TheRealSCA writes "The latest in Verizon vs. Vonage is in. The judge has basically stopped Vonage from accepting new customers. From the article: 'A judge issued an injunction Friday that effectively bars Internet phone carrier Vonage from signing up new customers as punishment for infringing on patents held by Verizon. Vonage's lawyers said the compromise injunction posted by U.S District Judge Hilton is almost as devastating as an injunction that would have affected Vonage's 2.2 million existing customers. "It's the difference of cutting off oxygen as opposed to the bullet in the head," Vonage lawyer Roger Warin said.'"
Our "intellectual property" system at work for you, ensuring innovation and -- as a nice side effect -- severely restricting competition in the marketplace. Hip Hip Hooray
I've been enjoying cheap phone service for 18 months now, and hoped it would last a lot longer. If Vonage goes under, and the other VoIP companies face the same patent issues, I may end up having to sign up for Comcast's crappy phone/cable/internet package... increasing my total bill for those services by $10 now, and by another $30 after a year.
I absolutely refuse to go back to Qwest with their horribly incompetent customer service people (apologies if any of you work there), surprise bonus charges and fees, and the constant attempts to sell you new features you don't need. Thanks a lot Verizon, you really know how to ruin a good thing (and I'm not even in your service area!).
You know why this didn't happen with the blackberry though....All the govt officials and there crackberry phones wouldn't let this happen. But a smaller more useless company like Vonage...Oh yeah throw the book at em!
Now that Verizon has more-or-less successfully defended their BROAD patents on VoIP stuff, I wonder how long it will be before AT&T/Cingular starts suing ALL of the other phone companies for violating THEIR patents.
I imagine that AT&T owns MANY of the patents on much of the phone technology currently in use. Or at least, owns patents that are "close enough" to successfully sue everybody for infringement.
It's all so crazy. The telecom industry in the US is fucked.
I say bring it on. I want patent lawsuits to cripple our entire legal system. I want it to get SO bad that they see what a pile of shit it is and do something about it.
Remember, AT&T isn't AT&T of old. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess a lot of the old AT&T intellectual property is shared by the RBOC descendents like USWest er, Qwest, PacBell -er AT&T, Nynex -er Verizon, Bell Atlantic -er Verizon, Bell South -er AT&T, Ameritech -er AT&T, and Southwestern Bell -er AT&T.
Oh yeah! I saw those last time I visited my parents. I kept trying to fast-forward through them, but it wouldn't work. They said it was because they didn't have TiVO -- but that just didn't make sense to me.
Apparantly there are actually people out there who watch TV shows when the network execs tell them to. They have to put up with these "commercial" things, and the show doesn't pause when they get up to go tot he restroom.
Patent infringement is NEARLY always about one big guy versus another big guy -- or a big guy versus a little guy. How often do patents actually help individuals rather than mega-conglomerates? Even if you have a small business with various patents, can you afford to protect them in court?
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themeselves believed in patents. While I feel this judgment is counter-market, it doesn't cause as much damage as patents do in general. The idea that someone can monopolize the thoughts, motions or creations of another individual is ridiculous, especially in the multitude of patents we all know are ridiculous.
So be it. Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve. I feel no pain for Vonage, nor anyone who decides to base their businesses on forcing other businesses not to compete in a certain way.
Rest in pieces, Vonage. Maybe Verizon will be next.
I think his point was that they don't have any basis to whine about it since they likely would have done the same thing were they in a position to do so.
Say you walk into a room. There's a sword leaning against the wall next to the threshold and a fully armored knight charging you with his sword held high. Do you pick up the sword and parry, or do you simply make peace with your last few seconds of life?
It is clear to me that the parent considers defensive patents the same as using patents in a predatory manner. He's wrong.
Say you walk into a room. There's a sword leaning against the wall next to the threshold and a fully armored knight charging you with his sword held high. Do you pick up the sword and parry, or do you simply make peace with your last few seconds of life?
Your analogy is much more apt than you apparently realize.
You can not hope to prevail against that armored knight. If he lands one blow, you are effectively dead. If you land 100 blows, maybe he gets a few bruises. If you fight you are guaranteed to die, it is just a matter of how many minutes it will take.
If you negotiate, you might convince the guy to stop, you probably won't but you've got a much better chance of coming out alive than if you take the inevitable path to death of engaging in a totally mismatched fight.
