Slashdot Mirror
Vonage Signs Deal to Escape Patent Infringement
Tone Def writes "In the wake of a court injunction barring Vonage from infringing on three Verizon patents, the VoIP provider has signed an agreement with VoIP, Inc. to carry all Vonage calls over its network. Two of the Verizon patents Vonage was found to have infringed covered connecting VoIP calls to switched networks, so the agreement means Vonage is no longer infringing those patents. 'By signing the agreement with VoIP, Inc., Vonage has provided itself with a measure of protection against the injunction. VoIP, Inc. owns its own network, describing VOICEONE as the "first, seamless nationwide IP network." Perhaps most crucially from Vonage's standpoint, VoIP, Inc. claims to own the intellectual property around its network and services.'"
I will assume that VIOP will indemnify Vonage when they lose a patent case in court, but what about the third patent Vonage "infringed" upon? What services will they have to restrict in order to avoid violating that patent?
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Curses!!! Foiled Again!!!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I handed a boss of mine a study paper about 12 years ago that covered probably 90% of the claims. I don't think it was ever released public which would kill any possible use as prior art.
Got Code?
How can you patent something like that? Could I patent "VoIP calls from Ethernet connected phones" or "VoIP calls from token-ring connected phones?" Something also tells me Verizon only patented this so that they could squash competition and keep their increasingly useless POTS system viable.
This just shows how our patent system is completely incompatible with TCP/IP. If you can patent one layer of the stack, you can halt innovation on other systems.
Also, aren't there Skype phones that do this? Why isn't Verizon suing them?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Vonage found guilty of infringing three Verizon patents
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
From the article:
Last month, a federal jury found that Vonage's VoIP services infringed on three patents owned by Verizon after deliberating for less than a day. Two of the patents cover connecting VoIP calls to public switched telephone networks (PSTN); the third covers VoIP calls made using WiFi phones. While the jury found that Vonage did not knowingly infringe on Verizon's patents, it did award the telecom $58 million in damages.
Both the summary and the article CLEARLY state that the deal is to protect Vonage from the injuntion, NOT the infringement. By striking the deal, Vonage is stopping it's infringement, regardless of the injunction. It's not escaping it, as it has already been caught, found guilty, and fined $58 million. Escaping implies the act of removing one's self from his current situation. Avoiding would have been a better term for relating to a future action.
The only Wi-Fi device that I know of that Vonage supports is the WiFi UTStarcom F1000, of which Vonage sells a locked-down version, but the same phone is used as a general SIP client for other VoIP services... how is it that selling that device could possibly constitute a violation of a patent about VoIP over WiFi? Also, what's different about VoIP over WiFi than VoIP over Ethernet?
Also, Vonage provides SoftPhone accounts, where you run SIP software on your PC using Vonage SIP credentials... If I use that software on my laptop while I'm plugged into a wired network, then I go wireless and use the same software over WiFi, did I just start violating their patent?
Note the end on the Ars article:
So supposedly it's just biz as usual.
I am a Vonage customer. I'm actually satisfied with it, despite all the negative reviews that other Slashdotters give it. It is still more reliable and higher-quality than my land line ever was. Verizon owns the physical lines in my part of New York. As Verizon's own linemen have told me, the switching equipment in my neighborhood is so old that it can't support caller ID, for example, and dial-up phone connections (in case of cable modem downtime) max out at 14.4k because of the fuzziness and static on the line. And Verizon has no plans to upgrade. Thanks. (Of course I can't use dial-up over Vonage, but I have an alternative backup -- wireless EVDO service, at near broadband speeds... sadly THAT is through Verizon because they have the best wireless service in my area.)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Pure FUD. POTS is referring to the analog service that is provided by the incumbent phone companies. If the existing analog service disappeared tomorrow, you would just see a rise in competition from digital services. You would also see better SLAs from digital providers. The biggest problems with things like 911 on Vonage are not caused because Vonage cannot or will not provide the service. It is caused because the current POTS providers put up actual road blocks to prevent interoperability. Once set up, my ISP has had 99.9% up-time. I have lived in places in the US that had worse up-time. My cell phone has never been down when I tried to use it inside my home. The whole, "Your going to die if you don't pay the incumbent phone company." line is FUD. Pure FUD. When you stop leaving the safety of your POTS, then you can talk. I personally leave my home on occasion, and thus have no access to 911 via my POTS line.