Verizon Goes For Vonage's Jugular

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-T ··· mmercial

That's how they still act 21 years later.

Wow, I think that was the same equipment in my CO prior to the upgrade to PON.

Thanks for posting that clip. I've been looking for it for quite some time now. I have that line set as my signature!!

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

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.

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.

...and you are a Verizon subscriber?

Better than TWC or D* both of which have screwed me over as a sub.

With this money, if they get it, maybe VZ can afford to pay back PA all the money they stole.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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....

Comcast will buy Vonage along with Sprint

Why? So Comcast can owe Verizon $197Mn plus $4.93/mo./customer?

-tom

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.

That should be the same compensatory amount when someone sues Verizon for handing over privacy information to he NSA.

suddenly i feel like getting vonage's service for the hell of it

I can only say great things about them. The occasional (a few times per year) hiccup for 5 or 6 hours a day, but other than that, rock solid performance. I recommend them constantly to people who have good performing cable or dsl connections.

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.)

Excellent question. I have Speakeasy VOIP. Does that mean Verizon will target them (or Covad) next? If their claims are true, and the patents are essential to VOIP, then isn't every non-Verizon VOIP provider (including Comcast, Qwest, EarthLink, Charter) at risk?

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.

I dunno about the other services, but P8 users their own heavilly patent protected technology.

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...

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

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).

"They have millions to waist on legal bull . . ."

Yup. And they really have no research engineering department to speak of anymore.

Is That there way of saying pots line will be aboselte pretty soon??

no, POTS lines will not be obsolete anytime soon. There are too many smart people who prefer stable, dependable, clear phone calls.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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.

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.

My Verizon "dry loop" DSL uses their central office power backup system in the event of a power failure. My DSL modem and Vonage adapter are on a small UPS here. I still have my VOIP service when the power goes out...

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.

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.

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).