Vonage Barred From Using Verizon VoIP Patents

thefiremonk writes "Bloomberg reports that U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton has issued a permanent injunction against Vonage. The goal: to stop allowing customers to make calls to standard phone lines. 'U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton approved Verizon's request for a block today in Alexandria, Virginia. Hilton said he won't sign the order before a hearing in two weeks on Vonage's request for a stay. A jury found March 8 that Vonage infringed three patents and should pay Verizon $58 million.' Does this spell doom for the already troubled Vonage? "

Comments

Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a phone company can't make phone calls, does that spell doom? Gee, maybe.

So Much For Customer Service

[phinsxiii]

Once again Big Business wins and the customer get screwed.


Isn't Democracy wonderful?

:)

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[hedwards]

How is that? Shouldn't the phone company be properly paid for the use of its network? One way or another this was going to happen, either the cost of data going over the network would go up or the cost of VoIP was going to go up.

Telephone carriers have a duty to make sufficient profits to do things like maintain the network. Vonage really should have to pay considering that they are currently using the carrier's own network to compete against them while only paying less to provide the service across multiple networks.

Additionally companies like vonage are not required to pay towards the universal service fund. Which goes to maintenance and paying for lines in areas where phone companies genuinely couldn't make a profit providing service.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[GuyverDH]

Really?

Does Verizon pay every ma and pa phone shop who's lines they use passing Cell Calls to land lines?

I highly doubt it.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[hedwards]

Got anything to back that up or is that just conjecture? Where do you think that the money from the roaming charges goes?

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[phinsxiii]

Really?

What about the Billions of taxpayer dollars that the Bells received in the 90s to upgrade the infrastructure that they still haven't halfway finished? You remember fast access to every doorstep? Well that has only turned out to be limited to major metropolitan areas. I still can only get fast access to my doorstep through my cable company. Bellsouth has yet to provide DSL, and I live in a fairly large city.

No. This is pure greed. Vonage forced the Bells to reduce their pricing before they were ready to compete, so Verizon is just going to sue Vonage out of existence. Vonage was already in dire straits. They will not survive this legal battle and that is what the Bells wanted.

The Bells do have a right to make a profit, but not at the expense of the customer.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[thaylin]

By that logic should verison not have to pay vonage for using vonages network? Should ATT not have to pay verison and so forth? Telephone carriers do not have a duty to make a profit to maintain the network, that would come out of the income way before profit is declared.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[antarctican]

It is yet again another perfect example of how patents actually hinder innovation rather than spur it. A sad day.

I haven't been following this but I'm not curious to dig deeper to see what exactly these patents are. As in, is it as simple as a patent on network->land line calls? And if so, that's not only an overly broad patent, but could mean the doom for the entire coip industry. Or even open source projects such as Asterisk. I certainly hope this patent turns out to be some very specific technology, otherwise a booming and very useful technology will suddenly have the door slammed in it's face.

I guess that will be the question, is it a patent on a technology or... *shudder* an idea for a technology. An actual method for doing something should be patentable, but an idea like, "what if we hook a network to a phone line" should most certainly not be. And I would think there is prior art if the latter turns out to be the case.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Jim_Maryland]

I think you are looking at two very different problems here. The cost of using the network is different from the technology to connect to a network. Presumably Vonage has to pay a connection fee for the physical connection to phone networks and this should cover usage cost of the network. As for connecting to the network, there are probably a fairly limited number of ways to interface with the phone network and anyone looking to connect would reach a similar configuration. For the Universal Service Fund, why not include that fee in the cost of the network usage fees for connecting to the phone network?

Jim

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[URSpider]

Really?

Does Verizon pay every ma and pa phone shop who's lines they use passing Cell Calls to land lines?

I highly doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? Of course they pay them. Check out this recent story on a company that was making millions off of these payments by redirecting incoming calls back out over VoIP, basically a form of bit-laundering.

And, it's "whose," not "who's."

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[PreviouslySeen]

"The Bells do have a right to make a profit, but not at the expense of the customer"

If they are not going to make a profit from the customer, then at whose expense?

But I agree there should be a profit with margin influenced by fair competition.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[don_bear_wilkinson]

If by "the customer gets screwed" you mean "I can not no longer personally benefit from artificially (and now we find, illegally) low prices", such that you might have to go back and pay a reasonable amount for a service, then yes, you are getting screwed.

I see this as having very little to do with Democracy, other than we vote for the people who make or oversee the laws that would generally govern these kinds of services. I'd say this has to do with Capitalism.

Hmmm, another (young) person who suffers from an over-developed sense of entitlement? Mayyyybe.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[don_bear_wilkinson]

[begin quote]
No. This is pure greed. Vonage forced the Bells to reduce their pricing before they were ready to compete, so Verizon is just going to sue Vonage out of existence. Vonage was already in dire straits. They will not survive this legal battle and that is what the Bells wanted.

The Bells do have a right to make a profit, but not at the expense of the customer.
[end quote]

Believe me, I am NOT a fan of greed. I HATE it, from deep in my heart. I honestly and passionately believe greed is the root of all evil. Not from some religious dogma, from observation of human life around me.

That said, I think you are flat out wrong. It is not greed to;

1) want to make a fair return on your costs/investments
2) want to be paid for use of your infrastructure
3) want to make enough profits to repay investors, fund research, etc.
4) want to compete on a level playing field.

If Vonage "stole" or cheated to make it possible to force pricing (artificially) to a level that Vonage can't compete with, then they have to fight that and protect themselves. That's not evil greed, that's trying to get rid of an unfair cheat.

I think there's a bunch of bullshit and silliness with IP and patent laws, and the whole system is both broken at it's roots and being abused and misused daily, but cheating is cheating.

Lastly, you need to get over this idea that all that matters is what benefits you^H^H^H the Customer. Just because someone can come up with a way to give you something that you want for less money does not justify any and all means.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Stewie241]

But everything gets paid for somehow, does it not?

If vonage connects to the POTS network, then presumably they pay for these connections, right?

The traffic over the Internet is also paid for by either the subscribers, who are already paying for their Internet connection, and also by Vonage, who pays for bandwidth over their network.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[rainman_bc]

How is that? Shouldn't the phone company be properly paid for the use of its network?

I don't know about the US, but here in Canada all phone lines are public domain and the phone companies are licensed to use it.

I'll be it's the same in the US - otherwise you'd have a natural monopoly in telcos - no city is going to allow redundant phone lines all over their city so the telcos can compete.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the silliest argument I've heard so far. Vonage didn't invent most of this technology that it's being sued for violating patents on. It took technologies from known companies and built a VoIP network when none of the major providers were willing to. It didn't do this with any intention of doing it illegally and the methods you call illegal hardly result in the cost savings that Vonage has passed on to its customers.

These cost savings exist based on the large bureaucracy surrounding Verizon and it's overpaid unionized workers. BTW who do you work for? There are multiple other providers who offer VoIP service for comparable rates to Vonage are they all illegally doing so? Even my local cable company isn't that far out of line with Vonage's unlimited plan. About $10 more a month and they have more local support than Vonage does.

The bottom line is Verizon never ever wanted to see VoIP succeed and a flat unlimited rate model. They wanted to keep charging $30 a month just for the privilege of having a crappy old copper POTS line and massive long distance charges for each call. This isn't because of having to upgrade their "expensive" network it's a matter of squeezing us for every penny on ancient technologies while only implementing new technologies to save money on their bottom line. I'm all for corporate profit but there is reasonable and there is usury.

Ma Bell has been ripping us of for years and I for one am happy to have alternatives. This just gives adds more ammunition to the fire for people to avoid all Verizon services and look to competitors be it home phone, high speed or cellular phone. If Vonage gets closed down I sure as heck won't be going to Verizon. I'll look at AT&T or my cable provider Time Warner for "landline" services.`

This is patent abuse pure and simple and has little to do with an entitlement mentality and more to do with fair competition.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[tekkguy]

Telcos don't compete in most areas of the US. In my area (just outside of Dallas), for example, ATT owns the phone lines and I couldn't get Verizon service even if I wanted it. Likewise in Verizon areas, you can't get ATT service. I literally have three choices for phone service in my area - ATT, who owns the lines, Time Warner who owns the cable lines, or VOIP.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Brickwall]

They wanted to keep charging $30 a month just for the privilege of having a crappy old copper POTS line and massive long distance charges for each call.

Massive long distance charges? What planet do you live on? LD rates have been dropping for years. I remember when Vancouver to Toronto was $0.56/minute (and that's in 1980 dollars). Now that call is 3 cents a minute. So rates have dropped dramatically, especially when you consider inflation.

And if you don't want to play with Verizon, buy a phone card. From Toronto, I can call halfway around the world for 17 cents a minute - hardly what I call "massive".

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[dgatwood]

How do you steal something that is nothing more than the IP equivalent of what HAM operators have been doing for decades? It's just a simple medium change, same as any other medium change. The fact that Verizon was able to get a patent on such a breathtakingly obvious thing is appalling, and the fact that the patent was upheld, triply so. It is a completely obvious extension of something that has been done for many, many, many years. Hell, I seem to recall computer modems that could be adapted to do this sort of thing back in the 80s.

The fact is that this is just the old school telephone industry using lawsuits to protect their obsolete business practices and try to mask the fact that they've been charging line switching rates for packet switching long distance service for two decades. Verizon deserves to get their asses handed to them, and if Vonage is going to go under, it is the responsibility of other VoIP providers to prop them up so that they can continue this fight, for if it is settled in Verizon's favor, it will decimate the VoIP industry.

Either way, screw Verizon. Long distance communication is what video chat services are for, and they don't cost anything, unlike VoIP. I don't remember the last time I used a landline telephone regularly, VoIP or otherwise. Even VoIP is too expensive for what they actually provide. :-)

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[dgatwood]

IMHO, 3 cents a minute is still massive when you consider that AIM audio chat offers the same quality for free. For that matter, long distance hasn't been line-switched for years, so why is there an initial connection charge on long distance calls? It doesn't cost the provider any more for the first minute as it does for the last. And why do I have to pay long distance charges when I call the adjacent city (in my county)? And why has the base rate gone up astronomically while the long distance fees dropped? They'll find a way to get their money from you somehow. Don't you worry. The baby Bells are good at that.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[jonbryce]

Well London to either Vancouver or Toronto, or for that matter Australia, China, etc is about $0.02 per minute, so that is way too expensive. Within Britain, long distance calls are about 5p ($0.10) per hour.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that Vonage doesn't have to fund the Spanish / American War like the VoCu companies. Remember the Maine and lets start taxing Vonage and all other VoIP companies. It is about time that they start paying their fair share.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[lnklnklnk]

In some instances, yes. There are these things between carriers called 'interconnection agreements' that dictate the rules of the network. In many cases, interconnection agreements established before say, 2000 or 2001, included clauses where company A has to pay for every call that company B terminates on their network.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[mabhatter654]

but Vonage does pay for the lines. They pay to have "phone lines" to the demux box that down coverts from the network to phone company lines to make the calls. As well as for the network bandwidth they use.. fat pipes 24x7 cost thousands of dollars a month. The joke of the whole thing is that they are most likely using off-the-shelf phone company equipment turned around backwards... instead of binding 2-3 T1 INTO their company they are sending the phone calls back OUT in the proper format.... It's genius.

I find patent infringement hard to swallow though. This is all off-the-shelf equipment, the patents should have been paid for with the equipment purchase.. so maybe it's a software patent on moving the data type "phone call" from an internal network to the phone company network. Either way, the Phone company and equipment maker has been well paid... and they've found a technicality to sue on.

As far as the phone company not getting their "fair share", realize in most cases a phone call is only a 28.8k stream for them... and they pay "long distance" over the same pipes we use the internet for.... in other words typical long distance calling is ALREADY VOIP and customers are being raped for cost of voice (28.8k * $.15/min) compared to data (1Mb/S for $39/month). Phone companies need to adjust their models to better reflect the cost structure... perhaps we should pay more for the higher speeds (6mb) but less for basic (768k) and do away with POTS altogether.. it's a quick change of boxes at your house for most people.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[lnklnklnk]

It's not the same in the US. The city does not own the lines. The problem here is that it is prohibitively expensive to run your own lines. To run your own lines, you need poles. Now, you can either pay the city to put in new poles all over the city, or pay an existing pole owner. In most cases, the pole owner is the electric or telephone company. You need permission to use these poles, before you can even start negotiating pole access rates and rights. So, to successfully run independent of the telephone company, you need lots of cable, pole rights, customer premise equipment (e.g. junction box, mux), and the staff to deploy and install these items. Can you see the massive amount of dollar signs accumulating? The Bells inherited this from the breakup, and have reaped all the benefits since then.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[lnklnklnk]

Long distance rates dropped in the late '90s after the Telecommunication Act introduced competition. Without it, you would still be paying your phone company for long distance with no choice of another carrier. By allowing competition, new vendors invested in the market, driving down the price of long distance so much that you can enjoy your 3 cents a minute.

