dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-08-16 18:37:14: A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently awarded ActiveVideo Networks $115 million, ruling that Verizon infringed on four patents owned by the company. ..

jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Wow...

Interesting. I have FiosTV and I'm wondering how this is going to effect me. I certainly don't want Comcrap again!

dsl2011
@comcast.net

dsl2011

Anon

Re: Wow...

It really is Comcastic though.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Re: Wow...

said by dsl2011 :

It really is Comcastic though.

Drive a Cadillac - the Rolls-Royce of Cars!

ggma1126
GGMA1126
Premium Member
join:2008-08-30
Claymont, DE

ggma1126 to jjeffeory

Premium Member

to jjeffeory
ok so almost every tv service provider uses this type of stuff why are they only going after Verizon - just my thought - or is everyone else already paying them

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY

Smith6612

MVM

Re: Wow...

Perhaps they're going after Verizon now since they've been weakened, so to speak by the strike.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: Wow...

said by Smith6612:

Perhaps they're going after Verizon now since they've been weakened, so to speak by the strike.

Uh no.

How exactly have they been "weakened"? The lawyers are not unionized AFAIK. The developers of the software probably aren't part of the CWA, and is probably outsourced to begin with. The lawsuit began May 2010, long before the strike was even thought of. Heck, the actual jury trial started before the strike began.

Worst case, Verizon turns off the infringing parts and pays the $115m with couch change. Possible case, Verizon licenses the patents in some form or another. Best case, ruling is overturned by the appeals court. Most likely case though is Verzion appeals (they already have) and things continue as they are for an indefinite period until one one of the first two things happens.

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
·Charter
Ubee EU2251
Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD

Smith6612

MVM

Re: Wow...

I'm not saying Weakened as if I were talking about the deep pockets becoming more shallow or the lack of workers on the job; I'm talking about "weakened" as in the Public Eye of the populations. People are already upset over the strike and the amount of disinformation being passed, and having this come up during such a time would make people who subscribe to FiOS TV that much more irked.

I did miss the detail as to how long the Lawsuit has been going on for, so that would be my bad. I know Verizon won't shutter their TV service since it is worth too much for them.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue to ggma1126

Premium Member

to ggma1126
said by ggma1126:

ok so almost every tv service provider uses this type of stuff why are they only going after Verizon - just my thought - or is everyone else already paying them

»paidcontent.org/article/ ··· nt-loss/

Read the link in the original article.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

Too much harm to customers to issue an injunction to shut TV svc down. A court will force Verizon to pay the judgement and may even award ActiveVideo more money until an agreement between Verizon & AciveVideo is reached going forward. But extremely unlikely they will shut off service to all those users.

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

danclan

Member

Re: No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

Will never happen due to the public emergency response system and public need for information in case of emergency.

So its posturing and will never happen....

tito79
join:2010-03-14
Port Saint Lucie, FL

tito79

Member

Re: No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

Just like broadcasters take away channels of course they can be shut down.

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

danclan

Member

Re: No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

said by tito79:

Just like broadcasters take away channels of course they can be shut down.

show me one instance where ALL local tv channels were removed and all cable broadcasts were ceased?

oh wait...cant...cause it has never happened...

Jeff
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium Member
join:2002-12-24
GMT -5

Jeff to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I agree. No way the service would be shut down. Verizon will pay some judgement, and a plan going forward. Customer bills increase slightly, and the TV continues.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
what harm?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

said by ArrayList:

what harm?

Premature termination of their contractual relationship with Verizon. They lose a service they are paying for and have contracted for.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: No court will issue a FIOS TV shutdown injunction

if Verizon is providing the service illegally then wouldn't that nullify the contracts?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Didn't stop them vs Dish Network. They issued the injunction but Dish Network knew they couldn't comply or they'd lose too many customers so they continued. This cost them more money in the end.

This patent nonsense is out of control.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Too much harm to customers to issue an injunction to shut TV svc down. A court will force Verizon to pay the judgement and may even award ActiveVideo more money until an agreement between Verizon & AciveVideo is reached going forward. But extremely unlikely they will shut off service to all those users.

In the end, it all ends up on your BILL!

Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium Member
join:2004-09-11
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

Edrick

Premium Member

Another Example

of a retarded patent system.

cchhat01
Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY

cchhat01

Member

Re: Another Example

said by Edrick:

of a retarded patent system.

Nuff said

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Just FiOS TV?