Of course there is a third option - get the hell out of the room. Same thing with patents, if there were no patents to fight with, then they wouldn't be able to kill you with them.
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themeselves believed in patents. Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve.
While you were away living in your patentless fantasy world, real-world business owners who played by the rules, filed patents -- because they had no other choice!
Patents are a government granted monopoly (on an idea, in this case) to encourage a certain behavior (inventing). This sort of monopoly has lots of hidden costs for the economy and an unknown benefit for the patent holder. Why not keep everything clear and open? Don't allow the patent. If they idea is really great, it should be easy for the company that that discovered it to dominate the market in the future. Their competitors should take some time to get "me too" products to market, and that time can get them some real dough. If the idea isn't that innovative, it'll be copied easily and won't mean much. This system -- the one without patents -- still rewards people with good ideas.
This is the Adam Smith warning all over again. Government granted monopolies seem like cheap ways of subsidizing desired activities (research, in this case), but they end up costing a fortune. It's like funding things on bond issuance. The government regularly gives money to the NSF and the NIH because science has a solid track record of providing big returns on the investment, but using patents to cover research is obviously bad, since we're taking a loan instead of buying an investment. Business patents involve the government taking a loan to subsidize business, but without any public discussion about the possible benefits of taking that loan.
Locking up ideas in patetents is, to me, morally reprehensible too. It inhibits the free flow of ideas by regulating techniques, knowledge, and even the conclusions one can draw from data. I believe that the cost to society of the patent is too high. People invented things before they were granted monopolies, and they will continue to do so after those monopolies are removed. As the pace of innovation accelerates, more people encounter roadblocks caused by this unwise funding. And its exactly that they are paying for the discoveries of a past era through royalties now.
Intellectual property of all sorts is absurd. The idea could sink our culture.
If the idea isn't that innovative, it'll be copied easily and won't mean much. This system -- the one without patents -- still rewards people with good ideas.
You're making the false assumption that innovative == technically difficult. Often it isn't, it's simply a matter of thinking outside the box.
How technically difficult is it to produce the opener on the top of a modern soda can, especially once you've seen one? Not very. However, as a solution to the problems of pull-tab cans it was a pretty damn clever innovation. There are thousands of examples where people say "I could have thought of that". Well maybe, but they didn't and there is no reason to penalize the people who did since the non-inventors see the system as "unfair".
The place where the current patent system fails is in the area of process patents. A method of interconnecting any two existing things should not be patentable unless truly new technology was invented to accomplish the purpose. The same with tacking "on the internet" to any existing process (eg One-Click). However, an infinitely variable valve timing assembly for automotive use... at least a "maybe".
How technically difficult is it to produce the opener on the top of a modern soda can, especially once you've seen one? Not very.
I beg to differ:
While the first aluminum cans were noticeably easier to open than steel ones, a separate opener was still required. This was an inconvenience, especially when there was plenty of beer but no church key at the family picnic. It was in such a situation that Ermal Fraze of Dayton, Ohio, found himself in 1959, when he resorted to using a car bumper to open a can. Th
So, let's play this game - we'll even name it something like China. You the player spend oh 5 years researching and creatnig some neato' keen scientificly designed product but you don't Patent it because well you just don't roll that way. So you bring this thing to market and it's really kewl but it's kind of expensive because afterall you have all those years of R&D to pay for and a family to feed. 2 months after having released your neato' keen device to market sales sharply drop. Gee, why is that? Oh wait, someone else is playing the game too. Only they are playing it a little different. Seems they were one of your very first customers only instead of using your product they took it apart, duplicated the pieces, and are now making them too - for 1/4 your asking price. They paid nothing for R&D other than the time spent reversing your product and because they have no R&D tail to pay for they aren't deep in the red like you were when you started. No patent so you have no way to fight them - now what? Two months is actually not a crazy estimate either BTW, hell these days you're likely to hand them the plans to manufacture your precious widget anyway. 5mins after the plans hit their desk they are being duped. Worse they might even run the production line double time - you get the products built during the day, they sell the products they built at night. Whoops, how do you fix that exactly? Think this through....