If that space had been locked up by the Bells, you'd be paying the same rates, and almost double for your phone card.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[mrchaotica]

That said, I think you are flat out wrong. It is not greed to;

1) want to make a fair return on your costs/investments

What investments? The public paid for the telephone infrastructure, not Verizon!

2) want to be paid for use of your infrastructure

The public's infrastructure, you mean.

3) want to make enough profits to repay investors, fund research, etc.

Bell Labs isn't run by the Bells anymore.

4) want to compete on a level playing field.

Are you kidding? Using patents and regulation to block competition is the opposite of a "level playing field!"

Lastly, you need to get over this idea that all that matters is what benefits you^H^H^H the Customer.

The only purpose of patents are "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." In other words, patents exist for the benefit of the public as a whole. Therefore, because Verizon is trying to use the patent against the interest of the public, Verizon does not deserve to have the patent anymore. QED.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[GuyverDH]

Into their coffers - they've already got agreements with all the major cell carriers to cover those types.

I'm talking when the cell call goes from tower, into the regular phone network, off to ma and pa kettle in the remote mountains.

None of the carriers are paying those small bell shops to *carry* the call to the person being called. It's just part of being on the phone network.

If they think others should pay because they are using tech that verizon *supposedly* invented without relying on anyone elses work (which I don't believe), then they should be paying every company who's phone lines the call crosses.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[drsquare]

Believe me, I am NOT a fan of greed. I HATE it, from deep in my heart. I honestly and passionately believe greed is the root of all evil.

Greed works. If it wasn't for greed, the Americans wouldn't have been colonised. There where would you all be?

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[bigpat]

Isn't Democracy wonderful? More like Bureaucracy which is to blame for allowing frivolous patents. And you get Bureaucracy regardless of how the government is formed.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a native Hawaiian, you insensitive clod. My ancestors lived a subsistence lifestyle, and had far more leisure time. I guarantee that if the Americans [sic] hadn't been colonized, I would be far better off.

(This must be the first time that phrase was used with no intention of being funny.)

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[rainman_bc]

The Bells inherited this from the breakup, and have reaped all the benefits since then.

Not that I'm always a huge fan of the way we do things here in Canada, but public ownership of the phone lines has been a good enabler of competition here, both for Long Distance and Residential service. In fact govt can easily legislate that telcos are forced to wholesale their lines to allow for competition too...

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[drsquare]

What was the life expectancy of a Hawaiian before and after the conquest?

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[SloWave]

Verizon's phone lines are running right across my land. I should be getting a cut of all the phone calls that traverse my land too. Isn't this what monopolism is all about.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[don_bear_wilkinson]

I'm sorry. I mislead you. You were given to think that I was making claims on behalf of Verizon with those 4 statements. I was not. I was stating something in the realm of 'simple truths'. Whether or not they apply here is not something I care to debate. I am underinformed to do so in good conscience (not that it stops most people :)).

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[hoverbored]

Quick! I need a patent lawyer! Is a string and 2 Dixie cups patented yet??

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Workaphobia]

I can't muster much sympathy for a company known for spyware-based advertising.

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Lastly, you need to get over this idea that all that matters is what benefits you^H^H^H the Customer. Just because someone can come up with a way to give you something that you want for less money does not justify any and all means.

Uhmm, yeah ....

So you believe that the business has the right to make whatever profits they want to detriment of the customer? That insanity is what is wrong with this country. The whole point of business is that they are there to provide a service to the customer. They need to be able to do so and still make a profit. This is where the market comes into play. However, the bells are heavily subsidized by government funds, i.e. your taxes, and have little to no competition. This allows them to direct the market in their favor to the determent of the customer. This only changes when the customers has enough and stops spending his money. That would be called a recession.

So as you can see, if these businesses continue to drive the market to their benefit by using questionable patents to squash the competition with help from an unfriendly government, we will head towards a recession. This will not hurt the companies because they will continue to cut costs, i.e. employees, to keep their profit margins up. This of course will continue to hurt the economy. You can see where this is going.

So, there needs to be happy medium where everyone can benefit. That would be a system in which the patent system in this country is seriously revamped.

But please. Keep playing politics instead of trying to find solutions that actually work.

This is not a

level playing field by any stretch of the imagination. It is greed. If was not greed, Verizon would be working with them instead of trying to put Vonage out of business.

P.S. There is absolutely no proof that Vonage

stole anything from Verizon. If anything, it is my opinion that Verizon and other stole money from the citizens of this country. (See my earlier comment on where your tax money went to)

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[phinsxiii]

First off, the British colonized America, not the

Americans.

If you wish to make the argument that my country is founded on greed, I wish you would do it in English.

Second, this country WAS colonized by the British in order to open new profitable markets. It was the populace that kicked the British out for freedom. Sure they were tired of paying high taxes to the crown, but the average soldier that fought in that revolution included people that were tired of British persecution (i.e religious, cultural, etc.)

I will agree that Big Business in this country is run by greed. That is why the dollar is not worth what it used to be worth and is worth even less compared to other currencies. I will agree that some elements of that greedy philosophy has been injected into our government. That is the impetus of my arguments. It is time for the people of this country to take the country back. This is does not mean Socialism, or Communism, or any other ...ism, But it does mean that we need to take control of the country and return to our Democratic/Republic roots before we become sliced up corporate entities. If you don't think we are being carved up by Big Business, then just look where the major donations to your local representative comes from. There is room for competition, profitability, and democracy. But it has to be a democratic representative government that is not financed by Big Business.

Peace:)

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

So would you rather live a good life for 50/60 years or a crappy, stressful life for 80 years?

Re:So Much For Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shouldn't the phone company be properly paid for the use of its network?"

Doesn't the POTS person on the receiving end pay for phone service? Last time I checked, I was billed whether I made phone calls or not.

"Additionally companies like vonage are not required to pay towards the universal service fund. Which goes to maintenance and paying for lines in areas where phone companies genuinely couldn't make a profit providing service."

Socialism. Why should anyone pay for someone elses phone service. Live where there are phone lines. This is no different than people who live on oceanfront property wanting to pay normal insurance rates.

well

[mastershake_phd]

They better come up with a none-infringing way to send calls from the internet to a phone line. Maybe a speaker a phone and some duct tape?

Re:well

[Coldmoon]

Maybe a speaker a phone and some duct tape?

Anyone checked to see if the string implementation is covered by Copyright? Would hate to have the speaker phone duct tapped to my head without a line out to call for help...

Re:well

[fermion]

I believe you are looking for an acoustic coupler. We had to use this back when AT&T made the phones.

Yet another reason for patent reform

[Overzeetop]

Actually, it's this kind of patent use (abuse) - restraint of trade - that should be forbidden. It should be prevented becuase of the monopoly and incumbent carrier status that Verizon holds on the wired telephone market.

They are not using the patents to forward the condition of man, but rather to choke off a competitor in an estabilshed industry with an (effectively) insurmountable cost of entry using traditional methods.

It's no surprise that Verizon is one of the top ten hated corporations.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that exactly what parents are? A way to grant a temporary monopoly to an individual or company?

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[operagost]

They are not using the patents to forward the condition of man

That's not the purpose of patents. Patents are used to encourage invention by limiting the ability of others to copy the inventor's work during a limited period.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[radarjd]

Actually, it's this kind of patent use (abuse) - restraint of trade - that should be forbidden. It should be prevented becuase of the monopoly and incumbent carrier status that Verizon holds on the wired telephone market.

Are you saying that any use of a patent by Verizon should be barred? The problem with broad statements like that is that historically the government is not good at drawing those kinds of lines. How do you determine that a patent is being used "to forward the condition of man"? Is it only if it's given away for free? Is it only if the patented subject matter is new and non-obvious?

The patent office is supposed to determine just that. That it fails indicates a failure in the patent office, and not a failure of the law.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Kenja]

OK.... so how big (in your opinion) does a company have to be before they should be forced to give away their research and Ip to competing companies?

Not saying I agree with the situation, but the problem is not Verizon enforcing their patents but the patent process itself.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Cerebus]

Which part of "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" is unclear?

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know where you've been but verizon has done one hell of a lot more in "the progress of science and useful arts" than vonage ever has. or are you saying that royalty free use of patents is ok as long as the company that's getting ripped off is bigger? or even worse yet, are you claiming that vonage has done something innovative outside of the house that verizon has already built?

i know if this were microsoft up to the same game as vonage we'd be hearing howls of how "it's not innovation, they're just robbing some other company that already laid the groundwork".

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[madirad]

> It's no surprise that Verizon is one of the top ten hated corporations.

Is this literally true? I haven't been able to find any such list.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Overzeetop]

Absolutely not. Verizon can have all the patents they want, they just can't use them as a way to prevent another carrier from offering a competing service to their monopoly service.

Personally, I don't think Macrovision should be allowed to enforce patents on the decoding of their protection schemes, as they are using them solely for restraint of trade and have no intent to produce commercial products with them.

I equate this to an automotive company having a patent on the use of gasoline for engines. Or Comcast having a patent for video delivery using baseband analog video signal (wouldn't that fuck up the last meter connection for most of Verizon's IPTV offerings).

I'm not saying that its feasible to do so in the current patent scheme, just that this is not the intent of patent law. Patents are meant to promote progress, not restraint of trade.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[DaWorm666]

Absolutely not. Verizon can have all the patents they want, they just can't use them as a way to prevent another carrier from offering a competing service to their monopoly service.They aren't saying they can't use the patented technology, they are saying that they must pay for a license to use it. Big difference.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Overzeetop]

What part of "Permanent Injunction" don't you understand?

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Overzeetop]

Well slashdot hasn't duped this yet, so I can understand how you missed it. Actually, it looks like a small-sample poll (100,000 votes), but they did manange to rank up there with the worst.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[PPH]

That's not the purpose of patents. Patents are used to encourage invention by limiting the ability of others to copy the inventor's work during a limited period.

Exactly. That's the problem with patents as currently implemented. The US Constitution empowers Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;

So the exclusive rights granted to authors and inventors is subject to their furthering the progress of science and the useful arts. If an inventor patents something and then sits on the patent, it should be revoked. I think inventors should be required to demonstrate this promotion of progress by either building something or licensing the patent.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Pollardito]

i'm not sure why you're reading so much into his motivations. i think he's just saying that the one particular patent "a method of translating calls between the Internet and standard phones" doesn't appear to be used by Verizon at all, and they're enforcing this patent purely to prevent anyone else from using that means to enter the phone industry.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[lnklnklnk]

Not necessarily, but this would be a very interesting anti-trust case if formed (*hint* *hint* *hint*). Bell Atlantic and GTE were required to divest some of their infrastructure because it was thought it would be too anti-competitive. Part of this merger included BBN Laboratories (now known as Verizon Labs) who originally held the patent. I think a review is in order.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[iCEBaLM]

Verizons patents should be deemed invalid. Please show me anyone at all, let alone someone who "understands the technical field of the invention", who thinks that getting phone calls placed over the internet to interact with the PSTN is non-obvious and worthy of a patent.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[iCEBaLM]

Alright, so the purpose of patents isn't to forward the condition of man (invention), but it's to encourage invention (forwarding the condition of man).

What?

I think you are confused between the purpose of patents and how the system is set up to achieve that goal.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Breakfast Pants]

Oh wow, Mr. Armchair Politician just solved the whole patent problem! How, Mr. Armchair Politician, do you suppose we would measure 'building something or licensing the patent'? I could license it to my grandma. I could build a purposely shitty implementation with virtually no public visibility just so I could pull the same shit that happens today.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[eonlabs]

Please explain to me an instance where a patent "forwards the condition of man"

As far as I can tell, I no longer am seeing valid instances.

I'm asking as an honest question.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[bigpat]

OK.... so how big (in your opinion) does a company have to be before they should be forced to give away their research and Ip to competing companies? How about changing the law so that companies can't withhold technology from the market via a patent. Make them license it and if the company thinks teh licensing cost is too excessive then simply let courts determine if the patent license is excessive. The court in this case determined a 5% surcharge on the service vonage was charging was appropriate, a 5% surcharge is a competitive advantage to Verizon and gives them revenue, seems very appropriate.

