rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Really, really puzzled by all of this... If Verizon wins, every VOIP provider may go away. According to the linked article, Verizon believes it owns patents in the following areas and these would certainly be key to any VOIP provider:
said by Linked Article :
The patents cover technology that allows calls made through the Internet to be connected to traditional phone numbers; that enable Internet phone service to use features such as call waiting and voicemail; to coordinate billing; and to connect through a wireless network. I'm certainly puzzled by all of this. Other than the Vonage web site, did Vonage create any VOIP software or hardware? I thought VOIP has been around for years and in limited use by corporations on their own private networks. If so, is the crime that Vonage purchased this same hardware and exposed it to the general public through the Internet? Note that the article mentions calls made through the Internet. While I certainly believe making calls over an IP network is technology, is it patently different technology if that IP network is the Internet versus a private corporate network?
Was there fine print in the hardware manufacturer's license statement that said you will violate our license agreements if you use this hardware outside of your internal network and for making/receiving calls from non-employees? I guess anything is possible...
Regarding coordinated billing, I thought the TA of 1996 forced the ILECs to provide coordinated billing with CLECs. Were they able to patent the resulting ideas on how this should work? If so, it seems very odd since that effort was probably governed by some sort of open working group to develop the interconnect specifications. Is it because Vonage is not considered a CLEC and therefore has no right to the working group's specifications?
My comparisons are usually criticized for apples and oranges but I can't help thinking this is like Ford suing GM because it purchased GoodYear tires for it's vehicles and those tires violated a Ford patent. Is GoodYear or GM liable? Are they both liable? Or did GoodYear license Ford's technology for a few bucks per tire so that they could authorize the purchaser to use the tires on used cars? GM then is at fault since GoodYear cannot control the purchaser's intentions. (Maybe GM told GoodYear they were buying them to put on cars returned at end-of-lease and then actually put the tires on new cars.)
I believe in capitalism and opportunity. I also believe patents are necessary or every Wal-Mart would use its billions to make more money on the backs of every other person's good idea. However, there are times when it seems so confusing and specific what we're able to patent that it doesn't seem to promote healthy competition. In fact at times it seems to work against healthy competition.
And maybe that's the rub. Maybe I think Vonage is healthy competition for the ILECs but they obviously see it in a much different light. |
|
 LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | I have the same questions...
All the protocols used for VoIP are shared between most IP Telephony providers... Namely, SIP, H.323, and the G729 and G711 codecs.
So I really don't see where can a patent be implemented, since all of the features listed as "infringing VZ patents" are part of the definitions of the protocols above. I'm puzzled....
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:However, there are times when it seems so confusing and specific what we're able to patent that it doesn't seem to promote healthy competition. In fact at times it seems to work against healthy competition. Reminds of the patent claims on the human genome/DNA sequences... they don't promote health! |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to LilYoda
All the codecs could be patented but who should have paid Verizon for their use? Vonage or the hardware vendor? I doubt Vonage created the programming for the Cisco ATA 186 or any other VOIP router, did they?
In the early days of Vonage folks who cancelled the service kept the free Vonage-provided ATA186 because Vonage didn't want it back. Of course Vonage would not provide folks with the admin password so that someone could reprogram the ATA for use with a different VOIP provider. I remember some folks claiming that to do so would violate Cisco's license agreement. The same folks said you must buy your own license and then you could use the ATA with another VOIP provider. Regardless, it seems Vonage paid a license fee for each unit or that fee was built into the purchase price of the unit. Therefore isn't Verizon's beef with the ATA hardware vendor?
As I said in my original post, perhaps the patent covers not only the technology but how it is used. Maybe Cisco was only authorized to use VOIP technology in its ATA if the device was sold for use on private networks. I'm gleaning this from the word "Internet" in several of Verizon's claims.
The wireless claim is even more puzzling. It's still VOIP technology regardless of the physical transport, isn't it? Is it patently different when IP's physical transport changes between Ethernet, Frame Relay, CMTS, EVDO, HSDPA, WIMAX, OFDM or 802.11x? |
|
LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
1 edit | Regarding Cisco hardware, I can assure you that the whole line of Cisco IPT products can be used anywhere you want, provided you pay Cisco enough  We roll out large IPT networks with Cisco or Avaya hadrware.
To use the hardware, you need to buy a software license indeed. Kind of like the Windows license. If Vonage was the buyer of the ATA 186 license, then yes, noone else can legally use it. But that's more or less the same as any software where you are not the owner of the license on it.
To be honest, most people would not have forked the amount of $$$ it costs to get a Cisco ATA186...
I seriously doubt the codecs themselves could be patented... They are ITU-T standards... It would be like trying to patent Ethernet or PPP... But as you said, maybe some programming was stolen by Vonage? I'd really like to see the content of the patents being infringed though. I have a suspicion that they are vague patents that try to cover public stuff like codecs and protocols, and that 99% of the IP operators on the planet are using.
Can you patent a vague concept like "transmission of voice over a wireless IP network"? If so, then yes, that would be an easy cash cow... I'm on my way to patent "cleaning dejections from one's rear end with cellulose paper", and sending a lawsuit to Charmin'
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
1 edit | I skimmed the lawsuit. It appears that Verizon believes it owns patents on how VOIP connects and interacts with the traditional telephone network. According to another article, Vonage may already have patent work-arounds to avoid Verizon's claims.
The article also mentioned that if Verizon's injunction is granted, Vonage customers would not be able to interconnect with the traditional telephone network. I'm assuming this means that Vonage would still be able to call other Vonage customers but probably not other VOIP customers since I think those interconnects still involve the traditional phone system.
In summary, VOIP doesn't appear to be the problem. The dispute involves how a VOIP call interconnects to POTS.
Oh I forgot. The wireless claim involves how a WiFi phone receives a call regardless of where it is at any given moment. Of course I'm not sure how this would be much different than how a traditional ATA is found regardless of where it's connected to the Internet. My understanding of this is that when booted, the ATA reports itself to a pre-configured server which then knows where it is (by is, I mean IP address of course). I would guess a WiFi phone simply does this each time it associates to a new AP. If someone has a patent on how a WiFi phone does this, I would have to guess that a fixed ATA also violates the patent. Of course that could be a weak spot in our patent system. From my perspective, the patent should be on how a call locates an ATA on the Internet regardless of where it's connected at any given moment. It should not be a different patent if someone hooks a battery and a wireless card to the ATA and makes it more convenient for a customer to transport from place to place. |
|
|
|
