terogers
join:2003-12-19
Glenolden, PA | reply to BosstonesOwn
Re: Vonage is just the first!!!
Well, technically speaking SCO had Bill Gates' money to back them up, for a while. Verizon isn't Gates, but SCO is no Verizon without him. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | reply to priller
Your right.. Seen some postings that SR and others are next.. just the tip of the berg.  Never had any use for VoIP. After 2 attempts.. it's failed miserably. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to TheBigCheese
Yup. Basic patent law statute. The patent holder has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the patented item.
Typically, the user or buyer has an IP indemnification clause in the buying agreement when it purchases the parts. So, it's usually not terribly expensive for the user to take care of the matter. But, it's enough of an inconvenience to the buyer as to tick them off regarding the seller. So, the seller risks losing the customer's business as to the infringed part as well as any other things it buys from the seller. |
|
TheBigCheese
join:2002-08-05
Voorhees, NJ
| reply to dcurrey
said by dcurrey  :If Vonage is using off the shelf hardware and Open source shouldn't Verizion be going after them not Vonage. Would that not be the equivalent of Company Y saying they have the patents on Gas Caps used in GM trucks then suing UPS for violating the patent. When in fact GM was a fault. (note: I don't know if UPS uses GM trucks or not just an example.) This is exactly what happens in many patent infringement cases. The law allows the patent holder to go after anyone using the patented idea even users. They will usually sue the users with the deepest pockets. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :Unfortunately, my work firewall blocks access to that site. If I recall though, wasn't the early N2P more of a PC to PC calling system? It was PC to phone network. I used it early on when it was free to make some long distance calls to friends with POTS. Quality wasn't great, and there was too long a lag. However, it was VOIP without any doubt.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to pandora
Unfortunately, my work firewall blocks access to that site. If I recall though, wasn't the early N2P more of a PC to PC calling system? |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :The thing is, a lot of these patent were filed 10 or so years ago. I can't recall the VOIP landscape back then. I know there were a few companies like Net2Phone that were messing around in that space several years ago, but was it prior to VZ's filings? According to the Net2Phone about page, they've been in business doing VOIP since 1996.
»www.net2phone.com/about/
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to AJICQ499087
Congress makes the patent laws. The intent explicitly is to grant a monopoly.
On the other hand, ocassionally compulsory licenses will be required. |
|
AJICQ499087
join:2001-12-01
Louisville, KY
| reply to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303 :said by AJICQ499087 :I doubt Congress will allow the courts to let Verizon's patent tricks kill off every VoIP company. Want to make a bet. Telco's lobby You mean you think Verizon will be the only company allowed to provide VoIP? That would mean no other telephone, cable or any other company could provide VoIP. It would be a court ordered monopoly given to Verizon. There is no way Congress would let that happen.
--
low cost and fast speed is what customers want in broadband |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
·QuantumVoice
 ·AT&T Southeast
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to AJICQ499087
said by AJICQ499087 :I doubt Congress will allow the courts to let Verizon's patent tricks kill off every VoIP company. Want to make a bet. Telco's lobby |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to nixen
sco is dead , but the ripple it caused in the linux / unix world was heard.
Just like sco verizon may have a bad case but they have the money to back it up.
This if it goes mainstream will be a scare tactic to some business that was looking to migrate.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
nanoflower
join:2002-07-14
30876
| reply to NowVOIP
They definitely won't have much luck against the cable companies. The major providers are using solutions that are based on Texas Instruments or Broadcom solutions so they have huge patent portfolios that they could use against Verizon. At worst they come to an accomodation that the cross licenses the patents that Verizon claims to have. At best the Verizon patents get revoked. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to priller
Wow, looks like it's "Your mom's box" for Vonage.
I liked the service when I first got it. Had some problems towards the end. Overall, I thought it was a good value for someone who actually used the phone a lot. Since I work 2 jobs, it made no sense for me.
I'm neither dancing on Vonage's grave, nor feeling sorry for them.
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA | reply to dcurrey
Verizon will, they just needed a win against a known company to reinforce their case...  |
|
AJICQ499087
join:2001-12-01
Louisville, KY | reply to Loker
I doubt Congress will allow the courts to let Verizon's patent tricks kill off every VoIP company.
--
low cost and fast speed is what customers want in broadband |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :said by Loker :said by NowVOIP :DT, i would hate to disagree, but you are wrong. This lawsuit, has bearing on only a select few VOIP companies that actually using the "patented" technology. There are several including Cable that do not use the technology and as such VZ would be powerless to stop them. Verizon's patents are really quite broad....thats why I am still confident this is going to get tossed on appeal... If it does not though it could mean hell for a lot of VoIP outfits because of the broadness of the patents... The thing is, a lot of these patent were filed 10 or so years ago. I can't recall the VOIP landscape back then. I know there were a few companies like Net2Phone that were messing around in that space several years ago, but was it prior to VZ's filings? You're assuming that Verizon didn't buy the requisite patents so that they could put the screws to the rest of the industry.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :This has a ripple affect , just like sco did. Now people will hawk their wares saying see OSS is bad for business you open yourself up for lawsuits in the future. Really? And how've things been working out for SCO, lately?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to priller
Packet8 Isn't going anywhere I wouldn't worry. Other than that who else is going down? The cable industry? I don't think so.
Vonage asked for it when they used technologies that were not there own and they are paying the price. There never was a work around they made that statement but it never was.
The only thing they can do is start from scratch and spend the money on making VOIP the legal way through research and money well spent. Not using any ones protected technologies.
Game over for now Vonage. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Loker
said by Loker :said by NowVOIP :DT, i would hate to disagree, but you are wrong. This lawsuit, has bearing on only a select few VOIP companies that actually using the "patented" technology. There are several including Cable that do not use the technology and as such VZ would be powerless to stop them. Verizon's patents are really quite broad....thats why I am still confident this is going to get tossed on appeal... If it does not though it could mean hell for a lot of VoIP outfits because of the broadness of the patents... The thing is, a lot of these patent were filed 10 or so years ago. I can't recall the VOIP landscape back then. I know there were a few companies like Net2Phone that were messing around in that space several years ago, but was it prior to VZ's filings? |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to Loker
Not only are they broad, they seem to fail the "obviousness" test, making a mockery of the whole idea of "process patents".
I mean the idea that someone could patent something as obvious as using a server to translate IP addresses to phone numbers to route calls, as recently as 2000 seems ridiculous to me. There must be prior art there somewhere.
Thank god I have an overseas (where this kind of process patent ISN'T recognized) VOIP provider as backup |
|