Letting little Ma' Bell crush a competitor because they think it is their god given right to provide me with a phone and charge me excessively is just plain wrong.

I ain't going back to Verizon, even if I have to drop home phone service altogether.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think Verizon hasn't been using that patent? Verizon has been using VOIP for long distance call routing for years now, tranlating it to/from POTS at both ends.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[PPH]

Simple. Just require that patents be made available to all those willing to license them through a central clearinghose, similar to what ASCAP and BMI do for copyrighted material.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[operagost]

That's not the same as "forward the condition of man," which is what the gp poster stated. That implies socialistic goals.

Re:Yet another reason for patent reform

[Breakfast Pants]

So, a patent on a nuclear reactor design would have the same per unit licensing fee as a new toothbrush?

Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[R2.0]

I like Vonage, but it sounds like this could kill them.

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[chill]

That quote is from Les Nessman, not Arthur Carlson.

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[nsayer]

We need a "-1 wrong" mod.

The quote is, indeed, said by Arthur Carlson. After all, it was HIS idea to drop the turkeys from the chopper.

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[R2.0]

Less Nessman's part in the best TV episode ever were the phrases "They're dropping like bags of wet cement!" and "Oh, the Humanity!"

And yes, I know the last one was from the Hindenburg disaster, and I'm sure the writers did as well. That's why it's funny.

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[chill]

Damn, I need to track down some re-runs. 30-year old memories just aren't cutting it anymore!

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[Eccles]

Blame the RIAA. "WKRP.." hasn't made it onto DVD (last I checked) due to music licensing issues.

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[chill]

Rejoice, for the time is nigh!

Official DVD release date is April 24, 2007 according to Amazon. Season One, anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000MXPE6U

Re:Guess I need to look at the Comcast bundle

[Anonymous Coward]

And why wouldn't Verizon sue Comcast as well?

Verizon - Patent Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

No other way to describe the company.

If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[chevman]

For all us Vonage subscribers, what VOIP company should we think about switching to if Vonage goes under?

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly won't be signing up with FIOS if Verizon kills Vonage. And I will certainly be in every city council meeting regarding FIOS and building permits bringing up the case the Verizon is abusing its irrelevant patents to stamp out competition and that the city (in my case, Tampa/Temple Terrace, Florida) doesn't want to submit to yet another massive monopoly.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

For all us Vonage subscribers, what VOIP company should we think about switching to if Vonage goes under?

Will it matter? Don't you think that Vonage is just first in the barrel?

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[morgan_greywolf]

Cable companies are offering great bundles on their digital phone service bundled with high-speed Internet and digital cable. Comcast and Bright House Networks both offer service that competes with Vonage on price, but not on features. If I had to jump ship, that's where I'd go.

(Disclosure: I've been a Vonage customer for more than 2 years, but I did turn down the IPO.)

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[jtn]

You realize, of course, if Vonage is unsuccessful in having a stay granted and cannot develop a technical work around and thus departs from the marketplace, Verizon will become emboldened to press lawsuits against other voice providers using VoIP-to-PSTN gateway technologies? Goodbye Packet8, goodbye Broadvoice, goodbye VoicePulse...

It would seem the only solution in the end is to entirely bypass the legacy PSTN system and encourage the people you call to switch to a VoIP solution so no calls are terminated by Verizon.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[jtn]

Comcast and Bright House both have deeper pockets than Vonage, however, do you think they would be able to withstand Verizon's lawyers? Assuming the patents involved are infringed upon in a way the jury assumed in the Vonage case...

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T CallVantage?

It would seem that AT&T would by their very nature be licensed to use these patents under some cross-licensing deal that surely exists between Verizon and AT&T. If not, I'm sure AT&T has enough patents that should Verizon get uppity and go after them AT&T could cause them sufficient pain to work out a deal.

I've had CallVantage service for over two years, and despite the annoying changes brought about by E911, my call quality has always been excellent and I am generally a happy customer. My only complaints: e911 hassles and the devices are locked down so you can't use them with other providers or asterisk, though I've seen some information on the net about how to unlock them.

I'm using the linksys TA without wireless. Avoid the wireless TA - it's crap! The wired only version is great. Plus it stacks neatly between the linksys cable modem and my wrt54g. :) I've heard bad things about the dlink ta (don't even know if they still make them - i haven't looked at hardware options for 2 years and I have a spare linksys TA in case mine ever dies).

I haven't looked into connecting asterisk to them yet, but I'm sure it's not "supported." One day I'll have time to look into it.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[daeg]

Brighthouse certainly doesn't compete on price OR features. I pay about $30.15 a month with Vonage for unlimited nationwide (and some other countries that I don't care about). Bright House, for Tampa, is $39.95 *plus* fees, which according to a BHN rep, are about $8/month on $40, or around $48/month. You can get "Florida-wide" coverage for $11 less, but you have to pay another $4 for simple voice mail. Bright house, according to reps, doesn't allow simultaneous rings, e-mailed voicemail messages. According to a friend, the BHN system doesn't play nice unless you use the BHN home router package (which is free, but crap, compared to regular consumer-grade routers).

Hardly something that I'd like to "upgrade" to. I hate giving Bright House what I already give them, let alone even more...

And, on the Florida-calling only plan, its 5/minute for outside of Florida.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[wizbit]

I have Vonage, and this story obviously worries me quite a bit. But your point about Verizon misses the mark for its other services - Verizon are also providing competition in other areas (eg, cable TV). Comcast is the undisputed king in my area (Philly) but I am seriously considering switching to Verizon's TV service after seeing their lineup and pricing. Not to mention, I don't have many options here (no view of the southern sky = no satellite TV) and I'm tired of giving my money to the local monopoly - on TV, at least. But I agree in principle that this kind of anticompetitive behavior really doesn't serve anyone, and it's yet another example of patent law abuse that screws the average consumer.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[mcappel]

Been using SunRocket for two years now with no complaints about SunRocket per se. Comcast, our high-speed ISP, is less than reliable.

Have no idea if Verizon's patents apply to SunRocket.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[MikeyTheK]

Time Warner's service is expensive, and certainly no better. I switched a year-and-a-half ago to SunRocket because Vonage was too expensive at $25.00 per month. With SunRocket at $200.00 per year I can put up with the issues I've had with them.

However, if this crap continues, I'll probably buy a Skype peripheral and wire in that way.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[PaulMorel]

Comcast employs thousands of people in Philadelphia (their headquarters) and Pittsburgh. As a Pittsburgh resident, I feel like it's my social responsibility to buy cable from Comcast.

Also, Verizon has dicked me around more times than I could possibly recount in this post.

As per the article, I, for one, think that this is a case of patent abuse.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using Skype now for International calls and T-Mobile family plan for everything else.
I got rid of Vonage a few months ago after being "their loyal" customer for more than a year.

No regret so far.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[wizbit]

Verizon also employs plenty of people in the region. Bell Atlantic's headquarters was in Philadelphia practically from birth until the merger (90's?)

My major beefs with Comcast:
- Constant rate hikes
- Local monopoly on home sports coverage
- Channels disappearing from their analog lineup
- Pretty steep internet and phone rates

My experience with Verizon:
- Decent service
- Cheaper internet

There was a recent /. article describing the installation for their FIOS TV service, and it blew me away. Tech spending hours at your house on a weekend evening? All Comcast ever did was punch a hole through my wall, test cables from outside and plug in the digital box. (Thanks.)

Really, I don't see the downside of some competition in the TV area and I'll happily cancel my service with Comcast when they offer the FIOS TV service.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[dabraun]

I pay Vonage $15/mo for phone service. There's no way that Comcast competes with this on price.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Verizon.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[dnahelix1]

whatever.

I just got an offer from Suddenjoke (I mean, suddenlink) about a internet phone for 40 bucks a month, before tax. I pay 19.70 with my Vonage service with a local Indiana number for my parents to call me while I live in Texas. (If people in TX want a local #, they can call my cell). I dropped Verizon two years ago because the taxes that they were charging were ridiculous (~20% of my phone bill). Any problems that I've had with my phone service with Vonage was because of my ISPs inability to provide me with a decent connection and literally tens of hours on the phone with the idiots with Cox/Suddenlink. There's still no competition in my area with either internet (Suddenlink/Verizon--who still doesn't have FIOS in the area) or tv (I dropped down to the basic of basic cable packages b/c I was sick of paying Suddenlink).

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lingo.com

excellent service and value.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Craprock]

i've never had any problems with packet8 http://www.packet8.net/, plus they offer E911.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[meatspray]

Verizon offers voicewing, direct vonage replace, equivalent pricing, sameish features.

http://www22.verizon.com/ForYourHome/VOIP/VOIPHome .aspx

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[rindeee]

Damn straight (flash back to the late 80's). Seriously, this could really suck. I'm a happy customer of both Telasip and Axvoice. The trickle-down effect that this could have is pretty serious. IANAL, but in this case I sort of wish I was so that I could understand this better. Crap crappity crap!

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[GWBasic]

It would seem the only solution in the end is to entirely bypass the legacy PSTN system and encourage the people you call to switch to a VoIP solution so no calls are terminated by Verizon.

I'm getting tempted to refuse to talk on anything but free VOIP. Skype video works perfect for free international calls, so why should I PAY to talk to someone else?

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get yourself a fractional DS1 (2 or 3 b channels should be enough for you, right?)
if you want real digital phone service.

I've been working with several providers (such as Delta 3) - and I can't
even have a coherent conversation when their sales people call me through their own
equipment beca@#$ every !@$@#^ packet s@#^%%&ms to dis @#%#$^pear.

Are you really convinced 4 guys copying DMS250 (or 4ESS) features have a higher
quality product? Some guy writing code in his underwear in mommy and daddy's basement
can fully reproduce all 4,000 ISDN features? He's probably lucky to implement 500. =)

BTW - companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, and MCI converted to VOIP between their
switches years ago. They don't have to deal with Joe sixpack installing another Bonzai
Buddy free video game that breaks their softphone. A true production level environment
has fully controlled endpoints. Even the VOIP cable companies provide don't use IP.
Most use ATM and/or frame relay.

Too many people have fallen for the VOIP hype that the Internet will make everything free.
I got a trouble ticket at work the other day from a customer complaining that calls from
Skype weren't connecting to me. Funny - Skype isn't real phone service. If it was,
they would be providing a REAL phone number accessable from ANY phone in the US (I know,
not a true comparison to Vonage but hear me out).

Make calls for free to anywhere in the US! Somebody has to pay for them, whether it's the
DS1s on somebody's gateway or the minutes used.

I want something for free too. You don't spend all 24 hours a day in your home... why don't
I just move in when you aren't there... eat all your food... warm myself with your heat...
cool myself with your air conditioning... shelter myself from nature...
then call the cops on you because you want me to leave?

Everything's not so free when it's YOUR equipment or network others want to leech, is it.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[FrostedChaos]

For what it's worth, I'm also in the telecom industry.

A true production level environment has fully controlled endpoints. Even the VOIP cable companies provide don't use IP. Most use ATM and/or frame relay.
ATM and frame relay are legacy technologies. They're being phased out in favor of IP just as quickly as carriers can.

Everything's not so free when it's YOUR equipment or network others want to leech, is it.
Yeah, except that it was built with OUR tax dollars, and the current "owners" are doing little to invest their windfall profits back into the system.
As a result, the United States is now falling behind the rest of the world in broadband internet.

I can vouch for this, having worked at a major router manufacturer. We made lots of sales around the world, to BT, France Telecom, some Russians, KT, India. There's a lot of growth around the world, but hardly any in the U.S. market. Of course, part of this is because the U.S. population has not been growing.

But the bigger issue is that the U.S. telecoms invest the absolute bare minimum to keep people from screaming.
And if you live in a rural area, you might as well forget about it-- you'll be stuck paying 1940s era prices for 1940s era phone technology. (Here's a hint-- in 2007, that's not a good deal.)

Companies also try to maintain the farce that long distance calls cost them more, which today makes about as much sense as the droit de signor. And the related farces that caller ID and three-way calls should be hugely expensive. I could go on, but... what's the point? I could hardly think of an organization I hate more than Verizon, except maybe the Internal Revenue Service.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Ducati427]

There are no *Fees* for BHN svc only taxs that they have to charge, also Your Friend is Full of chit if he is saying that the BHN svc only works well with the Netgear rtr, as i have currently set up a Linksys WRT54GL with DDWRT installed, which is kick azz if i may so, Show me a svc with the same things that BHN can offer at the same price? As you can have Unlimited Nation Wide phone/Digital Cable/ and 7Mbps for $99.95 +taxs which very by location, this includes ur digital box. With ur vonage for 30.15 a month you still arn't paying for ur internet connection nor do you have any recores if the internet conn drops for any reason, if u lose svc you are stuck like chuck till a tech can get out there. Get ur facts straight before you post please.....

