 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
1 edit | Bad PR for Verizon Beside Verizon's "were always better" attitude, and were the phone company!, "opps just lost Peoria. " mindset, I am grateful for cable voip. Hey verizon $20 a month unlimited, with voicemail and other features can you match ? | |
|  | 
Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| Re: Bad PR for Verizon said by DaveNJ  :Beside Verizon's "were always better" attitude, and were the phone company!, "opps just lost Peoria. " mindset, I am grateful for cable voip. Hey verizon $20 a month unlimited, with voicemail and other features can you match ? ok you asked for it »media.putfile.com/Lily-Tomlin-As···mmercial
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
| | | 
Toguro
join:2003-10-23
Ottawa, IL | Re: Bad PR for Verizon That's how they still act 21 years later.  | |
| | | 
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | Wow, I think that was the same equipment in my CO prior to the upgrade to PON. | |
| | | | | | | 
jimmy235
@verizon.net
| Re: Bad PR for Verizon  Even if you get vonage you still are paying either verizon or your cable company for internet access, I don't think they really care whether you go with someone else. I just look at it this way; if your neighbor was coming into your property and using your car without your permission would you not do something about this?. Some of you just dislike whoever is your provider so much what you can't intelligently analyze the situation | |
| | | | |
Zuidema
@comcast.net
|  Re: Bad PR for Verizon
Vonage may have its flaws, but it pioneered VOIP and has brought the cost of land line service down to a reasonable level. | |
| | | | | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Bad PR for Verizon said by Zuidema :
Jimmy, I'm really not sure what your point is. Verizon sucks for a lot more reasons than just this predatory action against Vonage. And Verizon apparently does care that someone is using their wires to deliver phone service. Your car-stealing neighbor analogy makes no sense.
Vonage may have its flaws, but it pioneered VOIP and has brought the cost of land line service down to a reasonable level.
I think cable co need to join together to form one ultra-phone company, and data.
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales
| |
| | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| That 4.93 would put Vonage as more expensive than verizon's VOIP product.
Sounds exactly how the telco's put mom and pop ISP's who introduced most people to the real internet, out of business. They did this by offering us the ability to provide DSL services, but after their fees we could not match their prices and make a profit that could keep us open.
--
Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org | |
| | | 
Slidetbone
Mazin Go
Premium
join:2002-11-10
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Bad PR for Verizon ...and you are a Verizon subscriber?  | |
| | | |
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Re: Bad PR for Verizon Better than TWC or D* both of which have screwed me over as a sub.
--
Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | With this money, if they get it, maybe VZ can afford to pay back PA all the money they stole. | |
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| This is a deal breaker for Vonage. Quoted from the article.
"Vonage has said that the outcome of the case would not disrupt its business."
Yeah, right. Vonage loses this case, they're baked.
I'm not patent attorney, and I don't know all the facts in the case. That said, if Verizon wins, good for them, and look for the "for sale" sign to be hanging up at Vonage.
If Vonage wins, shame on Verizon for this type of heavy handed go for the jugular use of the court system.
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! | |
| | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: This is a deal breaker for Vonage. they have millions to waist on legal bullshit. They act like a damn government agency but try to get all the perks of private ownership. | |
| | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by N3OGH :Quoted from the article. "Vonage has said that the outcome of the case would not disrupt its business." Yeah, right. Vonage loses this case, they're baked. I'm not patent attorney, and I don't know all the facts in the case. That said, if Verizon wins, good for them, and look for the "for sale" sign to be hanging up at Vonage. Doubtful. Look more for a Chapter 11 or, even more likely, a Chapter 7 sign. I mean, really, who's going to want to buy Vonage's patent liabilities?
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: This is a deal breaker for Vonage. Cable providers may like to add some of the customers to their Digital Phone, AT&T would like some for their CallVantage and VZ would like the rest.
But this whole thing does suck. With Vonage having the USB Softphone that you can use anywhere its really saved me a ton of money calling my brother thats over in the UK as an exchange student. | |
| | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: This is a deal breaker for Vonage. said by hottboiinnc :Cable providers may like to add some of the customers to their Digital Phone, AT&T would like some for their CallVantage and VZ would like the rest. Buying a bankrupted business just for the customers is a risky proposition, at best. It'd be kind of like buying a company because you want to have a certain group/type/calibre of employees working for you.