From what I've read [elsewhere], they want to get FiOS itself shutdown--not just FiOS TV. (Yeah, seems "weird" to me.)

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

danclan

Member

Re: Just FiOS TV?

said by mod_wastrel:

From what I've read [elsewhere], they want to get FiOS itself shutdown--not just FiOS TV. (Yeah, seems "weird" to me.)

Very doubtful since the only infringing parts are the cable TV parts and verizon could easily disable remote dvr and mobile remote services with the flip of a switch. So I would wager someone misread or thinks that FIOS is only cable tv.

The patents in question ONLY apply to TV services..

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Re: Just FiOS TV?

Well, what it makes me wonder is whether it was just another Reuters item written up incorrectly before being used by "everyone" or an example of the pure greed and selfishness of your typical patent troll ("Mine! ...all mine!"). The few news sites I happened to see all said more or less the same thing. Either way, I doubt it'll happen--shutting down FiOS or FiOS TV. (And since I'm on FiOS, I certainly wouldn't want it to happen; but stupider things have happened--this year alone.)

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Time for patent reform

Real patent reform should put the full burden of proof on the alleged inventor claiming infringement. They need to have a system where the inventor needs to produce a working model of their alleged invention to be granted a patent and should be first come first serve, thus meaning the first inventor to produce a working model gets the patent.

The current system allows infringement lawsuits that are just as frivolus as the Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald's Coffee case. In that case she intentonally spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and claimed that there was no warning saying it was served hot. Now as a result, McDonald's serves their food lukewarm.
45612019 (banned)
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

2 recommendations

45612019 (banned)

Member

Re: Time for patent reform

STOP. CITING. THAT. BULLSHIT. MCDONALD'S. CASE.

You hurt your own arguments when you cite what was a legitimate lawsuit that millions of dumbass Americans do not fully understand the details of. They just hear "Oh someone sued someone cuz their coffee was hot? Hurr durr what a dumb lawsuit!" without reading the full details of the court case.

The patent system in the United States is bullshit and I agree that it needs to be completely overhauled but you are hurting your own argument when you cite that McDonald's hot coffee case as an example of a "frivolous lawsuit." It wasn't.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Time for patent reform

said by 45612019:

You hurt your own arguments when you cite what was a legitimate lawsuit that millions of dumbass Americans do not fully understand the details of.

How is it BS? The stupid woman put a hot cup of coffee between her legs and it burned her. People who do stupid things with dangerous stuff often have bad things happen to them.
Desdinova
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD

Desdinova

Premium Member

Re: Time for patent reform

It's BS because McDonald's was serving coffee at an unsafe temperature (190 degrees) and had already logged over 700 instances of severe burns (by their own accounts as was served up as evidence during the case). The cup they served the coffee in wasn't rated for that temperature and literally was dissolving in the woman's lap. The woman almost died as a result of the burns and here are some pictures of what the coffee did to her:

»travis.pflanz.me/2011/ho ··· ee-2011/

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Time for patent reform

said by Desdinova:

It's BS because McDonald's was serving coffee at an unsafe temperature (190 degrees) and had already logged over 700 instances of severe burns (by their own accounts as was served up as evidence during the case). The cup they served the coffee in wasn't rated for that temperature and literally was dissolving in the woman's lap. The woman almost died as a result of the burns and here are some pictures of what the coffee did to her:

»travis.pflanz.me/2011/ho ··· ee-2011/

700 instances out of how many hundreds of millions of coffee purchases? That just reinforces the "user error" aspect of this to me. McDonalds was stupid to settle this case, IMO. But because of our deficient civil court system, it is easier and cheaper to settle than to defend against such a frivolous lawsuit.

iknow
@optonline.net

iknow

Anon

Re: Time for patent reform

said by pnh102:

said by Desdinova:

It's BS because McDonald's was serving coffee at an unsafe temperature (190 degrees) and had already logged over 700 instances of severe burns (by their own accounts as was served up as evidence during the case). The cup they served the coffee in wasn't rated for that temperature and literally was dissolving in the woman's lap. The woman almost died as a result of the burns and here are some pictures of what the coffee did to her:

»travis.pflanz.me/2011/ho ··· ee-2011/

700 instances out of how many hundreds of millions of coffee purchases? That just reinforces the "user error" aspect of this to me. McDonalds was stupid to settle this case, IMO. But because of our deficient civil court system, it is easier and cheaper to settle than to defend against such a frivolous lawsuit.

good god man, most people would hope you NEVER have children!. 700!! instances!!. suppose a child had to pass the coffee to an adult, and kids being kids, spilled it on themselves, whose fault is THAT?, "USER ERROR"??. also, you must not have old relatives that you see regularly, as they makes mistakes that a child would make too.. when you get older, you'll understand what you REALLY said, and REGRET it!!. not everyone is in an age range or state of mind where they can deal with coffee at a potentially lethal temperature!!. McDonalds KNEW they were selling a potentially lethal product, and just didn't care!!..