Ducati

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[daeg]

Most of what I posted was based off of the very stupid BrightHouse Networks phone reps. The service may be grand, but their reps certainly talk out of their ass about it and generally have no clue whatsoever.

Re:If Not Vonage, Then Who?

[Ducati427]

well then let me give you this tidbit of advise. when you call in with an issue or question, ask to spk with a LVL4 Tech support rep, they handle DP,RR, and from time to time DC, they are normaly able to give you good quotes or get one for you. And answer almost all of ur questions.. Ducati427

Juries

[morgan_greywolf]

This is what happens when you have technical cases decided by 12 ordinary citizens too stupid to get out of jury duty. It's why IBM doesn't want the SCO case to go to trial without a finding from the judge that it didn't infringe on any of SCO's copyrights. (If the summary judgement is granted and it does go to trial, the jury has to proceed on the idea that IBM hasn't violated any of SCO's IP.)

Verizon is just suing to keep Vonage -- and every other company offering a similar service -- from making it irrelevant in the home phone market. Which is exactly what's happening.

Re:Juries

[operagost]

This is what happens when you have technical cases decided by 12 ordinary citizens too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I'm with you, dude. Voting is stupid too! Look at those idiots standing in line on election day! Better off playing WoW.

Re:Juries

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is the problem. The smart people get out of it and thus there is no justice. People bitch and bitch about juries doing dumb things, and then when they get called? They will do ANYTHING to get out of it rather than do a better job.

Re:Juries

[Marillion]

1) There is no indication that a jury was involved. Trial by Jury is a right. It is not compulsory. Many corporate court battles take place without a jury because it reduces the risks associated with jurries

2) What the F***? 12 ordinary citizens too stupid to get out of jury duty? Some of us are happy to serve and protect your right to trial by jury. The next time a Big Media legal thug drags your ass into a court room, you should be happy that a "smart person" who supports the right of trial by jury might actually decide in your favor.

Re:Juries

[SixFactor]

...technical cases decided by 12 ordinary citizens too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Perhaps this is why juries are the way they are. The "smart" people shirked their duty to serve, and thus could not affect the outcome of the trial. And Slashdot readers being as smart as they are, now complain about said outcome.

What would be more telling than this judgement is whatever (if any) patent expert opinion was offered at trial. If Vonage's counsel could not present a valid and comprehensible (remember, we're talking about a "stupid" jury here) expert argument on the alleged patent infringements, then this result should not be surprising.

Re:Juries

[Yold]

"Verizon is just suing to keep Vonage -- and every other company offering a similar service -- from making it irrelevant in the home phone market. Which is exactly what's happening."

Verizon, even with all its millions of dollars of legal muscle, cannot stop VOIP from eventually biting into its business in home phone. Vonage may fail, but someone else will succeed because it is cheaper and easily implemented. With the competitive pricing of cellular phone service vs. land-lines, and the fact VOIP is replacing PBXs at the corperate level, it is only a matter of time until VOIP is a 100% transparent alternative to land lines.

My predcition, within the next 20 years, all data going into and coming out of your home will be done w/ IP . This is why television networks are testing online viewing of their shows.
The physical connection for your television, cable, and of course internet will be from one large local monopoly (think cable company). But the individual services will be independent for television, phone, gaming (Xbox Live, etc). Specialization is the key to sucess in the business world, and large telecom companies w/ tons of services will eventually be a thing of the past.

Re:Juries

[russ_allegro]

>And that is the problem. The smart people get out of it and thus there is no justice. People bitch and bitch about juries doing dumb things, and then when they get called? They will do ANYTHING to get out of it rather than do a better job.

If they didn't get out of it people will think they are not smart because they were not able to get out of it.

We have an employee who was unable to get out of jury duty. That employee must not be smart, because smart people get out of jury duty. Why did we hire this person if s/he is not smart?

Your own statement promotes the idea that only stupid people do jury duty, so what do you expect?

Re:Juries

[morgan_greywolf]

1) There is no indication that a jury was involved. Trial by Jury is a right. It is not compulsory. Many corporate court battles take place without a jury because it reduces the risks associated with jurries

FTFA:

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton approved Verizon's request for a block today in Alexandria, Virginia. Hilton said he won't sign the order before a hearing in two weeks on Vonage's request for a stay. A jury found March 8 that Vonage infringed three patents and should pay Verizon $58 million.

BTW -- The right to trial by jury extends to criminal cases. This is a civil corporate litigation case, not a criminal case.

Re:Juries

[Marillion]

In my haste, I missed the jury bit in the article

The Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution says trial by jury in most civil cases is a right.

Re:Juries

[Murmer]

I imagine you consider yourself to be a smart person; so, your argument is that we need "smarter" rulings? Perhaps not made by people "too stupid to get out of jury duty". Maybe it's idealistic of me, but perhaps if more supposedly smart people held less spent less time weaseling out of what is ostensibly their civic duty, you'd get your wish.

Re:Juries

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you have technical cases decided by 12 ordinary citizens too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I'm with you, dude. Voting is stupid too! Look at those idiots standing in line on election day! Better off playing WoW. You jest, but I gave up voting for precisely 2 reasons:

1. A philosophical conviction as of right before the 2004 election that my vote wasn't ultimately going to count (I live in Ohio, and there were voter fraud complaints, conspiracy theories, you name it right before election time and I honestly didn't think my vote would be worth anything in the end - and it wouldn't have been given the results), and that I therefore did not want to "have a part" in a government which I did not fully, unequivocally support by lending my vote to the process of government in any way... AND,
2. I don't want to serve on a jury with my "peers." Let's face it, my peers are generally stupid people. Now obviously not all people on a jury are going to be that way, but the likelihood that the people serving on that jury have very little knowledge of the law, how the practice of law works (I didn't even have a clue until I married my lawyer wife!), or even worse: the true context of the facts of a case, means that I can expect to be frustrated by at least 1 person on any 12-person jury.

Many might argue with me that I am ditching my Constitutional rights in favor of a short-term benefit, and they're right. I make about $10/hr every single hour of my life right now (that's the rate I get "paid" each hour of a 24-hr period, so I'm not a McDonald's worker, obviously), and standing in a voting line for a couple hours is not worth it to me. I could buy a DVD with that money and enjoy 2hrs rather than waste it voting for an issue or candidate that's not going to win anyway, so selfishly I choose the DVD. Sure, my fellow man concerns me, but I can do far more with my time and money through my local church, my friends, my colleagues at work, or my family than wasting time trying to vote in my "favorite candidate" at the polls each November.

Interestingly, I've found that this choice has liberated me from getting too worked up about which politicians say what (they're all simply politicians in the end), and I believe I've begun to lead a more productive, less dogmatic life because of it. Do I still have all my values and ideas about what works best in government? Sure I do! I just don't waste my time worrying about who else shares my political views anymore.

My point to this tirade? I think you are actually better off playing WoW on election day.

Re:Juries

[Anonymous Coward]

People have to fight to vote. I know it's hard for me, since I have a job. Jury duty is force on people who can fight out of it. Get the difference? I'm sure you really didn't need me to explain the post you replied to, you just want to look stupid to prove some kind of strange point.

Re:Juries

[terrymr]

I believe trial by jury is a right in any matter where more than $10 is involved.

Re:Juries

[drinkypoo]

Some of us are happy to serve and protect your right to trial by jury. The next time a Big Media legal thug drags your ass into a court room, you should be happy that a "smart person" who supports the right of trial by jury might actually decide in your favor.

Generally speaking, the only way you can get on a jury is to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you do not know a fucking thing about the case in question. Lawyers don't want knowledgeable witnesses on the jury, whether they (the lawyers) are going to be telling the truth or not, because of the fear that the other lawyer will manipulate the jury away from them. They want their knowledge concentrated in expert witnesses, who are easier to control.

If you actually want to get on a jury you're going to have to go in and play dumb, act like the average manipulable sheep. Then once you're on the jury, make sure you whip our your jury rights handbook and educate all the other jurors on the topic of jury nullification. Now watch how quickly the defending party tries to get the trial declared a mistrial...

Re:Juries

[drinkypoo]

My understanding is that the states typically don't guarantee you a jury trial unless there's a possible jail term at the end of your trial. A twenty dollar fine doesn't cut it :)

Re:Juries

[Stiletto]

I think you are actually better off playing WoW on election day.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have an idiot serving as president today.

Re:Juries

[SaDan]

No kidding. The only idiot around here is the person you replied to.

Vote, and do it as an informed individual. Help everyone you can become informed.

The more people we have who are educated about the people and issues at the voting booths, the better off we all are.

Re:Juries

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think it had anything to do with the two main candidates both being douche nozzles? Don't blame apathy, blame the retarded "2 party system". Seldom in my life have I had only 2 choices for all my problems, and neither one being likely to fix any of them. Our system is a joke and I don't feel that voting for one asshole before another will do anything to fix it. Give me 15 candidates and I'll take more action, but if I have a choice between death by firing squad or death by lethal injection, I'm going to choose "fuck you".

At this point I'd rather sit back and watch the country implode. At least it will be interesting, even if there is more suffering than there is now.

Not the GP

Re:Juries

[Anonymous Coward]

If the goal of life in the U.S. is the accumulation of wealth, and jury duty pays minimum wage, what is the point of doing it? If we can spend trillions on a war, we certainly should be able to pay jurors a bit more than what we do.

Frankly I don't care if a criminal gets off scott free, I just don't. I see our "leaders" get off on charges all the time that any normal person would be locked up for 20 years for committing. Sure Congress, you can be corrupt, but I'll be damned if I won't emulate your morals and ethics when it suits me.

Re:Juries

[Belanth]

Jury Duty, along with voting, is a responsibility that every citizen of the United States has in exchange for the rights and privileges that we entertain. It isn't something to avoid. Every person who chooses not to vote, or intentionally evades jury duty is doing the country and themselves a great disservice. How can you expect things to change if you let those in power define the conversation - or worse, be the only one to speak?

Re:Juries

[unity]

"Perhaps this is why juries are the way they are. The "smart" people shirked their duty to serve, and thus could not affect the outcome of the trial. And Slashdot readers being as smart as they are, now complain about said outcome. "

Everytime I have been called to jury duty, I have answered their questions honestly and been promptly dismissed. Not all "smart" people shirk their duty. Often the prosecutor and/or defense attorney doesn't want them in the jury pool.

Re:Juries

[operagost]

I only have a degree from a small private college in Pennsylvania, while the President has degrees from Yale and Harvard. I take issue with you implying that anyone without those credentials is worse than an idiot .

Re:Juries

[SixFactor]

I am glad to hear you don't dodge the duty - the poster I was replying to seems to denigrate people who do not somehow weasel their way out of it. Indeed, attorneys are hesitant to allow technically-oriented folk, such as engineers (I are one o'those), onto their juries. 'Tis a shame, but it's supposedly done in the name of ensuring objectivity and (ideally) an unbiased jury.

Re:Juries

[Marillion]

I've been summoned to serve on jury duty twice. Most of the time on criminal cases, and the mere threat of a jury was enough to make the defendant settle.

The question most of the lawyers asked was, "Can you keep an open mind and decided only on the evidence presented?"

anyone have a link with some actual meat?

[drinkypoo]

Like, for example, the patents being infringed?

What's the infringement?

[Rob T Firefly]

The aritcle is decidely non-technical, beyond saying the infringement was over "a technology," and "a method for allowing Internet calls to reach traditional phone lines." Anyone have any real details on what's being fought over?

Re:What's the infringement?

[interiot]

Here's the original 7 patents... #6,430,275, #6,137,869, #6,104,711, #6,282,574, #6,128,304, #6,298,062, and #6,359,880.

It sounds like #6,430,275 (tiff, pdf, text/png) is the one that's the VOIP/POTS bit.

Re:What's the infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this was filed back in '99. I remember working a billing system (sold by a commercial vendoi) that provided that type of functionality before the date of filing. Ok, maybe we didn't configure it exactly that way, but we could have. Basically they patented a real time billing system for phone systems. This invention seems to logical. Oh well, yet another patent that stops innovation.

Re:What's the infringement?

