pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
 ·Comcast
| reply to Goober
Re: Vonage is just the first!!!
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| reply to NowVOIP
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...
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking |
|