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Time for patent reform

said by iknow :

good god man, most people would hope you NEVER have children!. 700!! instances!!. suppose a child had to pass the coffee to an adult, and kids being kids, spilled it on themselves, whose fault is THAT?, "USER ERROR"??.

What kind of moron adult gives to a child something that is dangerous? And yes, that is USER ERROR.
said by iknow :

also, you must not have old relatives that you see regularly, as they makes mistakes that a child would make too.. when you get older, you'll understand what you REALLY said, and REGRET it!!.

So being old is supposed to make a dangerous activity no longer be dangerous?
said by iknow :

not everyone is in an age range or state of mind where they can deal with coffee at a potentially lethal temperature!!. McDonalds KNEW they were selling a potentially lethal product, and just didn't care!!..

Lethal product? Give me a break.
Desdinova
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD

Desdinova to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
700 that McDonald's was willing to own up to based upon folks who bothered to report their injuries. And for the record, McDonald's didn't settle the case, they fought it tooth and nail before finally admitting on the stand that they screwed up and served an unsafe product.

But let's disregard those other cases and focus on just this one. Just to clarify the "user error" aspect of your position, are you stating that you feel that A.) coffee being served at an unsafe temperature in B.) a cup that was not designed to hold a liquid at that temperature, all of which C.) McDonald's already knew about, is the victim's fault and not McDonald's?

••••••••

KCrimson
Premium Member
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

KCrimson to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by Desdinova:

It's BS because McDonald's was serving coffee at an unsafe temperature (190 degrees) and had already logged over 700 instances of severe burns (by their own accounts as was served up as evidence during the case). The cup they served the coffee in wasn't rated for that temperature and literally was dissolving in the woman's lap. The woman almost died as a result of the burns and here are some pictures of what the coffee did to her:

»travis.pflanz.me/2011/ho ··· ee-2011/

700 instances out of how many hundreds of millions of coffee purchases? That just reinforces the "user error" aspect of this to me. McDonalds was stupid to settle this case, IMO. But because of our deficient civil court system, it is easier and cheaper to settle than to defend against such a frivolous lawsuit.

The article reinforces my original feeling about the case - it was frivolous. The injuries were as severe as would be expected, and people who drink beverages prepared with boiling water should expect it to be approaching that temperature if served freshly made, and should take every precaution to ensure safe handling. The damages of 2 million dollars (the author goes about trying to make us feel that they are but a pittance in comparison to the horrible burns suffered by this poor woman by stating that it amounts to the sales of coffee in 2 days by ALL OF THE MCDONALDS IN THE WORLD/US (GROSS sales, I'm sure - don't worry about it McDonald's shareholders, the lawyers will get their money one way or another).

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

danclan to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

Real patent reform should put the full burden of proof on the alleged inventor claiming infringement. They need to have a system where the inventor needs to produce a working model of their alleged invention to be granted a patent and should be first come first serve, thus meaning the first inventor to produce a working model gets the patent.

The current system allows infringement lawsuits that are just as frivolus as the Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald's Coffee case. In that case she intentonally spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and claimed that there was no warning saying it was served hot. Now as a result, McDonald's serves their food lukewarm.

Citation please...and no she didn't intentionally spill coffee on herself. You might want to check the facts, she and apparently 700+ others previously all suffered severe (2nd and 3rd degree) burns due to the coffee being too hot. By lowering the temperature at which they served the coffee, they then eliminated this as an issue for their customers. The original plaintiff filed for a mere pittance in medical costs at the time and McDonald's refused.

While there are frivolous lawsuits...the coffee one cited so often in reality isn't one of them Once you know the facts, then the story isn't quite as it seems.

»www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

»motherjones.com/kevin-dr ··· -liebeck

also check out the film on HBO "Hot Coffee"

The company in question here actually creates markets and delivers software and product, not unlike Microsoft or Google, they currently have the right to sue over misappropriation of those patented systems.