You'd normally buy trashed business for its fixed assets (i.e., assets that can't just up an leave).
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI
| This is Crazy I understand that Verizon uses another company for its VoiceWing service (iconnect?). Do they license their technology to them? Do they pay Verizon $5/mo for their own customers?
Verizon buys out Vonage as part of a settlement.  | |
| 
scrummie02
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Seems the customer gets it the worst. I have used Vonage for over two years. It's been reliable and the service has been good. Their customer service sucks, but I've only ever had to call them twice. I only pay about 27 a month because Virginia decided to tax VOIP. Even with that, it's still cheaper than anything offered by Comcast/Verizon, and I get all the features.
If this puts Vonage out of business that means I'll have to settle for a service that will cost me more money yet offer me no more benefits. This is horrible. I hope Vonage wins, their small business package is a great deal....
--
"I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals." - Matt Stone
»www.reason.com/ | |
| 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | I keep saying this on here and Digg Comcast will buy Vonage along with Sprint | |
| |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: I keep saying this on here and Digg said by odreian615 :Comcast will buy Vonage along with Sprint Why? So Comcast can owe Verizon $197Mn plus $4.93/mo./customer?
-tom | |
| | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
1 edit | Re: I keep saying this on here and Digg As per that $4.93/mo, that would be money in the bank for a Comcast or Sprint.
They would work out a plan to pay quarterly or yearly. That money would be collected, placed in investment instruments that mature in the requisite length of time, cashed out, the money paid, and the interest is a revenue stream.
It's called "playing the float". Your employer does the same thing with your FICA taxes. It's free money.
On edit: It just dawned on me that the charge on bills may well be more than $4.93. "Administrative Fees", you see. Oh yeah, big cash cow for a company like Comcast. $197mill, to them, is pocket lint. | |
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Seems Fair? That should be the same compensatory amount when someone sues Verizon for handing over privacy information to he NSA. | |
| inurenegade
join:2006-06-11
Wilmington, DE | I suddenly... suddenly i feel like getting vonage's service for the hell of it | |
| | | | | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
|  Re: Sunrocket? Packet8? Other VoIP?
| |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Jeffrey :I read the article, but there wasn't really enough information in there to describe why other VoIP's aren't being brought into the mix...What is Verizon specifically saying that Vonage did that other VoIP's have not? I'm a little confused there as to both issues (what specifically is it, & why it's only Vonage.) Vonage isn't doing anything different than the others. But you sue the big guy 1st and if you win, the others will all settle without Verizon having to go to court to get a piece of their pies.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | 
Jeffrey
too dark too early
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Dix Hills,NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Vonage
·magicjack.com
| Re: Sunrocket? Packet8? Other VoIP? said by GOLFnSUN :said by Jeffrey :I read the article, but there wasn't really enough information in there to describe why other VoIP's aren't being brought into the mix...What is Verizon specifically saying that Vonage did that other VoIP's have not? I'm a little confused there as to both issues (what specifically is it, & why it's only Vonage.) Vonage isn't doing anything different than the others. But you sue the big guy 1st and if you win, the others will all settle without Verizon having to go to court to get a piece of their pies. Great. So, when and if Verizon is successful going after the independent VoIP's (Packet 8, Sunrocket, Vonage, etc.) and the Cable operated VoIP products, we'll have Verizon as the sole provider/owner of VoIP "techology."
Sounds a lot like the XM/Sirius merger thread from earlier today with the varying opinions.
--
"When you get lost in your imaginatory vagueness, your forsight becomes a nimble vagrant."
[Ramblings] [RIP Millie 1993-2006]
| |
| | IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | I dunno about the other services, but P8 users their own heavilly patent protected technology. | |
| Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Interesting. I'm a Verizon DSL user that also then uses Vonage for my voice services.
