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.'"

The original article about the patents infrigement

[BlueTrin]

Vonage found guilty of infringing three Verizon patents [arstechnica.com]

Re:How about the third patent?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

The third has to do with accessing VOIP over wifi, so it would only affect that specific technology, which they could no longer support without affecting most of their users.

Re:et another ridiculous summary headline...

[Raistlin77]

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.

WiFi patent

[norminator]

The only Wi-Fi device that I know of that Vonage supports is the WiFi UTStarcom F1000 [vonage.com], 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?

Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones?

[mattatwork]

There are a number of providers besides Vonage... * AT&T CallVantage, Broadvoice, Cable & Wireless (Global product), Clearwire (only for Clearwire Wireless customers), Comcast, Covad (ClearEdge Office, Pro and Integrated access), Cox Communications (Northern Virginia)(Parts of Rhode Island), Engin (Australia), FaktorTel (Australia), fonVantage, iTalkBB, Jajah (connects two regular telephones), Lingo, Mediacom, Net2Phone, Packet8 (8x8), Primus Canada, Qwest, Sipgate (Germany, Austria, UK), SIPphone, Skype, SunRocket, Telio (Norway), Tesco (UK), Time Warner, Verizon VoiceWing, VoicePulse, Voip.com, VoipBuster, Voipfone (mainly UK), Voxbone, Wengo and Yahoo! Voice.

I think they should have only gotten a patent if they created each layer of VoIP. I don't think they're out to squash the competition (that would probably invite an antitrust lawsuit), they want to make as much of the money possible from VoIP as possible. They'll probably license "their technology" and make a killing from collecting licensing fees from their competitors....

Vonage says it is NOT patent-related.

[Dekortage]

Note the end on the Ars article:

Update: After the story ran, Ars was contacted by a Vonage spokesperson that claimed that the agreement with VoIP, Inc. has "nothing to do with the patent situation." She described the deal as another termination deal similar to those Vonage has signed with other carriers, reiterating that the agreement was unrelated to the Verizon agreement. However, an unnamed source at VoIP, Inc. suggested to TelecomWeb that Vonage would indeed be using its network to carry its calls, while refusing to speculate about the patent dustup.

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.)

Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones?

[nolife]

No one is milking off of anyone. If you are making a call between two people using VoIP, there is no POTS involved at all. Therefore, no POTS fees and no additional costs to the POTS providers. The call is 100% void of any POTS lines. If you are making a VoIP --> POTS call, only half of the people involved are using POTS, and that person with the POTS line is paying the POTS provider for the POTS service. Where is the something for nothing coming from that you speak of? What if we were all using CB radios to communicate with each other, how about IM, email, webcams, online whitboards, live meetings. What if I have no "home" phone service at all, should I still pay the POTS providers to maintain it just in case I change my mind later?

Your agruement is like saying we should all pay 42 cents to send an email because that is how much it cost the post office to send a mail and they have very strict requirements.

I use VoIP at home, I know I have given up my 99.999% uptime and that is acceptable to me. Why is it acceptable? Because I have other means of communication as well and for about 1/4 of the cost of my POTS line, I have about 20 more features and more flexability that I could not get at any price with my POTS service. Sorry, it should not cost me $2/month to keep my phone number unlisted and unpublished from the Verizon phonebook, that is what Verizon was charging for years, what does it take for that to happen, a one time click in a data field and I pay $24 a year for that? Why were they charging people for that unservice? Because if a significant portion of their customers (which was everyone with a "phone" a few years ago) opted out, they would not be able to sell valuble yellow page space in those phone books. How about $5/month for *69 or $3/month for tone dialing? Are these the same fees and charges that you claim are justified and all providers should charge the same? You know, on even ground with each other.