Should software be patented ....not in my book, nor should it be covered by copy write. Software patents are the most insidious form of patent right now next to "method" patents.

enjoy
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Time for patent reform

said by danclan:

Should software be patented ....not in my book, nor should it be covered by copy write. Software patents are the most insidious form of patent right now next to "method" patents.

enjoy

Software should be patented. Why write any code if you make no money off of it?

The issue is when you patent a "process." Patenting a simple "click on picture to be taken by hyperlink to another site via TCP/IP" should be the case. That is essentially what many of these patents, in the computer world, have become.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
The problem is that most of this stuff shouldn't be patentable to begin with. Patents in software and specifically user interfaces are the worst cases of abuse.
Shuttle83
join:2005-10-23
Capitol Heights, MD

Shuttle83 to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
Hello,
I understand your point of view and the time frame it comes from. The problem is technology has outpaced that concept. The building of a device can take place years after the original concept has been thought of. For instance you can’t show me a working nano-machine from the 1970's, but you can show me how a nano-machine should work from that timeframe (because there are patents on it) . My point is I am for the patenting of ideas, because ideas as well as devices need to be protected from theft. You may not like this but, the world has progressed to the point where an idea or concept is just as real as a tactile or tangible device is.
Shuttle83

Shuttle83 to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
Hello,
I understand your point of view and the time frame it comes from. The problem is technology has outpaced that concept. The building of a device can take place years after the original concept has been thought of. For instance you can’t show me a working nano-machine from the 1970's, but you can show me how a nano-machine should work from that timeframe (because there are patents on it) . My point is I am for the patenting of ideas, because ideas as well as devices need to be protected from theft. You may not like this but, the world has progressed to the point where an idea or concept is just as real as a tactile or tangible device is.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

active video?

What does this company actually produce? If this is patent trolling then they should be cut off at the knees! Defending a patent should ONLY be for ACTIVELY supported developments, not owning pieces of paper with ideas on them and then ringing up a cash register everytime somone want to make a product that is SIMILAR.

I've always thought the so-called widgets, and vod menus have been very non-user friendly anyways... and if that violates the patents talked about-- it's no big loss! Just change them... problem solved! Also stop making the media manager PC-LINK requirement to use certain internet based streaming "apps".
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

1 recommendation

qworster

Member

Software patents should be BANNED!

The USA is the only country that allows software patents-and all they seem to do is make lawyers rich, keep patent trolls in business and raise prices on consumer products.
BigMac777
join:2001-07-21
Green Valley, AZ

BigMac777

Member

Now its my patent

If software patents should be banned, then lets just ban all patents for everything. You write a book and patent the rights and I put my name on the book and republish as my work. You write a song or movie and play it. I repatent it in my name and give it away for free. You see where this could lead. No patent, no song or movie rights, nothing is yours no matter if you wrote it or published it or not. Now it would be mine because some do not believe in patents. It wouldn't matter that it took someone weeks or months or years to come up with the idea. You want it so you take it.

cchhat01
Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY

cchhat01

Member

Re: Now its my patent

Youre missing the point. The entire point of the patent system was to promote growth. The idea was that if someone invented something u needed, you wouldnt need to go through the trouble of re-inventing it yourself. Instead, you would pay an inventors fee and do whatever else u would with the device.

You can out your name on an idea or a brand, but patenting code makes absoluteky no sense. Ad u can see its somewhat like a cold war brewing between apple and google, both trying to buy the arsenal of patents to keep each other at bay. Instead of patents being helpful, they r prohibiting competition.

The idea behind patenting still needs to be there to keep people from stealing others invention. But it has to be an invention of sorts. Code is code. Listen to the episode of This American Life on Patenting. Patenting a book is just preposterous to me. patenting a new mathematical or scientific formula makes a lot of sense because math is math universally and science is science universally. Code is not necessarily the same.

Chirag

ThinkAgain
@socair.com

ThinkAgain

Anon

Verizon started this fight, not ActiveVideo

See: »paidcontent.org/article/ ··· nt-loss/

•••••

annonymiss
@comcast.net

annonymiss

Anon

Soooo

For all you people that don't seem to like patents maybe you need to THINK a little bit.

Let's say, someone like Mr TESLA comes up with alternating current in his little garage. And without a patent system, rich Mr Edison, who can dump millions of dollars into pushing an A/C system out 10 years before poor Mr Tesla can even get one wire run, benefits completely from Mr Tesla's work, JUST BECAUSE HE'S RICH and can do something with the invention faster.

Yeah, that's what I want, destruction of the American ideal, where YOUR work is YOURS and nobody Else's.