That said, if Verizon wins and I lose Vonage, so be it. If Vonage loses it means they infringed and I can't feel too sorry for them I guess. Such is the price of infringement. I can't say I have any special attachment to Vonage at this point... | |
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmm....... why didn't this lawsuit happen as soon as Vonage started, I thought you had to defend your patents in an expeditious manner? these kinds of lawsuits are what makes us a #ucked up country in regards to technology and innovation...JMT
--
BlooMe | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: hmmmm....... Verizon did not own MCI at the time.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by woody7 :why didn't this lawsuit happen as soon as Vonage started, I thought you had to defend your patents in an expeditious manner? these kinds of lawsuits are what makes us a #ucked up country in regards to technology and innovation...JMT Until 2005 they were too small to bother with. Then starting in 2006 Vonage was sued by multiple companies over patent infringement. »www.cbronline.com/article_news.a···0618B6C1
Vonage said it hopes to stem the legal tide by purchasing three VoIP-related patents from US holding company Digital Packet Licensing Inc. The patents relate to the compression of packetized digital signals commonly used in VoIP, Vonage said.
"Vonage has acquired important patents in the field of VoIP technology in order to bolster its defenses against infringement lawsuits such as those recently filed by Verizon and Sprint," said the Vonage spokesperson.
Klausner Technologies Inc announced it had filed suit against Vonage for alleged patent infringement and was seeking and royalties worth $180m.
For Vonage, it's the just the latest in a series of IP lawsuits against the company. Notably, Sprint Communications LP sued Vonage last October for alleged IP infringement. Then in June, Verizon Communications Inc filed suit against the company for allegedly infringing at least seven of its VoIP-related patents. The above started the feeding frenzy as all parties sue each other as a defense tactic. Verizon is just getting in on the action to protect itself.
Also, Verizon didn't learn of the patent violations until after Vonage filed their tech diagrams as part of their IPO. They then sued in June 2006. The case has been waiting to be heard until now. »www.steptoe.com/attachment.html/···uits.pdf
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | NYC Girl
Premium
join:2007-02-04
Bronx, NY | sour grapes over loosing so many customers to VoIP in general? Vonage does the most advertising out of all the VoIP's. I've never seen an add for AT&T Call Advantage, who knows, just guessing... 8-) | |
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| You are confusing patents and trademarks. You don't have to defend a patent in order to keep it. However if you allow a trademark to dilute, then you can lose it's protection.
Sitting on a patent portfolio is unfortunately a common practice. Many times an IP firm will patent a bunch of very similar ideas, regardless if they actually "invented" them with the hopes that someone someday will infringe on it. If you price the licensing less then the price of a lawsuit, many businesses cave in and just pay the "licensing" fee.
--
Go Colts | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Wonder if other cable companies are next? This could get interesting.  | |
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: Wonder if other cable companies are next? said by moonpuppy :This could get interesting. Unlikely to happen. VZ is most concerned about 3rd parties offering VoIP on their networks, since VZ figures they would likely get the customer's business otherwise. Cable companies don't attempt to sell VoIP services on VZ networks (at least yet). | |
| 
Alex G Bell
join:2002-07-02
Boston, MA
| Verizon Legal "They have millions to waist on legal bull . . ."
Yup. And they really have no research engineering department to speak of anymore.
--
"Remember, Comrade, people who are willing to destroy an efficient telephone system may not be playing with a full deck." | |
| | 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Verizon Legal Is That there way of saying pots line will be aboselte pretty soon?? | |
| | | richardak
join:2001-07-08
Seguin, TX | Re: Verizon Legal no, POTS lines will not be obsolete anytime soon. There are too many smart people who prefer stable, dependable, clear phone calls. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| From what I've read Vonage has made some pretty strong points in this case.
Their # 1 point would seem to be that Verizons patents are invalid because this was originally Net2phones technology in the first place.
If they've been able to successfully demonstrate that for the jury, Verizon probably has a real tough time on their hands.
Also, I previously read somewhere that Verizon succeeded in having these patents be viewed in a pretty broad light in how they could be presented in this case.
They could go against them now as far as Vonages claiming the net2phone connection. In other words, if verizon is trying to say that vonages use of them is pretty similar to their patents..then isn't it fair to also say that verizons patents were also pretty similar to what net2phone had done as well?