[Svartalf]

Can someone just club the USPTO collectively to death for that one? What Vonage is doing is no different from the mobile phone companies are freaking doing with Cell service terminiation- and I can assure you they're not paying royalties for that process
nor is it something I'd consider patentable, really. Doing something counterintuitive that works better? That MIGHT be something
someone could make a case for patenting, even in software, but this? AAAAARGH!

Re:What's the infringement?

[Jason Pollock]

If it's 6,430,275, I personally developed the same class of product (PSTN/VoIP gateway with prepaid charging and authentication) in 98/99. We had been doing the same with ISUP and AIN variants even earlier.

It should appear obvious to any telecom's protocol engineer that this is possible. It is even encouraged by the protocols.

For example, INAP (ITU version of AIN in the patent), uses the same call model as ISUP, the circuit control protocol. ISUP and H.323 are both Q.931 protocols, therefore they also share the same call model. That makes it obvious (it was to us), that H.323 can be easily made to trigger an INAP call model. Obviously, the benefit is that this ensures that the applications can run unchanged on both the PSTN and the VoIP networks.

And H.323 has been around for a lot longer than this patent.

Once you understand that H.323 and ISUP are Q.931 variants, you see that all the work done to trigger IN applications on the various country and network ISUP variants is also prior art.

"One smart decision among many, many stupid ones."

[mmell]

I thought that was just Vonage's marketing hype, not their business model!

Yep.

[russotto]

If the order isn't stayed pending appeal, Vonage is dead; revenue drops to zero nearly overnight. So are all other independent VoIP providers, when Verizon gets around to crushing them.

A concrete manifestation of a patent system out of control.

Re:Yep.

[interiot]

There are companies with bigger pockets who make money off of connecting VoIP calls to the legacy voice network (eg. Comcast, Time Warner, in combination with their cablemodem service), and presumably they're concerned about the patent. Is it ever the case that a larger company provides legal assistance to a smaller company in cases like this? Or would Verizon never go after Comcast/Time Warner if they think they'd lose, and therefore it's actually in Comcast/TimeWarner's best interests to stand back and let Verizon knock out the smaller guys so they can take the rest of the VoIP market?

Re:Yep.

[Billosaur]

So are all other independent VoIP providers, when Verizon gets around to crushing them.

But Verizon won't... they won't have to. By picking on the popular kid, that will make the less popular kids fall into line and pay Verizon some cash for their transgressions rather than be bled to death by lawsuits. This kind of nonsense will only stop if Verizon decides to take on Comcast or Optimum Online.

Re:Yep.

[cpu_fusion]

> A concrete manifestation of a patent system out of control.

Funny, I would have called it "extortion." But then I'm not a lawyer (yet).

Re:Yep.

[Undertaker43017]

It's likely, at least in TimeWarner's case, that they have cross licensed these patents with Verizon, and are not a "target".

Re:Yep.

[JesseMcDonald]

Funny, I would have called it "extortion."

So would I -- extortion by the U.S. government against Vonage (and all the other relevant VoIP providers). Verizon's involved, to be sure, but its complicity is trivial compared to that of the organization responsible for granting and enforcing the patent(s) in the first place.

Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with any kind of legal advise.

Re:Yep.

[ewieling]

How does this affect...well..every other phone company in the USA? I'm pretty sure "The New AT&T" as well as SBC have big pockets to fight this.

Re:Yep.

[king-manic]

If the order isn't stayed pending appeal, Vonage is dead; revenue drops to zero nearly overnight. So are all other independent VoIP providers, when Verizon gets around to crushing them.

A concrete manifestation of a patent system out of control.

I work for an incumbant telecom. Our strongest legitimate competitor plays nicer then Vonage when we have to do things like port a number back. From every interaction with Vonage or any of the small independant VOIPS like cyber surf, cyberkey, CIA.. etc I've noticed it seems liek these operations are 3 guys in a basement. They're aggresive with taking our customers (many SLAMS) and beligerent in giving them back (often taking 3 or more requests to get a number back, our biggest competitor ussually does it first try). They offer little or no customer service and often the infuration of dealing with their customer service drives the customer back to our incumbant prices and POTS. I will not shed a tear if they die. All of them. They aren't worth our sympathy.

Hopefully they are forced out of business

[mulvane]

Down with Vonage!! I had the service for 11 months. First 3 months was great, but then nothing but trouble after I deployed to the Gulf for 6 months. My wife tried to call them repeatedly to have it fixed and they kept blaming my ISP which after I got home I ruled out as it happened on my COMCAST, neighbors ATT, and Clearwire in local area. I could see one ISP being the problem, but not 3, and after I called again they said I wasn't qualified to make such assumptions. Funny, I can sure manage to make UHF/VHF, and SAT links and manage the LAN on a US Guided Missile Cruiser, but I wasn't technically smart enough to call the bullshit flag on the blame they focused on my ISP. Further, when the 10 month mark rolled around, I had military orders requiring me to move and at the time it was to a place I wouldn't have broadband, or hell, access at all, and they tried to pressure me into keeping the service and singing another year anyway. They just didn't get the fact that small islands sometimes don't have access. Then, they argued with me about how I owed them an early cancellation fee even though I was also canceling due to shitty service THEY couldn't fix. I had to end up also telling them a lie that I was not married, and I had no family who could make use of the account before they would close it. I had read horror stories at the time about people who had went over the 12 month period already and Vonage had refused to cancel the account, or had verbally said they would and the charges kept coming. I feared this so I even canceled the card. And low and behold, I started getting statements from my bank who issued a new card telling me about the activity that they were refusing.

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[dattaway]

For me, Vonage had a good service, but they were too aggressive. I also had a well documented case against Vonage. Their service was good in my case, but cancelling was a problem that lasted a year. I quickly learned their customer service were script junkies who didn't have an option for "cancel." I may have been a test case for them to see how far people would take it. I ended up giving my card company a statement and a dispute. Then I called Vonage once again and it got into a long shouting match with many people. One of their representatives made a big mistake. She mentioned a fact I stated "wasn't in the notes." That's when I demanded my request to be cancelled by included (they apparently never had a request from me documented yet.) I kept referring to their notes after that. Finally, I got to get into an assertive discussion with one of their guys who was well versed in procedure. He reluctantly refunded my money for the year of service I didn't use. I gave them my new credit card account and gave my card company an updated statement. In the next few months, Vonage credited my account numerous times. I'm not sure they knew what they were doing. No copies of their notes were ever copied for my records, even though I demanded it numerous times.

A person almost needs a lawyer to cancel from Vonage these days. Apparently, dealing with ANY telephone provider is getting this bad. There needs to be some laws to protect the consumer, otherwise the telephone industry may lose trust.

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[JPriest]

Well, if it means anything I have had pretty decent service with them so far. It took some time to port our Verizon number over to them, although that was mostly the fault of Verizon intentionally stalling. I have had the service for 3 years with only 2 short (2-3 hours) outages that I packet captured to see what was going on. If the service or our ISP goes down calls are forwarded on to my GF's cell phone anyway so it isn't a big deal really. Our phone bill with Verizon was about $54 compared to just $18 for Vonage. The difference is almost enough to cover broadband.

I don't want to discredit your experiences though, what they did to you is a huge pet peeve of mine and I have not yet tried to cancel. Because of your frustrations I can assure you then when/if I cancel their service I will be going into it with an entirely perspective. Maybe I will record it in advance and post it to Youtube if they give me a hard time.

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[Laebshade]

I had Vonage for 3 years and cancelled after about 3 months of continued problems. While I feel for the people who have had problems with cancelling the service, I had none. I simply called up and spoke with a service manager (I think that's what they called them). There's the key: speak with a native english speaker. These people handle all financial dealings with customers. Although what I said may have had a key in cancelling my service: only had it for my ex.

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[Anonymous Coward]

In all my similar billing issues with other companies that "didn't get it", a well written letter addressed to the president of the company at their head office (sometimes it takes some googling to find this) sent by REGISTERED MAIL with RETURN SIGNATURE works great every time. Sure it costs $5, but you always get results. And, in the last case I did that, I got a reply from the district manager for all call centres for the company across, well, everywhere they serve. Was nice to hear he personally updated everyone at all call centres on procedures, manually made all the required changes to my account, and lots of apologizing from someone within the six degrees (within the company) of the president.

Registered mail is the key, they have no choice but to respond, since they can't claim they never received it. If they don't, well, now you have proof of having informed them of their issues for the credit card company / bank to block their access to your account. Also *great* evidence if you need to sue.

I give most companies that don't have offices I can walk into about 3 phone calls to resolve issues before they get "the letter"... It's about the same level of courtesy I can walk into before I would sue as well (If the manager doesn't give a crap after you've talked with him 3 times, well, I think the fourth won't matter).

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[dAzED1]

I had great service, worked well when my net connection worked (and my net connection was indeed flaky), but I still canceled after a month and a half for various complicated reasons. They happily canceled, told me to keep the router, and said if I changed my mind to give them a call again. Was absolutely painless.

My (true) anecdotal story conflicts with yours. Neither shows a trend.

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[dattaway]

What you did may be the key. I gave Vonage's Investor Relations a letter about my experiences. The following week is when my bad experiences did a 180 degree turnaround. Everything was resolved.

The only reason why I left Vonage was that one of their competitors offered "anonymous call reject" and other features. I'm sure its a simple script, but surely someone patented these simple ideas. That's why we, the customers, have few choices and have to deal with all this bullshit.

I didn't hate Vonage until I had to deal with their customer retention. I do hate the established phone companies who are trying to protect their turf with silly patents. Its a shameless land grab of popular "ideas."

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[3vi1]

I've been using them for over a year now. I don't know how hard (or not) it is to quit, as I've had nothing but great service. Sorry to hear about all the problems you had, but they've been great to me.

At any rate, I don't think you want them to go under based on Verizons patents. If they do go under, let it be due to customer reaction, not because of stupid patent abuse that will basically kill every VoIP provider.

-J

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[Anonymous Coward]

Yoo hoooo BOO HOO HOOO....

How ironic, and it's NOT beacause of this latest news...
But I just canceled my Vonage service today, called up AT&T to switch my home number BACK to landline.
Sorry Vonage, but I jumped ship...
Don't get me wrong, I don't really want to see Vonage go under, it is a neat service/concept...
Like many, I hate this big business patent suit crap + like having choices.

But bottomline is the service is just unreliable and not really much cheaper.
--> once you eat up your minutes on the cheapy plan, it adds up quick.
I eventually bumped up to the unlimited plan & after all the taxes & fees it's actually MORE than basic landline service.
Ok, so I won't be able to have it Text message when I get voicemail... Big deal.

If I want VOIP/internet phone I'll just use Skype or whatever.

Sadly I fear they will go under or more likely get swallowed up by a bigger fish.

No more stupid flashing green LED for me !!!!

Re:Hopefully they are forced out of business

[jimicus]

otherwise the telephone industry may lose trust.

MAY lose trust?

I don't know about you guys in the US, but here in the UK I trust the average phone company about as far as I can throw them, their telephone exchange and all the fat arseholes who run the place.

These patents can't be valid

[spectro]

"A method of translating calls between the Internet and standard phones, call-waiting features and wireless handsets"

- So they have a patent on transcoding from/to VoIP?, there's got to be some prior art on that
- Call waiting?... are you kidding me?
- Wireless handsets?, how does vonage infringe that?, VoIP got nothing to do with wireless handsets.

Vonage needs to hire themselves some real lawyers, Boies seems pretty good at dragging lawsuits forever.

Re:These patents can't be valid

[russotto]

Remember, for the purpose of demonstrating prior art, the prior art has to be pretty much exactly the patented invention. However, for the purpose of demonstrating infringement, the alleged infringer's product just has to be close. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.

Re:These patents can't be valid

[spaxxor]

yea... if the last two are really enforced then every professional buissness, that has a phone system, and every cellphone carrier is kinda screwed whole wireless handset deal

Re:These patents can't be valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering that all landline and cellular phones use companding and compression techniques in Telephony. VOIP must be using the exact same techniques which turn analog voice into a digital signal that uses 64kbps of bandwidth.

Just argue that moving of VOIP calls over POTS lines is 'obvious' since it does not require any additional steps aside from stripping of TCP/IP headers before throwing it across the phone lines.

Skype

[rebmemeR]

How could this affect Skype?

Re:Skype

[Anonymous Coward]

It will just affect Americans. Americans will be in the 6th century while the rest of the world enjoys progress and technology. Good luck with your wav files, crippling non-free software, and no internet phone.

Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't sue themselves... or can they?

