing books exactly the same way you’ve done for centuries, except storing them electronically instead of paper only. It’s not an innovation, it’s “hey look at this thing, the boss calls it a computer…”

The patent mentions in many places that all of the hardware and software necessary was already readily available and in wide use. Indeed, under the section Description subsection Web Interface, you find this:

In one particularly useful form, the functions performed at the subscriber locaiton as contemplated by the present invention can advantageously be implemented by routines stored as dynamic link libraries which make telephone subscriber functions available through an open application program interface (API). By way of example, the widely used Microsoft Windows 95 operating system provides specifications for a robust coputer/telephone interface named “TAPI”…

Here are the numbered claims, with my comments in italics.

1. Selectively recording voice mail messages includes the step of recording voice mail messages from the originators of incoming calls from selected ones of a set of telephone numbers specified by preference data. No service lets you choose which numbers you accept voice mails from, the most a user can do is block anonymous callers. This is as true for landline as for VoIP services and is certainly true of those services listed in the lawsuit.

2. Transmitting a listing of said voice mail messages to a remote user…and thereafter transmitting to said remote user an audio file containing the voice mail message designated by that selection. Again, no service lets you pick and choose which numbers you receive voicemails from. As for transmitting an audio file of that voicemail to said user, the patent does not specify the means of transmission. If the means is via the telephone, again, no different from what landline services offer and had probably already been using computer networks to manage. If the intention here is transmission via email, a company called Active Call Center was offering that very option at least as early as April 2002, five months prior to this patent grant.

3. Employing voice recognition means for translating a selected one of said voice mail messages into a file of text data and for transmitting said file of text data to a destination in a manner specified by said selection. So why aren’t they suing Simulscribe or PhoneWire or SpinVox or Ring Central or…I could go on and on here. Because they don’t have the abyss-deep pockets of defendents AT&T or Verizon, or the perceived deep pockets of EarthLink, Vonage and SunRocket. I know why they didn’t name CallWave on this one — Web Telephony already sued them and came to a settlement almost exactly one year to the day prior to this filing: March 16, 2006. Full disclosure: I am a very happy CallWave user. Regular readers already know that I am an equally happy SunRocket customer.

4. Said file of text data is transmitted in an email essage to an email address specified in the preference data. Well, no shit, what other point is there to #3 above?

5. At least some incoming telephone calls are facsimile transmissions…converting said content into a MIME file attachment transmitted by email to an email address specified by said preference data. So why haven’t they sued eFax or Packetel or Faxaway…again, I could go on and on. CallWave also falls under this one. I know why they haven’t sued Packetel or SmartFax — Packetel has been in this business niche since 2001 and SmartFax has been available since no later than early 2002. Indeed, the SmartFax software is compatible with the Windows OS going back to Windows 98. In other words, both companies have been offering this service since before the patent was granted. Web Telephony’s lawyers had better be damned good at straining at gnats to argue that SmartFax doesn’t count because it’s enterprise software that does not operate over the internet; the individual end users at a company may not set user preferences but the IT department for that company sure as hell does. Saying “but not over the internet” just makes you look stupid, since said IT department probably does exactly that with current versions, during online software registration.

6. Establishing a voice mailbox storage system for storing messages…Second verse, same as the first. The telephone services have been managing this via computer for years, the only difference is this patent says the users can now do it via the internet. Like they do with every other service. It makes me wonder when online banking first showed up…

7. Employing character recognition to convert the fax contents into text data and transmitting said text data to a designated destination. I’ve no idea if any services do this, the companies I’ve listed above certainly don’t seem to. But why the hell would you want to? A document is faxed because it is handwritten or bears signatures or diagrams or some such. If a sending just needs to send text then they’ll…type text and send or attach a text doc to an email and send.

8. #7 above transmitted via email. And how the hell else, iPigeon?

9. Transmitting a paging message. Huh? Someone explain this to me, I didn’t know anybody used paging anymore.

10. Establishing a voice connecton via the internet for forwarding at least some incoming calls to a designated computer. Again, huh? What is this describing?

11. First attempting to forward incoming calls via the internet to a designated computer and if the internet connection is unavailable, then forwarding on to a designated telephone number. Oh. So….call forwarding. I say again: no shit.

12. Forwarding calls to designated destinations at designated chronological times. None of the services do this and I can’t imagine anybody wanting to. Yes, I could forward my cell phone to my VoIP phone whenever I’m at home, but I don’t because I still get dinged by the cell provider for the call, as well as an extra ding for the forward. And since VM notifications for my VoIP phone come to me via email anyway (and thanks to CallWave, missed cell calls even if no VM is left), there really doesn’t seem to be any point.

The patent also seems to cover the use of the internet to dial outgoing calls; this will take some research to find out if any service offered this function prior to September 2002. Come to think of it, I don’t even know what search terms to use…