And finally, it seems to me that verizon, the pots company of decades..is now trying to present themselves as the voip technology company that Vonage has stolen from.
I'm not sure that if I was a juror, that would pass the credibility test with me.
What I would be more inclined to believe is what Vonage has said in that this is all just about Verizon trying to shut down a competitor.
In any event, it's an interesting case.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
·Aristotle Internet
| Re: From what I've read I maintain...That Vonage should NEVER, have gone mainstream...Too much advertising took the geek outa the VoIP line!
Cost all those that tried to avoid the idiot factions of e911. Of course we all had to suffer the complete idiots that didn't get what VoIP was intended for. The same group are very happily paying out booko bucks to Ahem; Cxxxst ~Because they are just simply too stupid!
There will always be the stupid faction, that costs those that have have an idea 
Friggin idiots outa have just stayed away from what they don't understand. | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | said by Rick :...And finally, it seems to me that verizon, the pots company of decades..is now trying to present themselves as the voip technology company that Vonage has stolen from. I'm not sure that if I was a juror, that would pass the credibility test with me. What I would be more inclined to believe is what Vonage has said in that this is all just about Verizon trying to shut down a competitor... I don't know if Verizon's credibility as a VOIP company from which Vonage stole is relevant. Even if Verizon is to VOIP what Al Gore is to the Internet, they either own a patent Vonage is using or they don't.
Edit: I should say, they either own a patent Vonage is using without their permission or they don't. | |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Really, really puzzled by all of this... If Verizon wins, every VOIP provider may go away. According to the linked article, Verizon believes it owns patents in the following areas and these would certainly be key to any VOIP provider:
said by Linked Article :
The patents cover technology that allows calls made through the Internet to be connected to traditional phone numbers; that enable Internet phone service to use features such as call waiting and voicemail; to coordinate billing; and to connect through a wireless network. I'm certainly puzzled by all of this. Other than the Vonage web site, did Vonage create any VOIP software or hardware? I thought VOIP has been around for years and in limited use by corporations on their own private networks. If so, is the crime that Vonage purchased this same hardware and exposed it to the general public through the Internet? Note that the article mentions calls made through the Internet. While I certainly believe making calls over an IP network is technology, is it patently different technology if that IP network is the Internet versus a private corporate network?
Was there fine print in the hardware manufacturer's license statement that said you will violate our license agreements if you use this hardware outside of your internal network and for making/receiving calls from non-employees? I guess anything is possible...
Regarding coordinated billing, I thought the TA of 1996 forced the ILECs to provide coordinated billing with CLECs. Were they able to patent the resulting ideas on how this should work? If so, it seems very odd since that effort was probably governed by some sort of open working group to develop the interconnect specifications. Is it because Vonage is not considered a CLEC and therefore has no right to the working group's specifications?
My comparisons are usually criticized for apples and oranges but I can't help thinking this is like Ford suing GM because it purchased GoodYear tires for it's vehicles and those tires violated a Ford patent. Is GoodYear or GM liable? Are they both liable? Or did GoodYear license Ford's technology for a few bucks per tire so that they could authorize the purchaser to use the tires on used cars? GM then is at fault since GoodYear cannot control the purchaser's intentions. (Maybe GM told GoodYear they were buying them to put on cars returned at end-of-lease and then actually put the tires on new cars.)
I believe in capitalism and opportunity. I also believe patents are necessary or every Wal-Mart would use its billions to make more money on the backs of every other person's good idea. However, there are times when it seems so confusing and specific what we're able to patent that it doesn't seem to promote healthy competition. In fact at times it seems to work against healthy competition.
And maybe that's the rub. Maybe I think Vonage is healthy competition for the ILECs but they obviously see it in a much different light. | |
| | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: Really, really puzzled by all of this... I have the same questions...
All the protocols used for VoIP are shared between most IP Telephony providers... Namely, SIP, H.323, and the G729 and G711 codecs.
So I really don't see where can a patent be implemented, since all of the features listed as "infringing VZ patents" are part of the definitions of the protocols above. I'm puzzled....