The patent system right now SUX, I'll grant that. However it doesn't suck because the idea is completely bad it sucks because the patent office grants overly broad patents and because we have a judicial branch running amuck making decisions on technology they barely understand. Dumping the patent system while nice in fantasy land isn't going to necessarily mean that it will make things better. China, and other countries, are copying products with little to no R&D like mad and undercutting the real companies making these products. The result is that some of the companies are losing their ass due to R&D costs - what you propose, nuking the patent system, would allow this with no penalty. You sure that's what you want?
Oh and yes people invented things before patents. Then they VERY closely held onto that information for fear that others would benefit from it if it was shared with anyone other than maybe an apprentice. They didn't simply tell every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who wandered by how to do the thing that allowed them to make a living I promise you. There also wasn't this huge global information system that would allow the information to spread like wildfire.
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themselves believed in patents.
I don't know about Vonage specifically, but it's unwarranted to assume that because they applied for patents that they believed in patents. Those patents might have been intended as (apparently inadequate) defensive patents [wikipedia.org].
Not much of one. It's expensive to enforce patents. The little guy will find himself out-lawyered when he takes on a mega-corp for infringement and he will not have as big a war chest as the mega-corp. So the mega-corp can outrun him and outgun him in court.
That's why I prefaced it with the "if it's an obvious infringement".
And in reality, that is a failing of the legal system not the patent system. You right about the overall effect (little guy == screwed) but the patent system isn't the one doing the harm.
...you just made my choice a little easier. I'm a happy Vonage customer, and I'm also in the market for a new cellular provider. I can now scratch Verizon off the short list.
No the parent poster was right - scratch them off the list. I could care less what they might be willing to give me in the way of say cellualr service - it's a poison pill that will bite back first chance it gets. Vonage, of which I'm a customer, competed and is being destroyed by what appears to be an overly broad patent and a judge out of control. If the folks who have started this think they will ever regain my business they can think again about it - won't happen no matter what's offered.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday April 06 2007, @12:30PM (#18636433)
Keep in mind that the Markman hearing (to decide what the claim actually covers) adoption of verizon's construction of all the claims means that all of the patents read so broad that things like BIND and SIP infringe -- Add to that court irregularities: no patent case expertise and instead of days, there was only a 30 minute per side argument per side for 48 claims over 7 patents -- and there's a pretty strong case for appeal.
More than a few years ago, the big AT&T was forced to split up to remove a monopoly they had. Well, lets see, now SBC, Bellsouth, Cingular, DishNetwork and probably more I don't know of all fly under that AT&T banner. All reports of Qwest suck, and I have my own hatred for Vonage but it was a choice some found to be good. Where is all my choice going and why isn't someone in the government stopping this? The telecoms are raping the people AGAIN, and although not a monopoly yet, its getting to the point of being one if not something worse.
Now that VoIP is being challenged, that could effectively eliminate even more plays like Charter and Comcast.
Remember when you idiots were convinced that Blackberries were going to disappear?
Some money will get passed around and this will get settled. Corporations don't just fold up shop so a bunch of Perl chimps can feel more righteous about their silly notions of "innovation".
RIM was sideswiped by (arguably) a patent troll who had no tangible product, no customers, and nobody had ever heard of.
This is a lawsuit brought by a well-funded telephone company (the largest LEC in the United States, and one of the largest telecom companies on the planet). Wall Street will respond negatively to this news once it starts circulating.
The news is just now hitting the wire, and Vonage stock has already taken a 10% beating. Once the announcements are made by Vonage and Verizon later this afternoon, expect the stock to be in penny-stock territory range on Monday once trading ends.
That does not bode well for Vonage as a company.
Verizon fully intends, through the courts, to shut Vonage down. It appears, effectively, they have.
Next week's news story: Verizon acquires a majority stake in Vonage as a "settlement" to the lawsuit, and begins "transitioning Vonage customers to Verizon's VoIP offering". Six months down the road, Vonage will quietly cease operations, after Verizon uses the leverage of their stock position to shutter the company after all customers have been moved off Vonage's revenue column.
I think that Verizon is going to become a lot more interested in negociating with Vonage after this ruling. Why? Because if Vonage goes bankrupt, Verizon is likely to get squat in bankruptcy court. They don't have a lot of physical assets. They have a customer base - a loyal one. How many Vonage customers, having already switched from an RBOC, are going to switch BACK voluntarily?
