dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Sprint Files VoIP Suit Against Cable Industry
Right on Heels of Cable Industry Deal With Verizon
by Karl Bode 09:38AM Tuesday Dec 20 2011
With their legal plate suddenly cleared up substantially, Sprint this week filed several lawsuits against most of the largest cable companies, claiming they're violating VoIP-related patents held by Sprint. The company has sued Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CableOne, and Cox for twelve Sprint patents on VoIP technology -- several of which were involved in a 2007 Sprint lawsuit against Vonage that resulted in an $80 million settlement. The lawsuit not-coincidentally comes as the cable industry cozies up to Verizon Wireless with a new spectrum and wireless service partnership that leaves Sprint (and partner Clearwire) out in the cold.

view:
topics flat nest 

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

hm

I remember when Sprint/ Verizon successfully sued Vonage. I wondered why they didnt go after the cable companies.

dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

Re: hm

said by ITALIAN926:

I remember when Sprint/ Verizon successfully sued Vonage. I wondered why they didnt go after the cable companies.

Well the cable companies ARE/WERE Sprint... at the dawn of the PCS (the original cdma IS-95 network) look at who bought all the spectrum to launch "PCS"... it was Sprint, TCI (became AT&T then comcast), Comcast and Cox. (company history »www.sprint.com/companyinfo/histo···_02.html )

I am not even certain they ever dissolved it... I think Sprint is still a partnership between sprint and cable companies? Guess they forgot that... or it got re-arranged at some point?


mix

join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI

Re: hm

What does this have to do with VoIP patent infringement?

dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

Re: hm

said by mix:

What does this have to do with VoIP patent infringement?

He wondered why they didn't go after the cable companies... my theory is they didn't want to sue themselves. I am now curious how they are suing themselves.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
Sprint does have that agreement with the Cable Companies. They must forgot who actually gives them a yearly check for the Digital Phone products.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: hm

Thats what I'm thinking. I always thought most/all of the cable companies used Sprint as the CLEC, or did TWC/Comcast/Cox become FCC CLECs lately and dropped Sprint?
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: hm

The MSOs never became a CLEC. Too much red tape and too much work for them. It was cheaper and easier for them to rely on Sprint with a national footprint with DIDs and such already available. They could easily launch digital phone to any and all markets at the drop of a dime.

TWC even passes out Nextel's old numbers.

»wholesale.sprint.com/find-a-prod···olp.aspx

»wholesale.sprint.com/cable:

"In response to these challenges, Sprint Wholesale Solutions has created breakthrough solutions for an impressive roster of cable operators, including Time Warner Cable and many smaller, regional success stories such as Massillon Cable TV. With more than 5 million cable telephony subscribers, Sprint is the market leader for outsourced cable VoIP service."

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
said by dib22:

... TCI (became AT&T then comcast),

Correction: TCI didn't become AT&T. TCI was bought by AT&T. One of the company's many acquisitions they failed to execute well--or at all, actually. It was their buying binge, coupled with their utter failure to execute on integrating those acquisitions into a greater whole, that resulted in weakening them so badly that they eventually sold themselves to one of their mutant children: SBC. As the wheels began to obviously fall off, AT&T sold that acquisition, along with most (all?) of its other cable acquisitions, to Comcast, in a vain attempt to save itself.

Jim
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: hm

don't forget to mention that was basically when @Home was gone and the ATT sold off the Cable side BEFORE SBC was even part of the whole thing.

SBC sold off their own company; Americast (now WOW!) when they took over Ameritech.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Main Issue

I don't know much about the validity or effectiveness of this lawsuit, but Verizon partnering with the cable companies is a HUGE industry concentration/monopoly issue.

If cable partners up with Verizon to deliver quad-play, suddenly the major form of competition among landline ISPs is completely eliminated.

Not only that, but Verizon has far more spectrum than everyone other than AT&T. It also refuses to use Wi-Fi cells to offload spectrum traffic. Giving it more spectrum to use inefficiently in its network is just as bad as letting AT&T gobble up T-Mobile.
podstolom

join:2010-01-25
Wichita, KS

Wow....

Sprint is getting worse than Apple now. One whiny wussy litigous Pain in the Derrier.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Wow....

said by podstolom:

Sprint is getting worse than Apple now. One whiny wussy litigous Pain in the Derrier.

Perhaps, but Apple is suing to maintain their dominance, while Sprint is suing to maintain their relevance. Apple is being a bully and Sprint is merely trying to survive.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Wow....

said by jmn1207:

said by podstolom:

Sprint is getting worse than Apple now. One whiny wussy litigous Pain in the Derrier.

Perhaps, but Apple is suing to maintain their dominance, while Sprint is suing to maintain their relevance. Apple is being a bully and Sprint is merely trying to survive.

Apple is suing to maintain their dominance? Just who is threatening their ridiculously popular products?

They're suing to prevent worthless copycat companies from ripping off their IP. Why weren't there touchscreen-based phones before the iPhone? Or mobile OS running tablets before the iPad? Why is it before the iPad almost every tablet had ugly buttons, shapes, designs, etc.?

Look at LG. They hired Prada to design an LG Prada 3.0, which will be a useless, overpriced niche product for overly fashion-conscious people with too much money on their hands.

They don't think design or style is important at all. Apple is completely different from the vast majority of companies in this respect.

Or look at Intel's vaunted "Ultrabooks". Every one of them is a ripoff of the Macbook Air. Intel invested $300 million into creating the initiative, and every single company in the program grabbed that free money and shamelessly ripped off the MBA.

