 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Here we go... Cash cow for the incumbents and major losses for anyone else. I can almost guarantee that other ILECs are using the same technology. Why haven't they sued each other yet. Oh wait, that's right, they won't so they can own it all and our government in its current state will let them. | |
|
 | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Here we go... Im sure they are asking everyone and anyone who looks like they are using their IP for money.
Then taking them to court if they think they can win one at a time, so as not to overwhelm their legal team. | |
|
| Electro960
join:2005-12-21
Doylestown, PA
| If someone stole your protected idea and then used it to take away "lots" of your customers, I'm sure you would sue as well. When I say "lots", thats lots enough to make a cable company brag at the 2008 CES that they're now the 4th largest phone company in the US. Thats a major accomplishment in such little time. | |
|
| |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Here we go... said by Electro960  :If someone stole your protected idea and then used it to take away "lots" of your customers, I'm sure you would sue as well. When I say "lots", thats lots enough to make a cable company brag at the 2008 CES that they're now the 4th largest phone company in the US. Thats a major accomplishment in such little time. And I agree with the stealing part but that was NOT my point. If they are going to sue these competitors for infringement, then they should not be able to pick ONLY those that are competition. I cannot believe that none of the other ILECs that are non-competition aren't using these patents also in their VoIP products. All they are trying to do is run everyone else out of business that competes with them. When you get as big as Verizon and subsidized by the govt to get started and then allowed through regulation to become a monopoly, which they essentially are, then it is wrong. | |
|
| | | 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| Re: Here we go... said by ropeguru :And I agree with the stealing part but that was NOT my point. If they are going to sue these competitors for infringement, then they should not be able to pick ONLY those that are competition. They will get around to them all...don't worry about THAT.
What was that comment that Robert Duvall made about the bulls in the movie "Colors"...?
Verizon is an old bull.
--
A is A | |
|
| | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Here we go... 'It's paramount to patenting seeing images in your web browser'
That's a bad analogy. The method for viewing images online had to be created by someone. Just like TCP/UDP/et all had to be created by someone somewhere. An annex to existing technology is still a creation. Now coming up with the idea that people could view images on a browser is to nebulous to patent. But coming up with a way for people to do as such is not. | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Well then, which specific claims in which specific patents should not have been allowed by the USPTO? You're saying that there is at least one claim that is a "general idea" and thus unpatentable. Care to tell us what it is; i.e, provide the exact text for it? | |
|
| | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Here we go... Several of the essential claims cover using a new type of DNS record to indicate the gateway for a phone number. Since this is the exact sort of thing DNS is designed to do, it's neither novel nor non-obvious. | |
|
| | | | |
| 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
|
| | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Here we go... 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. | |
|
| | | |
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA | Ah, what a business model! Litigate, why innovate? It's been Ma Bell's slogan for a century.
Next up...all other *CABLE* VoIP providers, one by one. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Ah, what a business model! Your time reference of a century is off by quite a bit, but yes, the last decade or two has most definitely shown that our society has turned into a litigious battleground. It's not must Ma Bell btw  | |
|
| jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI
| said by pabster :Litigate, why innovate? Why innovate when you can just steal someone else's ideas?
Whats the point of spending dollars on R&D if you can just backwards engineer someone else's product and sell it as yours?
I'd be suing too. | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Ah, what a business model! Backward engineering is not illegal and you as a consumer have the biggest benefit of this. If it wasn't for that concept, most improvements would not be made to products by the original creator or the person developing it based on the information they were able to obtain by legally backward engineering a product. | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Ah, what a business model! 'Backward engineering is not illegal'
Not familiar with the DMCA are ye? | |
|
| | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | "Whats the point of spending dollars on R&D if you can just backwards engineer someone else's product and sell it as yours?"
So how much innovation would we have in PCs if the IBM PC had not been backwards engineered? | |
|
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by jtel :Whats the point of spending dollars on R&D if you can just backwards engineer someone else's product and sell it as yours? I'd be suing too. Too bad the people VZ stole from don't sue them. In the Vonage case some of the patents involved some really serious prior art. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | 'Litigate, why innovate?'
