Broad patent causes equipment stir

Simplified claims exclusive rights over message translation

A seemingly innocuous patent filing in 1999 is turning into a tempest that has the potential to pit softswitch vendors against each other and against Simplified, an Austin, Texas-based software firm.

With the vague title of “System and method for communications with and controlling disparate telecommunications devices in a telecommunications network,” the filing is intended more to cover a concept than a specific technology. But Simplified executives say the patent, which will be published by the end of this month, can be used to extract royalties or as an incentive to include Simplified's software into softswitch vendors' platforms.

“This patent has been allowed, and it's significant,” said Rich Phillips, chief communications officer for Simplified. “We don't want to kill the market or leverage revenue streams off something that is going to kill companies. Hopefully, this opens the door to more partnerships.”

Regardless of how Simplified uses the patent, it could serve as a good marketing tool, said Eric Presworsky, assistant vice president of product development for Zhone Technologies, which has developed its own management system that could also fall under the patent.

“What they're saying is, ‘We own the patent for network management. Come to the experts,’” he said. “It's a marketing pitch.”

Simplified believes it can be more substantial than that. The patent covers “the translation of messages generated by specific devices that are formatted based on a particular protocol scheme into ambiguous messages,” according to company documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

“This one impacts any company using multiprotocol devices,” said Phillips, who added Simplified likely will approach softswitch vendors such as ipVerse and Sonus as soon as the patent is published. “Our counsel suggests we begin immediately, but we are going to wait until it issues.”

One caveat Simplified in the patent is the requirement that the network include an interactive voice response (IVR) element. “It doesn't have to be a box. This can be an IVR component in the network architecture,” Phillips said.

ipVerse refused to comment on the patent until it is published or the company is approached by Simplified.

Others that could be affected by the patent claim such a broad patent would be impossible to enforce.

“JetStream did patent voice over DSL, and Lucent holds the patent for ATM,” Presworsky said. “There's going to be a point where it just won't matter.”

Although the patent is very general, Simplified could be on solid legal ground, according to John Conklin, an intellectual property attorney with Leydig, Voit and Mayer. Because the company filed its application in 1999, it can claim work done since then falls under the patent.

“You have to provide the patent office with evidence that your idea is realizable,” he said. “If [other companies] started using the patent after 1999, they're out of luck.”

Phillips said he anticipates vendors will have one of three reactions to Simplified's patent. Some will work with the company to use its software, others will pay royalties on their existing equipment, and others will fight it legally. The company would prefer a mutually agreeable solution, he said.

“The last thing we want to do is be a bully,” Phillips said. “We want to be a leader. To do that, you have to bring people together.”