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Really, really puzzled by all of this... All the codecs could be patented but who should have paid Verizon for their use? Vonage or the hardware vendor? I doubt Vonage created the programming for the Cisco ATA 186 or any other VOIP router, did they?
In the early days of Vonage folks who cancelled the service kept the free Vonage-provided ATA186 because Vonage didn't want it back. Of course Vonage would not provide folks with the admin password so that someone could reprogram the ATA for use with a different VOIP provider. I remember some folks claiming that to do so would violate Cisco's license agreement. The same folks said you must buy your own license and then you could use the ATA with another VOIP provider. Regardless, it seems Vonage paid a license fee for each unit or that fee was built into the purchase price of the unit. Therefore isn't Verizon's beef with the ATA hardware vendor?
As I said in my original post, perhaps the patent covers not only the technology but how it is used. Maybe Cisco was only authorized to use VOIP technology in its ATA if the device was sold for use on private networks. I'm gleaning this from the word "Internet" in several of Verizon's claims.
The wireless claim is even more puzzling. It's still VOIP technology regardless of the physical transport, isn't it? Is it patently different when IP's physical transport changes between Ethernet, Frame Relay, CMTS, EVDO, HSDPA, WIMAX, OFDM or 802.11x? | |
| | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
1 edit | Re: Really, really puzzled by all of this... Regarding Cisco hardware, I can assure you that the whole line of Cisco IPT products can be used anywhere you want, provided you pay Cisco enough We roll out large IPT networks with Cisco or Avaya hadrware.
To use the hardware, you need to buy a software license indeed. Kind of like the Windows license. If Vonage was the buyer of the ATA 186 license, then yes, noone else can legally use it. But that's more or less the same as any software where you are not the owner of the license on it.
To be honest, most people would not have forked the amount of $$$ it costs to get a Cisco ATA186...
I seriously doubt the codecs themselves could be patented... They are ITU-T standards... It would be like trying to patent Ethernet or PPP... But as you said, maybe some programming was stolen by Vonage? I'd really like to see the content of the patents being infringed though. I have a suspicion that they are vague patents that try to cover public stuff like codecs and protocols, and that 99% of the IP operators on the planet are using.
Can you patent a vague concept like "transmission of voice over a wireless IP network"? If so, then yes, that would be an easy cash cow... I'm on my way to patent "cleaning dejections from one's rear end with cellulose paper", and sending a lawsuit to Charmin'
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | Re: Really, really puzzled by all of this... I skimmed the lawsuit. It appears that Verizon believes it owns patents on how VOIP connects and interacts with the traditional telephone network. According to another article, Vonage may already have patent work-arounds to avoid Verizon's claims.
The article also mentioned that if Verizon's injunction is granted, Vonage customers would not be able to interconnect with the traditional telephone network. I'm assuming this means that Vonage would still be able to call other Vonage customers but probably not other VOIP customers since I think those interconnects still involve the traditional phone system.
In summary, VOIP doesn't appear to be the problem. The dispute involves how a VOIP call interconnects to POTS.
Oh I forgot. The wireless claim involves how a WiFi phone receives a call regardless of where it is at any given moment. Of course I'm not sure how this would be much different than how a traditional ATA is found regardless of where it's connected to the Internet. My understanding of this is that when booted, the ATA reports itself to a pre-configured server which then knows where it is (by is, I mean IP address of course). I would guess a WiFi phone simply does this each time it associates to a new AP. If someone has a patent on how a WiFi phone does this, I would have to guess that a fixed ATA also violates the patent. Of course that could be a weak spot in our patent system. From my perspective, the patent should be on how a call locates an ATA on the Internet regardless of where it's connected at any given moment. It should not be a different patent if someone hooks a battery and a wireless card to the ATA and makes it more convenient for a customer to transport from place to place. | |
| | 
loincloth
join:2001-03-29
Danville, CA
| said by rradina :However, there are times when it seems so confusing and specific what we're able to patent that it doesn't seem to promote healthy competition. In fact at times it seems to work against healthy competition. Reminds of the patent claims on the human genome/DNA sequences... they don't promote health! | |
| Toolshed
join:2007-03-07
| RE:Verizon and Vonage I am more than happy with my Packet 8 had it 2 years here in WV never had a problem that unplugging the modem and 15 seconds later i was good to call----keep in mind this has happened only once every 3 or 4 months and i live in snow country----i stopped useing Verizon because they dont have any Fios plans for WV-----hopefully they will sue each other in court till they both chapter 11 or 7 | |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Don't cancel your service yet Verizon has just made their closing arguments. The jury or judge hasn't decided who wins and who loses. And no matter who wins, it will surely be appealed to a higher court. This is going to continue on for some time. Look up the RIM Blackberry lawsuit from a year or two ago for a similar type of case and how long it can go on.