Vonage's official response

[rGauntlet]

Via a Press Release on their site: http://pr.vonage.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=2 35198

One interesting tidbit:

"We are confident Vonage customers will not experience service interruptions or other changes as a result of this litigation," said Mike Snyder, Vonage's chief executive officer.
.
.
"Our appeal centers on erroneous patent claim construction, and we remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue to vigorously assert in federal appeals court," said Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal officer and secretary. "Vonage relied on open-standard, off-the-shelf technology when developing its service. In fact, evidence introduced in court failed to prove that Vonage relied on Verizon's VoIP technology, and instead showed that in 2003 Verizon began exploring ways to copy Vonage's technology," she added.

Is the injunction legal?

[RingDev]

Seeing as how Vonage is required by law to connect callers to traditional 911 call centers (over standard phone copper) is the injunction, baring Vanage from connecting VoIP calls to POTS calls legal if it prevents those calls?

-Rick

Re:Is the injunction legal?

[cdrudge]

There are many technical details why I think the injunction was granted but a stay will also be issued. You point out one very good one just because millions currently use VoIP. There also would be catastrophic damage done to Vonage if the stay was granted but minimal damage to Verizon (and what damage could be recouped) if the stay was granted but later lifted.

Re:Is the injunction legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL You make a good point but I think it actually works against Vonage.

Vonage must now find a way to provide 911 service w/o infringing on Verizon's patents and if they can't then they're going to have another legal problem on their hands.

Re:Is the injunction legal?

[king-manic]

I'd prefer major damage to vonage. They may be smaller but they are a malicious bunch of pricks. I wish Canada would just ban the whole organization. They aren't worth your sympathy.

I think you're at fault here.

[raehl]

You must have called the AOL customer service line by mistake.

Re:I think you're at fault here.

[mulvane]

In the 18 years I have been around the net, I can honestly admit to being AOL free..I did have a prodigy account at one time though.

Re:I think you're at fault here.

[raehl]

In the 18 years I have been around the net, I can honestly admit to being AOL free..I did have a prodigy account at one time though.

Me too!

So when do they sue AT&T?

[xarius76]

While the article is indeed lacking technical details, the vague refrences to infringing on usage of voicemail and call-waiting really shows how desperate they are to crush vonage and anyone else in the VoIP services market. Features such as this are in use by every other telco, both small and large, on the planet. While I also despise vonage for both their quality and customer service, it's only a matter of time before they start picking on the smaller guys offering identical services, whether it be some type of Asterisk based system, or even Cisco's CallManager platform. AT&T offers call waiting and voicemail as well, so when are they going to get sued for infringement? There needs to be some serious facts released as to exactly what patents Vonage is infringing on.

Re:So when do they sue AT&T?

[lnklnklnk]

They will never sue AT&T. AT&T (SBC, Ameritech, Pacific Bell, Bellsouth) and Verizon (Bell Atlantic, GTE, NYNEX, etc), will probably announce a cross-licensing deal in which one can use the others patents and vice versa. The RBOCs are generally good at banding together to fight the little guy (CLECs) rather than each other.

Their territories are protected, they can't just randomly start snatching each others customers because the customers are LOCKED to a provider due to the physical line (and costs associated with switching just one customer). That is why you don't really have a choice in telephone providers.

Which brings me to my problem with CLECs. CLECs are generally paranoid and mistrusting so they stab each other in the back, while the big guys, Verizon and SBC just watch and laugh. CLECs have relied on MCI and AT&T (two of the largest CLECs in the country before their buyouts) to fight their battles for them, and this worked for a while until they were purchased. Now that CLECs have no one to fight for them, expect a greater number of these crushing victories.

Aren't all?

[lenne]

Aren't all voip companies doing more or less the same?

How many ways are there to connect voip to pstn?

Leif

yipee

[tomstdenis]

millions will be without phones soon!

Yeah, anarchy! I hope that was the intent of the injuction.

Tom

Fun fact:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that 40% of District Court litigation is reversed by the Federal Circuit on appeal?

Not saying that what happened isn't significant (for one thing, Vonage may be denied an appeal), but it may be too early to shout doom.

Stupid question here...

[Z00L00K]

aren't the carriers required to provide access to 911, regardless?

Anyway - nothing will actually stop any off-shore our out-of-country IP phone services unless that kind of services are blocked in the broadband network, and that may also prove both inefficient and causing a stir.

A secondary problem that I have seen is that a majority of all VoIP to analog boxes are bound to a service provider. That actually limits the development of VoIP today since the users aren't able to change operator unless they buy a new box.

Re:Stupid question here...

[dabraun]

That said, the boxes are cheap ($50), far less expensive than the new cell phone often needed to switch wireless providers. It's not much of a barrier.

Just a thought

[Cauchy]

Have any of us bothered to look at the patents? Are they good and valid? Did Verizon truly invent something, and thus, perhaps, because of their investment, deserve some level of protection against theft in exchange for them contributing to the overall body of knowledge? Perhaps these patents are bogus, but I haven't seen anyone in this discussion yet attack Verizon/the PTO on the merits of the patents.

I agree that the patent system is broken, but, as I've said before, patents are more important to the little guy than the big guy. Without patents, if I as a little person invent something, there is nothing to stop Microsoft or IBM or some GE from copying my invention. Then, it just becomes a matter of who can out market who, and the little guy will lose this battle.

Re:Just a thought

[jacquesm]

I had a primitive voip-pots gateway back in oh... 95 or so, hacked with speak-freely and some
old soundcard hardware. Worked pretty good too !

j.

Re:Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually want people to read the patents? You want Groklaw. This is Slashdot.

Re:Just a thought

[DogDude]

Have any of us bothered to look at the patents? Are they good and valid? Did Verizon truly invent something, and thus, perhaps, because of their investment, deserve some level of protection against theft in exchange for them contributing to the overall body of knowledge? Perhaps these patents are bogus, but I haven't seen anyone in this discussion yet attack Verizon/the PTO on the merits of the patents.

By "us", do you mean the kids and geeks who read Slashdot, as opposed to the professional patent attorneys that work for Verizon and Vonage? Do you really think that it matters what a bunch of unqualified regular people who happen to read a geek blog think?

Re:Just a thought

[Svartalf]

They're intrinsically garbage, tying "internet" to something that's prior art and basically done for
mobile services already.

Re:Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't publicize it yet. If MS or some other giant uses your invention. You are still freely allowed to compete with them. You act as if the little guy comes up with most inventions now. This isn't 1795. Companies usually come up with stuff and if "the little guy does" it is usually on the dollar of some corp. Most individuals who come up with inventions sell if off for a quick buck allowing that corp to cripple that market. Adding invention A and invention B to get invention A + B shouldn't be valid either.

Re:Just a thought

[Cauchy]

However, are the patents about the process of VOIP, or are they some specific implementation aspect? VOIP as a concept may be covered by prior art or obviousness, but is the lawsuit about something more specific like a compression scheme or something?

Dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

ZONK: Stop putting idiotic question at the end of each story post. Like we are not gonna comment if you don't stick the moronic question mark at the end.

Re:Dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

ZONK: Stop putting idiotic question at the end of each story post. Like we are not gonna comment if you don't stick the moronic question mark at the end.

Indeed! Most of the Ask Slashdot items are completely inane, but now all the editor postings are turning into the same insulting garbage.

"Water has been found to turn solid at 32 degrees Farenheit. What do you think? How do you think this will affect us? Can you think of any ways to put this to use? Or will it mean the end of the world as we know it?"

assholes

[An0maly]

i prepaid for a full year a few months back because i actually get decent service from vonage. what i'm not sure of is what the hell they intended to accomplish by being the ones that squish vonage...being the asshole doesn't really attract a large customer base.

Re:assholes

[Aaden42]

No, but being the one and only option in town (IE a monopoly) is remarkably good at attracting customers. Kill all the VOIP's, and the only choice for a land line is the incumbent monopoly provider. That would be Verizon for a rather large portion of the country.

Here's the patents in question

[Anonymous Coward]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

I'm still hedging my bets

[ElForesto]

And this press release is NOT going to keep me from looking at transferring my phone service Real Soon Now(TM) to another provider. As much as I like Vonage, I'm not going to ride this roller coaster of not knowing if or when my phone service will go off thanks to a company I've never done business with.

Re:I'm still hedging my bets

[Col. Klink (retired)]

You could switch to another VoIP provider, but don't think for a minute that Verizon won't target them next. Or you could just go back to Verizon and help fund their terror war against VoIP.

Re:I'm still hedging my bets

[ElForesto]

Oh, my options are *much* worse. I'd have to look at service from Qwest. *shudder*

So Long OSS VOIP

[mpapet]

As someone that has been working hard to develop some competency with VOIP serving, it seems that anyone trying to do anything with http://www.openser.org/ without voicemail or POTS services is royally screwed.

You can't touch it.

This one deserves a headline at http://www.chillingeffects.org/.

Anyone have any ideas as to how one can operate a VOIP server for free and still pay the bandwidth bill each month? I'm serious, I'm open to anything

Transition to Verizon?

[LoadStar]

The primary thing I care about is uninterrupted service, at my current service and price level, with my current telephone number.

If Verizon intends to squish Vonage, they had better be completely prepared to seamlessly transition me to their service, at my current price and service level. If they are willing and able to do that, I'm OK with it. (Well, I'm not thrilled with this abuse of patent law, but I can't do much about that myself.)

Is there anyway I can contact the court system and have them consider this as a term in the injunction order?

Re:Transition to Verizon?

[An0maly]

I was thinking the same thing. Except I want them to service the rest of my 1 year period that i just prepaid for. FREE. I'm sure they would be able to afford it with all their filthy Vonage money.

Re:Transition to Verizon?

[Anonymous Coward]

they had better be completely prepared to seamlessly transition me to their service, at my current price and service level.

Or what?

Re:Transition to Verizon?

[Cygfrydd]

Can we say... class-action? Hell hath no fury like American consumers scorned.

Patent seems too obvious

[Cyphertube]

I hate Verizon to begin with for SO many reasons. So I'll put that up front.

That said, reading through the patent and the claims, it doesn't really look like anything all that original. The concept of translating POTS to IP to POTS had already existed by 1999. As far as I recall, Sprint, MCI, UUNet, and such were already engaged in that, as was good old AT&T. As for a public subscriber system, no, but internally I do believe they already had that tech in place.

Additionally, Verizon envisioned a PC using software, not a hardware device that needs no PC. Again, from the software (which I remember using a lot of voice chat back then when it first came out), there isn't really any technological improvement.

To me, it's like trying to patent peanut butter & jelly sandwiches. Peanut butter is there, and jelly is there, and the bread is there, and it's a natural progression, but it's like, well, we were the first to throw it on paper and file, and it's ridiculous.

There is no actual INVENTION by Verizon in this patent, but simply a PROGRESSION or MERGING of then current technology.

The Linksys boxes that provide service for Vonage, AT&T, and more are beyond Verizon's vision at that point. If I were to say that Vonage had to change anything, it would be software on the PC to make calls, and possibly minute billing.

Re:Patent seems too obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

In a related note, Cyphertube will soon be getting a cese and desist letter from my lawyers as I currently have a patent on peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, as well as peanut butter & banana sandwiches, peanut butter & jelly & banana sandwiches, and the deep fried variations of each. If you would like to independently develop your own peanut butter style sandwich that would be ok, as long as it doesn't directly compete with my own peanut butter variation.

Also note I've just filed for a pantent on using 'Anonymous Coward' as a screen name.

That is all.

Re:Patent seems too obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I TOO HATE VERIZON! I won't use there service for anything - local, long distance, cell, etc. They have RAPED the public for years abusing their monopoly. Now that they face some real competition because of the Internet they go and patent prior art and some things that the patent office should have laughed at and use lawsuits as anti-competitive measures. All of the other VoIP providers and hardware providers should have come to the defense of Vonage because they are most likely next.

I have a few new patents I'm working on involving locomotion from one location to another using two hinged appendages arising from a central location and rotating at the master unit on a ball socket. Some of you may know it is walking. Then I'm suing Verizon for patent violation.

BOYCOTT Verizon!!!!

Re:Patent seems too obvious

[lnklnklnk]

Look at the patent date.

The patent was filed by BBN Laboratories (now Verizon Labs), in the mid-to-late 1980s. BBN just never enforced it (or cared to).