Yea...Bell Labs sued the transistor into existance. | |
|
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: 4th Largest said by Jeffrey :According to Wikipedia, Cox is the 3rd largest cable company in the nation. Perhaps Verizon is going to warm up with them, and then head on to Comcast, Time Warner and Cablevision. I hate referencing Wiki, but it was the first like that was brought up after a Google search. My guess is that they're going up against the private company first because they won't have to disclose elements of Verizon's legal strategy publicly, as the SEC would require if Cox was a public company. That way, when they move on to the others, their lawyers will have less indication as to Verizon's strategy against the cable companies.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Does Cox telephony infringe? I thought VoCable or whatever Cox uses was different from the VoIP systems other VoIP providers like Vonage. Like the difference between Comcast Digital Voice vs Comcast Digital Phone. | |
|
| 
pancakelizard
@cox.net | Re: Does Cox telephony infringe? cox doesn't have voip.
i have their service and it's something different than voip but still doesn't use a phone line (from the wall to the modem) | |
|
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Does Cox telephony infringe? Cox has two different systems. The old one is not at all VoIP (or even PacketCable), the new one is VoIP, although it remains within their network at all times.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: What if it was... I have little sympathy for patent trolls. | |
|
| | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: What if it was... I blame them both. | |
|
| | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I blame the patent troll. | |
|
bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| Comcast uses the same thing Having personally known people who worked for Comcast Digital Voice I know they use SIP and Cisco VOIP gateways just like every other VOIP phone out there. The only difference between Vonage and Comcast is that its hard to run a packet capture on the COAX portion of the cable, so in other words their SIP messaging is less visable.
Its funny when I see morons posting things like "When Vonage needs some technology, they just steal it...". It must be nice living in a world where you believe everything a big advertisement tells you.
Verizon won a lawsuit that sets a precedent saying they own some basic internet process because they bought off a judge in Virginia and used some big fancy words to confuse the hapless citizens. Now that they have set the precedent they want to see who else they can sue and collect "royalties" from. Anyone who believes Verizon invented VOIP is a moron, plain and simple. I challenge any of you to prove me wrong. | |
|
| 
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA
| Re: Comcast uses the same thing said by bngdup :Anyone who believes Verizon invented VOIP is a moron, plain and simple. I challenge any of you to prove me wrong. Verizon didn't have to invent it - just patent it first... Other craziness of our system. *sigh* | |
|
| | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Re: Comcast uses the same thing Problem is, they went for the patent after the working group came out with the specification. Kind of like what Rambus did, but maybe worse as they stole the idea from the working group and they pawned it off as their own. | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Comcast uses the same thing Actually, Rambus snuck their patents into a standards committee without letting any of the other companies involved know. Then after everyone was making boat loads of money off the standards, they rang the bell. Personally I think it should have invalidated their patents on the grounds they gave them to the committee.
Anyway, both the patent and copyright rules need to be sent back in time to the early 1900s. Then they'd tell you to take a hike when you brought a business model in for patent, and your copyright would expire after 15 years or some such. | |
|
| | bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| said by meister_sd :said by bngdup :Anyone who believes Verizon invented VOIP is a moron, plain and simple. I challenge any of you to prove me wrong. Verizon didn't have to invent it - just patent it first... Other craziness of our system. *sigh* Right, but what too few realize is that they just patented an obscure process or idea that could be applied to many things, not only VOIP. | |
|
| | | 
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs: | Re: Comcast uses the same thing i thought a company the bought/merged held the original patent, and verizon is now the owner, thus why they are going after these companies. | |
|
Lions
@verizon.net | What do Lions do? They go after the slowest, weakest prey which is easy to catch.. and build upon that success? Guess what? They'll be using the money from Vonage to go after the cable industry now.. eventually that can fund FIOS upgrades. | |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| just a thought.. these companies have to be buying the equipment somewhere, I mean they don't just build their own, so why isn't verizon just suing the maker(s) of the infringing equipment?
If I buy a commercially made product and some joe-blow says I'm infringing, I'd lol at him and tell him to go stuff it. I bought and paid for this equip in good faith, and I'm not responsible for what the manufacturers do nor will I be.
I thing Verizon is targeting the wrong companies, but then again it makes sense to try to get the provider (equipment's end-user?) since they're more likely to get a good settlement from a deep-pockets cable/tel co.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»www.1-gb.net
»pokemonpalace.net | |
|
| Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA | Re: just a thought.. I guess you need a patent thees days to use a certain piece. Not just to make it.
