I wonder... Where will Verizon find a source of steady revenue to cover that $260mil?
Re: I wonder...
said by serge87:Rate hike announcement in 5...
Where will Verizon find a source of steady revenue to cover that $260mil?
| |KearnstdElf WizardPremium
Mullica Hill, NJ
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
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.
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?
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Re: Eh? Sounds like a game of three card Monte... eh?
Re: Eh? Must be. It looks like, according to the report, Cablevision and Activevideo had some sort of partnership in this.
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.
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.
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.
| |cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
Fort Wayne, IN
Re: Should've been...........
said by cork1958: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.
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.
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.