Follow up to the actual patents - judge's wording

[Anonymous Coward]

And to follow up on the patents here's what the judge said

"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton :
Jury Trial cont'd on 3/8/2007. Appearances as previous. Jury question
rec'd 3/7/07 addressed w/counsel. Jury reinstructed re: name
translation and given the definition of 'method comprising'. The jury
returned to the jury room to continue deliberations. The jury returned
to the courtroom at 2:50 w/a verdict finding infringement of claim 27
of the '574 patent, claim 20 of the '711 patent and Claims 1, 6, 7,
and 8 of the '880 patent and finding that the infringement was not
willful. The jury did not find infringement of claims 1 & 2 of the
'869 patent and Claims 1 & 2 of the '275 patent. The jury found none
of the claims at issue in patents '574, '711, '869, '275, or '880 to
be invalid. The jury awarded pltfs damages in the amount of
$58,000,000.00 and found the reasonable royalty percentage to be 5.5%.
Judgment to be entered in accordance with the verdict. Pltfs motion
for Permanent Injunction to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter
Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)"

Some fucking geeks you people are, can't even find a fucking patent
at the USPTO.... Fucking losers....

Patent 6430275

[Dan Stephans II]

I quickly read through the patent that appears to be at issue here (6430275) and I don't think it's purely the connection from a VOIP connection to a PSTN/POTS line (although that's covered I don't think it passes muster from a non-obviousness/prior art standpoint). The meat of this patent deals with call tracking and billing (starting at around page 5) and to me it stands out as the most reasonable area to pursue vonage. I could be wrong too. =) Nothing in the application struck me as terribly original.

Re:Patent 6430275

[cmfrolick]

I've been skimming that section and as someone who worked for an ISP for 10 year, we had that exact system in place, as a matter of fact Avaya now owns it's inventor, Livingston Technologies. It's called RADIUS. ISP's had the exact same problems and the exact same response. BTW, it was always released as OSS by Livingston. Even if the rest of the patent is not obvious and valid, that portion talking about using a database for billing, scalability, account control, fraud protection (multiple simultaneous connects, and unauthorized usage), etc. ISP's have done for a very, very long time, and is entirely obvious, and commonly used. As an interesting fact the VoIP solutions I have looked at can use RADIUS for just this purpose, aside from some appliance setups.

Re:Patent 6430275

[mikvo]

So if Vonage just gets rid of their call tracking and billing but keeps the rest in tact, that might just be the icing on the cake for my Vonage line...

May? MAY!?!

[Svartalf]

Heh... I think they've mostly lost trust already- we just don't have alternatives in hand yet...

Considering...

[Svartalf]

...that I've seen the quality of "professional" IP counsel up close, I can tell you that many of them
aren't any better at it than we are, believe it or not. I've got one of the better lawyers in the field
as my patent attorney, and he's razor sharp and what meets your apparent picture of them. The previous
joker, also a lawyer at the Law Firm we retained, heh... Many, VERY many of them only pretend to know
what is and isn't viable or not. If I were Vonage, I'd have fired their litigators and got better ones.

The patents are pretty much rubbish in the first place and were largely rubber-stamped into existence.

this is perfect

[jt418-93]

the only way the patent system will ever change is when one of these industry choking lawsuits affects millions.

if a million ppl lost telephone use tomorrow, you can bet congress would get real interested real fast. sadly, our government works in problem reaction mode. only when a problem is big enough to be on the news constantly will they get interested.

so, let us all hope that they lose this and all ip phones are forced dead overnight. then we might see some real patent reform.

come on idiot judgment!

Workaround?

[pixelpusher220]

I currently have Vonage for my ancient DirecTivo series 1 to dial out and get it's guide data, I don't use it for anything else. (yes I'm lazy and haven't added a wireless network adapter!)

Anyone have any other VOIP solutions that handle faxing fairly well? Vonage's price also irks me, but it does 'just work' so I suck it up and deal.

Or would having a Vonage phone number with a non-Verizon area code maybe?

It realy does seem to be overly broad that only 'Verizon' is allowed to do VOIP to POTS? Wouldn't every single VOIP provider be screwed by this????

Re:Workaround?

[ehrichweiss]

It realy does seem to be overly broad that only 'Verizon' is allowed to do VOIP to POTS? Wouldn't every single VOIP provider be screwed by this????

I was wondering about this myself. For one, doesn't the VOIPPOTS get handled mostly by the hardware? VOIP data->audio signal->telephone line? I fail to see how VOIP comes into play other than what it does best, de/encoding the data into/from audio; run a hardwire from your speaker and mic on your VOIP to a telephone and that's basically what they're claiming a patent on, right?

Re:Workaround?

[ehrichweiss]

ooops, that should say "VOIP-to-POTS"..I had accidentally marked it as an html tag.

So Vonage will be destroyed by...

[suitepotato]

...a government that granted a known abusive monopoly which they themselves helped to create, ineffectively control, and are now helping to reestablish, because the stunningly obvious idea of sending digitized voice from a network to a phone system was given a patent.

For about two months in 1984 I worked with a couple friends on the idea of using the Covox Voicemaster as the basis of creating such a system. So stunningly obvious is not enough. Let's try amazingly hugantical ginormously stunningly obvious.

BTW, I feel 11% dumber now for having read that patent. It was that obvious and uninspired. Way to go feds. Once again, you snatch technical and cultural defeat from the jaws of victory, screwing the populace you're there to represent and defend the best interests of, because this ain't it.

WooHoo! Woo Hoo Hoo!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said.

What are the contents of the patents?

[AK Marc]

As I was thinking about it, many companies are using VoIP now. Cisco AVVID and such have gotten some market share. These have VoIP phones that talk to regular phone lines. AT&T and other cable companies have VoIP over their cable plant to provide phone service. If VoIP to PSTN is all owned by Verizon, then an entire market will be gone. If it is a specific implementation of VoIP, the Vonage will have some serious work to do in two weeks. So, is it just Vonage, or are many Asterisk servers illegal too?

Patents are for little guys? HA!!!

[bigtallmofo]

patents are more important to the little guy than the big guy. Without patents, if I as a little person invent something, there is nothing to stop Microsoft or IBM or some GE from copying my invention.

Patents have two purposes:

1. Defensive: Have enough patents, if someone sues you for violating a patent, sue them back for violating one of yours.
2. Offensive: Keep a competitor out of the market by suing them.

Neither of these help the little guy for one simple fact - he's unable to compete with the lawyers of the big guy. If the little guy has a rock-solid patent and the big guy steals his invention, the little guy's only recourse is to sue the big guy at millions of dollars in expenses. The only problem is that the little guy doesn't have millions of dollars and years to fight it out in court.

Vonage has had to fight

[Anonymous Coward]

We also had some problems when we signed up for Vonage a couple of years ago. The problem was traced back to the internet service provider who was blocking Vonage while starting up their own VOIP service. Vonage had to fight for its customers and eventually cleared up the issue.

Vonage has been the primary leader in VOIP - Verison may hold a generalized patent but Vonage was found to have infringed unintentionally meaning they likely developed the same technology simultaneously. The patent system does need to be overhauled - patents are made that are too general and obvious extensions of a new technology. It just becomes a race on who has the money to get a valid patent through the beauocracy first.

Straight from Verizon

[An0maly]

i sent them an email on the subject. below are my email and their response.

"I recently read about Verizon's attempt to stop Vonage from allowing VOIP calls to connect to old telephone systems on basis of "patent infringement". If I recall, other companies used the technology mentioned before Verizon had acquired those patents. I have to say that I'm angry and baffled.

What is the ultimate goal for this type of action? Do you think that all of the Vonage customers who could potentially be without service soon would flock to gobble up everything Verizon has to offer? Don't you think that those people that have Vonage land lines, but have Verizon cellular service might reconsider their wireless provider when it's time to renew the contract? I don't have a wireless phone, but I had considered getting service from Verizon. You guys just shot that to hell. Well done."

"Thank you for contacting the Verizon eCenter. I have received your email dated March 23, 2007 regarding our recent lawsuit with Vonage. Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments. My name is XXXX, and I will be happy to assist you.

We appreciate you sharing your concerns with us. We value the opinions of our customers and those that visit our website. On March 8, 2007, a jury found that Vonage Holdings Corp. had infringed three United States patents awarded to Verizon covering methods of offering commercial-quality VoIP services, including wireless access to VoIP.

As stated by John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, "Patents encourage and protect innovations that benefit consumers, create jobs, and keep the economy growing. Verizon's innovations are central to its strategy of building the best communications networks in the world. We are proud of our inventors and pleased the jury stood up for the legal protections they deserve."

I hope I have resolved your reason for contacting us. If you have additional questions, or if we may be of assistance to you in the future, please let us know. We look forward to serving you.

Thank you for using Verizon. We appreciate your business.

Sincerely,
XXXX
Verizon eCenter"

Nice canned response that seems to have been "tailored" just for me. Glad they care.

Nose Picking Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Overly general patents are the worst. Usually it is just a race on who can submit a stupidly general patent on a general idea that was not really developed.

For example - no one has a patent on nose picking. Verison submits a patent for nose picking. Vonage tries to pick nose with finger or tissue and gets sued.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Vonage goes bankrupt because I hate their advertisements so much it drives me insane. I discourage everyone I know from using Vonage because of that annoying song in their TV ads.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Vonage has saved me a LOT of money over the last three years. I couldn't care less what their commercials are like. If you don't like them why don't you turn off the sound?

a one-chip PC is still a PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it doesn't look like your conception of a PC does not mean it the vonage adapter isn't a PC.

Covox Voicemaster!

[ChaosMt]

Oh my!!! That's a blast from the past! I haven't heard that term is SO long. I spent hours trying to write a voice recognizion system that would capture all your phonemes and pitch, and match it by playing the same phoneme and pitch of someone else's voice. With the commodore 64, you can understand why I didn't go very far in that effort. Good Times. Thanks for the memories of '88.

Patent reform.... hell, just get rid of patents

[Teancum]

Every time this issue comes up, I have pleaded with nearly everybody to make a clear cut example where patents were actually useful to anybody outside of the legal community.

There is one and only one semi-useful function that patents actually serve: they document the historical development of technology in a systematic fashion. In other words, the USPTO is really a bunch of poorly disguised historians and nothing more.

I have known many individuals who have spent fortunes on developing patents, and I've been on the brunt of supposed patent infringement and having to change my designs explicitly because of either potential or real violations of patents. When the prevailing opinion is that engineers should never actually read the text of anybody else's patents, ever, you wonder what actual value they give in the first place.

I used to think that mechanical patents might have some value (as opposed to software patents that are completely meritless). Certainly classic "inventors" like Thomas Edison did use the power of a patent portfolio to their advantage, but I would argue that he was a very, very, very (I could repeat this a dozen times) very rare exception and is not typical at all. Far more people are like Philo T. Farnsworth who had an incredible idea, but spent not only a fortune trying to get the patent in the first place and to do the original research necessary, but also fought a very long and protracted legal battle with none other than RCA and David Sarnoff. Mr. Farnsworth barely recovered legal fees and other related expenses, and never really got proper royalties for his invention of television. And when he decided to develop his Fusor technology, he once again went down the path of patenting the technology only to find out that it really didn't matter.

Far more people are like my grandfather, who was awarded 11 patents, but the only person who ever made any money off of those inventions was his patent attorney. One of his inventions was a predecessor to optical disc technology and is explicitly mentioned in the CD (redbook) and DVD patent claims. I could name other inventions of his, but frankly nobody would really buy his ideas, because in reality that is not how most companies use patents.

The typical use of a patent is a defense against somebody else trying to claim they have a patent on one of your manufacturing processes or products. You then pull out your patent inventory (assuming you are a large company) that is stocked full of all kinds of juicy stuff, and you then go back after the original party in the suit. Rather than melting down everything and filing hundreds of lawsuits, the two companies who are then holding a knife against each other goes for a "portfolio exchnage" and usually swaps patents between each other in some sort of agreements. Think of what happened last year between Microsoft and Novell, and you get the picture rather clear about what this type of patent exchange is often like.

There is no way that "Guido's 'net startup garage" with two employees and a couple of patents are possibly going to prevail against a large and powerful company... even if you can absolutely prove that you have a very valid patent. It just won't happen, and what is supposed to "promote the useful arts and sciences" does neither. It doesn't even protect small start-up companies with a very good idea from being overwhelmed by major corporations, much less an independent inventor. In short, what good do patents of any kind actually do for anybody other than keep a bunch of lawyers employed?

Re:Patent reform.... hell, just get rid of patents

[mikewolf]

you know, patents do release knowledge into the public domain after a certain amount of time, and they also do spur more creativity than you would think (you don't have to try and guess at why the competitor's widget is better, they have patented the reason it is better, and you can license it from them, or develop something similar following the same principles that doesn't infringe on their patent, or wait for it to expire then incorporate it into your widget)

i think the major problem is that patents worked well for more concrete engineering problems, but once they started moving into patentable processes and software, all of a sudden the system is outdated. I do think people should be able to patent software, if it is truly original. I think it can force openness in software development, but i also think that software patents need to have a much smaller time of application, and that there needs to be a higher standard for proving the originality of the idea.

