Verizon Faces FiOS TV Shutdown in Patent Feud

It really is Comcastic though.

Perhaps they're going after Verizon now since they've been weakened, so to speak by the strike.

ok so almost every tv service provider uses this type of stuff why are they only going after Verizon - just my thought - or is everyone else already paying them

Just like broadcasters take away channels of course they can be shut down.

what harm?

Too much harm to customers to issue an injunction to shut TV svc down. A court will force Verizon to pay the judgement and may even award ActiveVideo more money until an agreement between Verizon & AciveVideo is reached going forward. But extremely unlikely they will shut off service to all those users.

of a retarded patent system.

From what I've read [elsewhere], they want to get FiOS itself shutdown--not just FiOS TV. (Yeah, seems "weird" to me.)

You hurt your own arguments when you cite what was a legitimate lawsuit that millions of dumbass Americans do not fully understand the details of.

It's BS because McDonald's was serving coffee at an unsafe temperature (190 degrees) and had already logged over 700 instances of severe burns (by their own accounts as was served up as evidence during the case). The cup they served the coffee in wasn't rated for that temperature and literally was dissolving in the woman's lap. The woman almost died as a result of the burns and here are some pictures of what the coffee did to her:

»travis.pflanz.me/2011/hot-coffee-2011/

good god man, most people would hope you NEVER have children!. 700!! instances!!. suppose a child had to pass the coffee to an adult, and kids being kids, spilled it on themselves, whose fault is THAT?, "USER ERROR"??.

also, you must not have old relatives that you see regularly, as they makes mistakes that a child would make too.. when you get older, you'll understand what you REALLY said, and REGRET it!!.

not everyone is in an age range or state of mind where they can deal with coffee at a potentially lethal temperature!!. McDonalds KNEW they were selling a potentially lethal product, and just didn't care!!..

Real patent reform should put the full burden of proof on the alleged inventor claiming infringement. They need to have a system where the inventor needs to produce a working model of their alleged invention to be granted a patent and should be first come first serve, thus meaning the first inventor to produce a working model gets the patent.

The current system allows infringement lawsuits that are just as frivolus as the Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald's Coffee case. In that case she intentonally spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and claimed that there was no warning saying it was served hot. Now as a result, McDonald's serves their food lukewarm.

Should software be patented ....not in my book, nor should it be covered by copy write. Software patents are the most insidious form of patent right now next to "method" patents.

enjoy

Clearly you are misinformed about the technology involved in this dispute. It has nothing to do with embedded software on Mot STBs.

The dispute involves techniques invented by ActiveVideo for streaming over HFC architectures. Verizon had the opportunity to engineer around the AV patents or license them, but instead chose to utilize the IP without doing either. When ATT built UVERSE, it chose a very different approach to unicasting and interactivity which I doubt infringes.

I understand your general point, but I think this is a case where the facts do not fit the "troll" script. Also, you can be sure that Verizon will pull out all stops to get the courts to invalidate these patents, so time will tell.