Oh and by the way, they don't want to sue their own manufacturer; it would leave them in short supply of equipment. | |
|
|
| myokitis
join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Let's get this straight... said by qworster :THIS is why the USA is getting pummelled technology wise by the rest of the world-we are a bunch of thieves and bullies, as opposed to innovators and creators. You raise some interesting points about the ironies of the Verizon v. Vonage case, qworster, but it irks me when people say things like "we're thieves and bullies" and not innovators.
Sheesh!
Lets see, Apple Computer . . . not at all innovative . . . Intel & AMD, they only design supply about ALL of the processors used in PCs. But I guess that's inconsequential . . . And even though our pharma industry and the larger medical sector have issues, we still do more research than anyone I'm aware of. We innovate and we an bring things to market. I HATE when people cop the "we suck" attitude. Maybe you do, but don't lay that on the rest of us. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Another fee Looks like those with cox digital phone are going to get a new lineitem on their bills.
"Technology compliance fee .................. $4.88"
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
|
dougau
Premium
join:2007-08-09
Dickson, TN
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | You have to start somewhere On the plus side at least Verizon isn't just some no name patent holding company looking to just sue others for survival.
If they prove they have a legitimate patent against Cox you can bet the other cable companies will be stumbling over each other to license the VoIP technology covered.
| |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
1 edit | Ill will. Bad law, most likely; don't know details.
VOIP=obvious. CUSEEME=old; other IP protos predate 1980s, and voice around then.
If this is about SS7 interface, of course SS7 needs interfacing, because that's what legacy PSTN uses. Duh.
Edit: someone said SIP. Whatever. Can't be that unobvious.
VZ losing their FiOS good will with this one. Scumbags=too much of compliment, again. | |
|
shadowrose64
Premium
join:2003-11-02
Pittsburg, KS | Well, here we go. Time to unplug that phone, dig the blanket out of the closet, light that pile of wood in the backyard and start sending smoke signals again. *Sigh* Wonder if someone will manage to patent firewood or blankets. | |
|
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Re: Well, here we go. Yeah, I know. I like my nice clear Comcast CDV phone. The idea of going back to AT&T truly sickens me.
AT&T is far worse, in my experience; they overbilled me each and every order after the first install. They even overbilled me for disconnecting during the porting to Comcast. (They referred me to CPUC, and I assume that will cost everyone far more than I ever paid for the service in the first place, but I will win.) AT&T sucks crap. | |
|
| |
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | docsis voip I thought the cable companies where using a voip tech that is part of the docsis spec. | |
|
Trinijoy
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Brick, NJ | Of course! See this is just ridiculous now, Verizon is just getting easy money are they going to sue every cable company??? | |
|
| 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY | Re: Of course! I patent the air you breath, as I planted the tree that puts oxygen in it..... | |
|
sphinxguy18
Premium
join:2008-01-13
Garland, TX
·Vonage
·Cox HSI
| My Thought on the subject I think Verizon is bored and is trying to catch up from the hurt of the roll out of FIOS. I mean a company spending 23B and more on an awesome service is obviously going to go out and find thing to complain about like this. I mean they went after Vonage because of why, of a smack on the hands? Now Cox Communications is next? Well I have Cox Cable here in Cleveland and I 3 them, wish Verizon FIOS was here, but it's not, so I will stick w/ my Cox. It's a heck a lot better then that crappy Comcast and/or TWC. | |
|
steviec71
@cox.net
| Who says it doesn't roll downhill? So let's see...Verizon is pulling all landline operations out of northern New England, freeing up cash flow...guess that's where they're getting the money to sue Cox. Must be nice to be losing on the customer service side and on the total numbers of customer side in Rhode Island and STILL be able to afford to sue the people you're losing to. I guess if you can't win by providing basic customer service then try to win by confusing the average person in a jury with technobabble...not like they're not struggling enough as it is, let's seem like a bully to the rest of the industry, not just to the average customer. Seems like a winning plan to me...do what you can to annoy the people who could potentially assist you when (Yes When, not If) you're at the point where you're going to need help to survive. Another good point that was brought up...Cox USES the technology, they don't OWN the technology, why are they getting sued? If you want to make any impact sue the ones who provide the technology...oh wait, they provide it to Verizon too, guess at least one person at Verizon is smart enough not to shoot themselves in the foot that fast. | |
|
|
|
|
Cox Sued By Verizon For Patent Infringement
·
