how-to block ads
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to knightmb
Re: Here we go...
said by knightmb  :said by supergirl :I doubt VZ will win this one. Cox won't be hiring idiot lawyers like Vonage. And, why not bring up all the other Cable outfits doing it too? That really does not make much sense. I can see suing Vonage since they were not paying connection fees but Cox does. I pay that $6.50 FCC Access Fee on Cox like I did on Bellsouth. Unfortunately, it's less about details more about convincing a bunch of non-technical people. Verizon vs. Vonage is a good example of that. Vonage wasn't paying access fees. That's what VZ was pissed over. Cox pays them. Personally, I think IP based calling systems shouldn't be patentably period. It is the future.  
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :I doubt VZ will win this one. Cox won't be hiring idiot lawyers like Vonage. And, why not bring up all the other Cable outfits doing it too? That really does not make much sense. I can see suing Vonage since they were not paying connection fees but Cox does. I pay that $6.50 FCC Access Fee on Cox like I did on Bellsouth. Unfortunately, it's less about details more about convincing a bunch of non-technical people. Verizon vs. Vonage is a good example of that. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to ropeguru
Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ - message board) is once again in the plaintiff's seat in a patent infringement case, this time going after Cox Communications Inc.
Verizon filed papers in Eastern District Court of Virginia on Jan. 11 alleging that Cox violated eight patents related to the technology used for completing IP voice calls. Four of the patents were included in Verizon's suit against Vonage Holdings Corp. (NYSE: VG - message board) last year. (See Vonage Ordered to Pay $58M to Verizon.) Verizon was eventually awarded $120 million in damages in that case.
The suit against Cox raises the question of whether Verizon will go after other Cable MSOs in court as well. "They all adhere to the CableLabs PacketCable architecture," says Alan Breznick, senior analyst with Heavy Reading. "So conceivably they could."
-----
Shouldn't they be suing everyone?
The patents Verizon says Cox is infringing upon:
U.S. Patent No. 6,970,930 (not in Vonage case)
U.S. Patent No. 6,104, 711 (Vonage was found to have infringed)
U.S. Patent No. 6,430,275 (Vonage found not to have infringed)
U.S. Patent No. 6,137,869 (Vonage found not to have infringed)
U.S. Patent No. 6,282,574 (Vonage was found to have infringed)
U.S. Patent No. 6,335,927 (not in Vonage case)
U.S. Patent No. 6,292,481 (not in Vonage case)
U.S. Patent No. 6,636,597 (not in Vonage case)
»www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/81h···359.html
I doubt VZ will win this one. Cox won't be hiring idiot lawyers like Vonage. And, why not bring up all the other Cable outfits doing it too? That really does not make much sense. I can see suing Vonage since they were not paying connection fees but Cox does. I pay that $6.50 FCC Access Fee on Cox like I did on Bellsouth.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