--
Go Colts | |
| 
DownTheShore
Tar and Feather Joe Lieberman
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| LOL Why does this remind me so much of how AT&T used to continuously try to charge me $5/mo for the privilege of being my long-distance provider, even though I never made any long-distance calls?
I've been seeing Verizon commercials today in NJ stressing how they still provide service "when the power goes out". Don't know about the rest of you folks, but power rarely goes out for an extended period of time here. It takes a really massive storm with a lot of downed trees and power lines for an outage to last more than an hour or two (usually from a transformer blowing or some fool crashing into a pole carrying power lines). And even then, almost everyone and their brother has a cell phone.
Not to mention the fact that when there is some sort of catastrophic outage, you may get a dial tone, but the lines are too clogged to get a call out.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | 
Trinijoy
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Brick, NJ
| Scary... Well I feel bad for the workers there, 1800 workers? Hmm. How many have kids, how many have wives? Who needs to support themselves? Whatever, I forgot, everyone just cares about making MORE money, not being satisfied with what they have. The more you make, the more you want. Verizon is a ground standing company. It sickens me to the bone that companies have to sue others, just to make them go out of business. They never care about the people who need jobs or work at the place. There is no FAIR play anymore with business it's whoever doesn't make a mistake in there TOS, or there rules. | |
|
drama_rama
@verizon.net
| sands of time.. well, it would be fair for verizon to buy up vonage.. only if
cablecos sell voip out of their cable systems to anyone with broadband... just imagine.. cableco voip over a verizon line?!
what irony! sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for, there could be negative side effects... and I seriously doubt they could do the same thing to cablecos with these patent rights if they were to sell voip on 3rd party lines. | |
| 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Funny how they attack Vonage, but no one else... Why are they going after Vonage, when Vonage did not invent VoIP, they only used existing equipment made by other manufacturers and developers. They should sue Digium too then, for making FXS/FXO ports, and PRI cards, which allow PSTN to talk to a VoIP gateway. Or sue SunRocket, SIPPhone, etc, for their access too. It's not just Vonage. I hate Vonage, but I hate companies who wait 5 years or more to finally say "Hey, you're infringing on us". This is Verizon's way of paying the FiOS bills if you ask me. We all remember the scare a few months back about how Verizon's investors were getting pissed. It only makes sense, please the investors by promising to reclaim losses by suing their competition for phone product, out of business. If you ask me, Vonage should NOT have to pay, and if they DO get charged with violating, since it took Verizon so long to say something, Verizon should get nothing but the $4.93 a month, worse case scenario. They should pass a law I made up called "The Sleeper Law" which states you have X amount of years to sue another company for violation of patents, and if you don't sue, then you're only entitled to receive damages going forward from the time the lawsuit was resolved. This should keep patent holders on their toes, because if you're going to patent something, and sue someone for it, you can't expect to recover the full damages, considering you never made the service work, so you can't put monetary value on damages, as you wouldn't know the cost to run it, since you never made it yourself. I really think a law like this should be made and passed so companies like Verizon, Microsoft, etc, can't sue for stupid things like this (and yes, this is just plain stupid, on Verizon's part, for waiting this long, they knew Vonage was able to provide Voice over Net, with PSTN callin/callout numbers, and even assisted Vonage with providing E911 service, now they want to extort, if you ask me).
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | |
|
|
Verizon Goes For Vonage's Jugular
Sunrocket? Packet8? Other VoIP?