Android has become the Windows of smartphones. It's an abomination with exponentially increasing amounts of malware. It will always lag because it was built on the same framework as RIM's Blackberry OS. They're trying to hide its ridiculous flaws (inefficient battery use, battery-draining multitasking implementation, laggy UI and frequently dipping framerates, etc.), with increasingly powerful hardware rather than rebuild the OS's foundation.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Wow....

Microsoft has had touch-screen Win mobile devices integrated with VOIP. Microsoft has also been trying to do tablets for years. They never got it right but I'm sure they've got lots of patents.

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

They're suing to prevent worthless copycat companies from ripping off their IP. Why weren't there touchscreen-based phones before the iPhone?

Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile was running on smartphones in 2002, if not earlier. I remember having a T-Mobile Wing in 2006, and T-Mobile had the MDA and SDA a year or two before that. iPhone wasn't released until 2007.

Or mobile OS running tablets before the iPad?

Windows Tablet PC, ProGear, Apple Newton...there were tablets before the iPad running operating systems that were tailored to the tablet environment.

Why is it before the iPad almost every tablet had ugly buttons, shapes, designs, etc.?

Because the technology wasn't at a state yet where a sleek design was viable? Why is it that, even after multiple generations of iPhones many phones still have buttons, corners, etc? Because not everyone wants a iPhone and it's design.

Look at LG. They hired Prada to design an LG Prada 3.0, which will be a useless, overpriced niche product for overly fashion-conscious people with too much money on their hands.

If by useless we can also include technologically inferior, I would say that you most Apple products fit that bill too. For the record, it looks like the Prada LG 3.0 is £500 in the UK, the same price as the iPhone 4s.

They don't think design or style is important at all. Apple is completely different from the vast majority of companies in this respect.

Obviously LG didn't think design or style is important. I mean, they don't work with a designer or anything. Oh wait. I don't by Apple products because I want to be the one that decides how something looks, acts, or performs. Not what Steve Job's vision was. You are right though that Apple is very different from many companies in that respect.

Or look at Intel's vaunted "Ultrabooks". Every one of them is a ripoff of the Macbook Air. Intel invested $300 million into creating the initiative, and every single company in the program grabbed that free money and shamelessly ripped off the MBA.

Ok. And? Do you really want to get into argument about who has a tendency of ripping off using other's work?

Android has become the Windows of smartphones. It's an abomination with exponentially increasing amounts of malware.

Easy way to almost eliminate malware. Don't just randomly click on every single link you get and install apps you know nothing about. The same principals that apply to a desktop or laptop computer apply to a phone.

The strength of Android's market as compared to Apple's App Store is also it's weakness. Walled gardens are nice as long as they contain everything that you want and don't want anything on the other side of the wall. Once you do, the garden can be confining.

It will always lag because it was built on the same framework as RIM's Blackberry OS.

That's a new one to me.

They're trying to hide its ridiculous flaws (inefficient battery use, battery-draining multitasking implementation, laggy UI and frequently dipping framerates, etc.), with increasingly powerful hardware rather than rebuild the OS's foundation.

Yup. Seems like issues plague all phone manufacturers: Battery usage, crappy multitasking implementations, reception issues "solved" with arrogant responses, ...
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by podstolom:

Sprint is getting worse than Apple now. One whiny wussy litigous Pain in the Derrier.

If you invented the latest and greatest widget and wanted to make money on the use of that product or license the use of that widget to other people who wanted to use the widget to sell it themselves or use the idea you owned, wouldn't you be a little pissed off if someone just took it from you?

Just as people want to point the finger at Sprint for filing lawsuits for patents they own (be it they made the technology OR they purchased the technology from someone else and became the legal owner of it) some of those lawsuits hold great merit. If you don't believe that giants of companies pick off stuff from the smaller fish out there, you're sadly mistaken or never been in a board room before when these decisions were made.

Also, people talk around these parts all the time about the small guy innovating and wanting to bring their product to the masses and further bring innovation to the public market place... how come it's okay when they try to sue the giants for either ripping them off, or when the larger companies use their dominance to stand in their way, with say... bandwidth usage caps, or exclusive agreements?

When making these arguments you have to remember that you can't stand on two sides at the same time.

... besides, I don't there there is anyone here that is all knowing enough or properly qualified to make an accurate determination if Sprint is "just becoming like apple"... rather, it's more emotional based, or baseless at best, to say that these lawsuits are with out merit.
armorbear

join:2011-09-02

Sprint

Apple is being a bully and Sprint is merely trying to survive.
catbrat90

join:2007-08-10
Cincinnati, OH

Nonsense Case

I think this law suit is in retaliation of the cable companies dumping Clearwire which sprint uses for 4G, because they took away their spectrum that was used for their internet and went with Verizon Wireless to offer their mobile internet. If it was truly about patent violations they would have went after the cable companies after they were done with vonage. I hope the court system sees it as that and dis-mess sprints nonsense case.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

...and Buy some Spectrum!

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8e2ujXe8g

JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

Lawsuit Bingo

So, wait, which company is evil for using patent litigation again? I've lost track.

Is it OK to use patent law if you're suing someone "bad" and not OK if you're suing someone "good"?
--
My place : »www.schettino.us
uteck

join:2009-12-30

Re: Lawsuit Bingo

The few patant cliams that Apple won are easly worked around and most of thier claims were rejected, that is why people think they are trolls.
I imaging that Sprint has something more substantial then bezal size or the way you tap a screen that they are sueing over.
--
no .sig found, please restart your browser.