Re:Patent reform.... hell, just get rid of patents

[Teancum]

What information really is released into the public domain? It certainly isn't engineering blueprints or schematics, nor does it really say how the process is supposed to actually work. If that were the case, there wouldn't be FTL (faster than light) communications and transportation systems that have been patented.

Patents are written not for engineers to figure out, but for lawyers and patent agents to see if there might not be a previous version of the idea in the files. In theory there might be enough information "for somebody skilled in the profession" to figure out what is going on, but by its very nature most patents are very broad and non-specific except for how they have to avoid conflicting with a previous patent. They aren't supposed to be, but in practice the wording has enough legalese to make it vague.

As far as making a better wiget, I guess it does spur on some sorts of innovation. The enforcement of the LZW patent with the GIF file format did spur on the development of the PNG file format. But at what cost? Had that same effort been allowed to be put into the GIF format instead, other ideas certainly could have been created and spurred more innovation along different lines. And more importantly, the format developers wouldn't have had ot "re-invent the wheel" but could have started out with an already strong specification.

I could say the same thing about an automobile company that has to somehow work around patent issues because their competitor simply won't give them the option of licensing that patent, no matter what the cost. And far too often patents are used to simply shut down a competitor completely instead.

As for software patents, for me they have no redeeming value of any kind at all. And I am somebody who has created several innovated and original algorithms that certainly would have been patentable. I don't even read through too many other people's code (too often... and as little as I can). I certainly don't go reading patent applications for software development ideas (shudder the thought!) It is not worth the effort to me other than as a scam and racketeering operation that is officially scanctioned by the U.S. Government (that would otherwise be subject to RICO laws). I know this sounds harsh, but the only thing a software patent has ever been is grief... usually after I have already shipped product only to "discover" that I might have violated some sort of patent or other. Or it has caused me to tell customers they could not have their product at the agreed upon price because software patent royalties make the cost of adding the features they wanted simply prohibitive. Software patents certainly do not every spur on any sort of innovation, but only slow down innovative development and require a lawyer for every software developer. A truly paranoid software development firm ought to have at least a one to one ratio of lawyers to developers, as anybody worthy the title of a "software engineer" would on a daily basis violate so many patents that just a code review woud be a full time job for any such lawyer. That doesn't even touch component library licensing issues, operating system API library access terms, and reviewing NDAs for working with some component vendors. I'm sure I could generate enough content to keep two or three lawyers busy on a full time basis myself. This should not be the state of the software development professions.

I really did think as you are suggesting once upon a time, that perhaps there was some small marginal value and that the terms of patents could be reduced, especially for new technology industries (think bio-tech right now, as an example).

There is absolutely nothing which patent protection can do which copyright protection can't do much better. I'm not even in favor of long copyright terms, but there is a point in having at least some sort of idea protection written into law. And to "register" a copyright doesn't require the assistance of an attorney... if you even want to go that far.

Is this why Verizon is after Vonage???

[harryrex]

Is this not the very same thing that Vonage is doing??? From Verizon's FAQ... VoiceWing is a Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) service that offers phone service over a broadband Internet connection. A DSL, cable, or Verizon FiOS Internet service connection, a regular telephone, a router, and a telephone adapter are required for service. * VoiceWing lets you make local, long distance(includes the domestic US and Canada), and international calls at great low rates. * VoiceWing works with any new or existing cable, DSL, or Verizon FiOS broadband connection. * Calls can be made and received using any existing traditional phone, a router and an adapter. * Call Management is improved and simplified - set up and manage popular call features like Voice Mail, Call Logs, Call Forwarding and Caller ID with an online personal account page.

Prior Art?

[Thumper_SVX]

Prsuming this is related to the VoIP->POTS connection patent (which would be one of the few that I would consider a relatively legitimate patent), then may I point out that there's plenty of prior art out there. One prime example is Net2Phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net2Phone) which was a company founded in 1996 to provide precisely this service. I remember using it circa 1996 or 1997 as a way to make transatlantic calls easily and cheaply. It worked. It wasn't perfect... hell it was barely even good... but it did precisely what the patent states. Note the grant date of the patent is 1999... some three years later.

While it's possible that Verizon filed a patent in 1995 and it only get granted in 1999, I sincerely doubt this is the case.

Note I'm not a lawyer... or a patent attorney... hell the only vested interest I have in the story is that I use Vonage to make... oddly enough... transatlantic calls every few weeks. If I lost Vonage I wouldn't really be weeping... but it would make communicating with my family more difficult. At least until I get over to Belfast in the fall and install Skype on my mum's PC ;)

Re:May? MAY!?!

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, litigation just isn't necessary once we all have VoIP phones. That day is coming, albeit slowly. Sooner or later you'll just access people by DNS, instead of by phone number, making a VoIP call to them via IPv6. The telephone network as you know it is a strictly limited-time affair, and the cellular providers are the most scared because even 3G cellular data is SLOW AS HELL compared to, say, the current generation of DSL hardware, or WiMax, or basically anything else. I mean it's barely faster than satellite and their encapsulation schemes mean that there's often as much latency as satellite! Of course, they'll continue to do their best to litigate competing technologies into oblivion...

"Tech Qualified" Juries (a la "Death Qualified")

[joe_n_bloe]

The average juror is profoundly tech-ignorant, particularly because many students and "intellectual" jurors are eliminated during voir dire. Jurors can be disqualified for cause when they are expert in an area that is relevant to the trial because they may outthink or second-guess expert witnesses, in effect testifying during deliberations.

I don't know how to get around the problem that in highly technical trials, jurors are selected so that they have no way to judge the facts of the case. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact, which is one thing when a juror is asked to determine which of two witnesses with conflicting testimony is more believable. It's another thing entirely when listening to the testimony of experts who may or may not be fully qualified to discuss the topic at hand (and whose expertise or lack thereof the judge may not be qualified to judge). How can a juror, even though presumably well-intentioned, be expected to weigh the testimony of an expert who may or may not be speaking comprehensibly, and who may or may not be slanting his testimony to present a particular point of view. It's like asking people who took two years of high school French to review a play by Samuel Beckett.

I don't think it's that hard to find jurors who have enough familiarity with technical vocabulary and topics that they can deliberate thoughtfully. The system we have is designed to weed those people out.

If you ask me, the juror questionnaires in technologically-oriented cases should be written to determine whether jurors are conversant in the material that is presented during the trial. It is of course reasonable to eliminate a juror who has personal experience or expertise in an area too closely related to the case being tried (e.g. an employee of Skype in this case, or the holder of significant VoIP patents), or a bias (some kid who posts to Slashdot about the evils of former Baby Bells) but I think a "jury of peers" should be made up of people who are peers in the language of the case. They don't have to be pocket protector nerds, but they should be people with education (technical or not, formal or otherwise) and analytical skills that are up to the task.

Just my $.02.

VONAGES NEW CATCHY THEME SONG

[Anonymous Coward]

(to the vonage theme song you hear all the time woo woo, woo woo woo,)

ahem

woo woo, we got sued!

woo woo, we got sued!

woo woo, we got sued!

woo woo, we got sued!

woo woo, woo woo..

woo woo, we got sued!

the end!

$58 million

[Ant P.]

In VerizonDollars(tm), that's almost enough to buy a PS3!

Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can find them right here.

Did you do your school homework by posting question on the web as well?

A simple solution.

[nickv111]

Hmm. $58 million, eh? Well, here's a simple solution to Vonage's problem: Verizon obviously knows that $58 million is 58 million cents. Since 58 million cents is $580,000, they only have to pay $580,000. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. If we continue this process, the amount of money Vonage owes to Verizon if the latter wins approaches zero! So it's not the end after all.

Nick

this could be good

[uberCHIEFTAIN!]

I'm under the assumption that this also means the end of their stupid and annoying commercials?

Re:this could be good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm under the assumption that this also means the end of their stupid and annoying commercials?

Wow. You really have your attention on the important stuff, don't you?

Re:"Tech Qualified" Juries (a la "Death Qualified"

[Anonymous Coward]

SSsssssssssssssshhhhhhhh!

I credit my three degrees as the reason I've been passed over for jury duty three times in the last 6 years. If you go around suggesting that people who know stuff should actually serve, I might get forced to listen to lawyers drone on for weeks about things they don't understand, or listen to opinion-for-hire "experts". And how am I going to win my frivolous lawsuits if the jury can see past my winning smile and poke at my bogus injury claims? You'll ruin everything!

How am I going to fill my Coy pond now?

[aprilsound]

... but could mean the doom for the entire coip industry... NO! Not the Coy Over IP industry! Now I'll never have tranquility...

Telco ripoff

[Dilbert3k]

Look, Telcos make a ton of money renting out pipes crisscrossing this country. When a ISP pays them for a OC192 They are making huge profits. However they are not making anything like the profit they make when they use a OC192 for POTs calls. (Plain Old Telephone). And as someone else has already pointed out, the Telcos are already using VOip to send the calls across long distance, they convert all the calls from a POTs call to a data stream that they then compress and send across their lines to the local city where they are converted back into POTs. The only difference from how they do it, and how VOip companys do it is the telco calls never leave their own network. The question you need to be asking yourself is if the Telcos can make a profit renting out lines for data use (Read internet backbone). And Voip companys can make a profit running VOip over the rented lines AND paying the telcos to put the calls back onto the local networks..... then why are the Telcos charging so freaking much for POTs calls? They could make a profit at 1/10th the price they charge. Face facts the telcos are ripping us off and have been doing so for a VERY long time. Have fun, and show your hate for the telcos by not making POTs calls when you can use any other method of communicating. E-mail, IM, Many Cell phone plans, or even internet voice communications software. (Team Speak anyone?)

Re:Telco ripoff

[Anonymous Coward]

POTS, not POTs

VoIP, not VOip

This is why "emulating a well-known process ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

While the article is indeed lacking technical details, the vague refrences to infringing on usage of voicemail and call-waiting really shows how desperate they are to crush vonage and anyone else in the VoIP services market. Features such as this are in use by every other telco, both small and large, on the planet.

This is why, IMHO, "emulating, on a computer and/or a computer network, a well-known process or business method" should not, in itself be patentable.

If there is something innovative about the WAY it is done there MIGHT be an invention. But just doing on a computer and/or a computer network what is done without one is "obvious to one versed in the art".

Verizon, please don't kill my VoIP...

[TheSHAD0W]

I am highly dependent on my VoIP line; I live well outside the nearest city's limits, in another county, and while I share the same area code with the city calls to me are considered long-distance. As a result, when people called me on my POTS line, they would get the three-beep error code, and without listening to the rest of the message they'd decide my line had been disconnected. My VoIP line is a local number inside the city and I don't have that problem any more. If my service goes out, I've got problems.

Thankfully my service is with Packet8, whom Verizon is not (currently) suing... But I'm still scared.

I'm getting really upset

[kilodelta]

It is my view that the alleged patents are bullshit. This is Verizon trying to kill off VoIP because it's meant so much lost business to them. I for one would love to see Verizon shattered into a million little fucking pieces. That's how much I hate that company. I'm also a Vonage subscriber and a VoIP evangelist. I mean come on, Call Waiting? Please, that was a Bell Labs thing back in the day and if Vonage is guilty of violating patent, so too are all the CLEC's.

Will this affect Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this affect Vonage customers in Canada? My sister switched to Vonage a few months back. I had to drive 2 hours to her place and set up the Vonage router to work with her wifi router. If Vonage goes tits up then it looks like I will be driving back to her place.

Possible workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be unfeasable, but what if Vonage set up an "independant" (ie. legally so, but not effectively) VoIP-style enterprise in a far away land, like somewhere in Europe, that doesn't see software patents as legitimate, then send any VoIP-to-regular-V calls to them over the Internets, then the new enterprise can legally connect to the existing 'phone network and just send any calls bound for the US back over the regular channels? That would be one huge 'phone bill, but such bulk use of the network would bring price reductions, and maybe this new enterprise could also route connections from other US-based VoIP providers scared of patent ltigation.

BTWIANAL

Kill VOIP, Volume I

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're intrinsically garbage, tying "internet" to something that's prior art and basically done for
mobile services already.

Exactly. Verizon is trying to forestall the day when they're a mobile ISP, without toll collection capability on the users uses.

When do these patents expire?