dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Court Tells Verizon to Pay ActiveVideo
Telco Loses Appeal Over Patent Case They Started
by Karl Bode 04:48PM Wednesday Aug 29 2012
Back in August of last year, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded ActiveVideo Networks $115 million, ruling that Verizon infringed on four TV-related patents owned by the company. Activevideo then pursued and won an injunction against Verizon. Activevideo says Verizon long-ago started the whole mess; they say they approached Verizon to license their technology back in 2005 -- but that Verizon refused a deal, and instead took legal action against Cablevision -- for using the same patented technology. Verizon appealed, but a federal appeals court has ruled in ActiveVideo's favor, telling Verizon to pay $260 million and future royalties for the patents used. On the positive side for Verizon, the ruling lifted an injunction for Verizon meaning they can go ahead and use those patents -- provided that they you pay for it.

view:
topics flat nest 
serge87

join:2009-11-29

1 recommendation

I wonder...

Where will Verizon find a source of steady revenue to cover that $260mil?

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: I wonder...

said by serge87:

Where will Verizon find a source of steady revenue to cover that $260mil?

Rate hike announcement in 5...
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

No choice but to force licensing

the Court really has no right to shut off people's cable over two companies feuding over patents. So they have no choice but to pretty much order licensing to happen.

Especially with things like contracts and ETFs for VZN customers.

I know I would demand my TV turned back on if I had FiOS and fired up the box and it simply said "Due to patent disputes FiOS TV is disabled."
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland

Re: No choice but to force licensing

I see no reason why activevideo should be forced to license now. They won and should be allowed to set the terms or force V to stop using the technology. Customers will have to find service from a more reputable company.
--
»the53.tumblr.com/
tgp1994

join:2010-10-06

Eh?

Activevideo says Verizon long-ago started the whole mess; they say they approached Verizon to license their technology back in 2005 -- but that Verizon refused a deal, and instead took legal action against Cablevision -- for using the same patented technology.
Wait, why did Cablevision come into the picture?
Stumbles

join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Re: Eh?

Sounds like a game of three card Monte... eh?
tgp1994

join:2010-10-06

Re: Eh?

Must be. It looks like, according to the report, Cablevision and Activevideo had some sort of partnership in this.

JohnILM
Mayhem til the AM
Premium
join:2003-03-15
Tuckahoe, NY

Re: Eh?

Looks like Verizon forgot that they stole the technology and thought they'd sue Cablevision for using it, even though CV was legally using it with ActiveVideo's approval.

MaximusGoldn

@cox.net

Re: Eh?

I don't have any inside knowledge here, but I suspect that ActiveVideo's contract with Cablevision required that they litigate with any party who sued CableVision for violating patents in their use of ActiveVideo technology. This is called an indemnity clause and is very common in enterprise software licensing. Once Verizon sued Cablevision, AV would have little option but to sue Verizon. Verizon probably had the opportunity to license ActiveVideo technology many times over the last several years on terms similar to CableVision. They made a bad decision in starting this. At the point, they probably have paid their army of lawyers more than the AV license would have cost.

cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

Should've been...........

Should've been fined 260 gazillion dollars, or some absolutely absurd amount, that even Verizon couldn't afford. Kind of like how the RIAA sues people for songs.

Would've been nice to have fined them right out of existence even!! And no, I'm not saying that wishing for people to lose their jobs though. Just hate big conglomerates that think they can do what ever they want and are usually ran by retards!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

Re: Should've been...........

said by cork1958:

Should've been fined 260 gazillion dollars, or some absolutely absurd amount, that even Verizon couldn't afford. Kind of like how the RIAA sues people for songs.

Unlike copyright infringement, base patent infringement verdicts are not to be punitive. It's to cover what the economic loss is by the infringement. If it's willful, then it can be tripled as punishment. Or at least that's how I understand things. The number is based somewhat in reality and not some made up RIAA/MPAA math number.
Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network

Re: Should've been...........

You got it right. Typically, though, companies get non-infringement opinions done when the smell of litigation crops up to try to mitigate the possibility of treble damages. It's not often that damages get tripled.

Where I work, the exact same thing happened to us. We ended up getting millions of dollars and a relatively significant portion of ownership of this publicly held company. It was sweet.
--
I've been informed by highly placed sources that Canadians and British rock stars exert a profound and significant influence on US politics.