Patti -
I spend time in the OGC process dealing with potential patent issues in the
geospatial domain. A big pain in the you know what, especially given that in the
GIS world most patents are what would not be deemed as "original" - just way too
much prior art.
In the case of this patent, appears that it is being held by what we call a
patent "warehouse" a shell company that holds many patents and always fishing
for sources of revenue. These companies are the worst of the worst in terms of
their impacts on technology innovation and use..
Anyway, appears that Azos does not understand what CAP is all about. From
the patent, "When that particular caller places a call to the user, the user's
communication controller determines the caller's identification information and
recalls the priority and corresponding blocking time interval for that
particular caller. The call is accordingly passed to the communication device or
blocked." Hmmm. But there is one nasty little sentence in the Claims section,
"means for receiving and decoding an emergency condition from an incoming
communication source".
Ahh, but farther down we find:
The caller database is then searched to find a record having caller
identification information matching the caller identification information of the
incoming communication and the respective priority for that record is retrieved
to produce a retrieved priority. The blocking time database is searched to
determine blocking time information associated with the retrieved priority to
produce retrieved blocking time information. The call received time of the
incoming communication is compared with the retrieved blocking time information.
The method further includes the step of blocking the incoming communication if
the call received time occurs during a blockout time indicated by the retrieved
blocking time information and otherwise permitting the incoming communication to
be routed to the user of the communications device. The method further includes
the step to check if the call being blocked is an emergency call that will be
routed according to the consumer pre-selected options.
What this patent appears to be about is caller-id and incoming call
blocking. And of course there needs to be rules to insure that emergency calls
can be made (911) and received (reverse 911).
Now, I am no lawyer, but it sure seems to me that CAP has nothing to do
with a caller database, caller-id, caller blocking, and so forth.
I am not sure of the OASIS process for handling this type of IPR issue. In
the OGC, we make a call for prior art, build a prior art portfolio, and then
move on.
Not sure of this helps!
Carl