Verizon viewed this as a way to get a piece of a growing market without having to invest anything. tey were going to use the patent to force Vonage to charge a "Verizon Tax" on their customers, which would make the service less attractive to users and maybe send somefolks back to the RBOC's - not to mention the fat licensing fees. But the judge may have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Let's see, Vonage builds... nothing and sells little boxes to people to connect to their Internet connection. This then connects to a couple of termination sites that either connect to other Vonage customers (maybe) or just dumps the call out on the standard telephone network.
Yes, individual calls out cost them something, but that infrastructure is built and maintained by the other companies. Generally, by the people too dumb to have switched away to Vonage and their VOIP ilk.
The problem is that Vonage is 100% dependent on the telephone network they are competing with. They are selling a service which requires their competitor to operate. This is generally a bad business model, except it can generate extremely high profits for a short period of time. Vonage can't put Verizon out of business as it would eliminate their ability to operate.
Of course having a leech syphoning off the high-value residential customers does nothing but piss Verizon, AT&T and others off. This has been coming for a long time and it isn't over yet. I would guess some telecom company finds some way to put every one of the leeching VOIP services like Vonage and Lingo out of business soon.
If I connect Vonage to my cable broadband and call someone else who connects their Vonage box to their cable broadband, where is the phone company involved?
Seems to me that if Verizon has to charge twice as much as Vonage for half the features, the problem is with Verizon, not Vonage.
I'm surprised no one has posted this question yet: how will this legal battle affect other, smaller VoIP providers? I get my VoIP service from my regional ISP, and I'm very happy with it. They deliver a completely unlocked SIP service to me, and my Asterisk server uses it for outside calls. Will the Vonage patent-wielding kill my local VoIP provider too?
Vonage has until 4/12/07 before the new injunction takes effect. (The new injunction barring new customers which replaced the old injunction that would have shut Vonage down today if it had been implemented.)
As a Canadian Vonage user, my interest in this case is going to be how it affects me -- but nobody seems to be talking about what might happen to the Canadian (or UK) subsidiaries should Vonage US go down.
It appears that Vonage Canada (and presumably UK) is a wholly-owned, seperate company, and isn't directly constrained by the patent suit (as Verizon has no Canadian presence or patents). However, it is my understanding that Vonage Canada relies pretty heavily on the Vonage US network for call routing (although it is also my understanding that it has been gaining a bit more independence in the past year).
So what happens if Vonage US goes into receivership? Presumably holdings like Vonage Canada and Vonage UK will go on sale. I suspect Vonage Canada's call quality might suffer if they don't put contingency plans in place now, but that if they can stave off the loss of customers due to the US network folding, it could potentially survive (in which case, the 4 Vonage lines I have in my home, and the Vonage lines family and friends have thanks to my recommendation could keep working). But then again, if Vonage Canada isn't all that profitable (I have no idea if they are or not), they could fold up as well.
For now I'm waiting it out, but if anyone has any better info on what could be expected for the Canadian and UK subsidiaries, I'd certainly be interested in learning more.
That's the problem. Vonage, like most young companies, is only solvent as long as they start taking in new customers. You slam the brakes on new signups, the whole house of cards can collapse.
I give Vonage six weeks. Hell, if they can't get this injunction lifted, and the don't find a way to work around it and sign up new customers, they may have six hours. We'll see how Wall Street responds to this news.
If you get Gizmo Project [gizmoproject.com] and Grand Central [grandcentral.com], and configure the latter to use the former, you can get unlimited inbound calls for free.
I've been very happy with my Vonage service, and I hope they'll win this one in court eventually. If they don't, I'll reconfigure my Vonage hardware to use another SIP provider (like Gizmo Project): I'll switch back to TPC when heck freezes over.
I think I figured out your problem. You were dealing with some company called "Vontage." Try calling "Vonage" and I'm sure you'll have as good an experience as I am continuing to have.
Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
insuring innovation by.. providing innovative new ways for incumbents to crush advances which threaten their bottom line.
Parent
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been enjoying cheap phone service for 18 months now, and hoped it would last a lot longer. If Vonage goes under, and the other VoIP companies face the same patent issues, I may end up having to sign up for Comcast's crappy phone/cable/internet package... increasing my total bill for those services by $10 now, and by another $30 after a year.
I absolutely refuse to go back to Qwest with their horribly incompetent customer service people (apologies if any of you work there), surprise bonus charges and fees, and the constant attempts to sell you new features you don't need. Thanks a lot Verizon, you really know how to ruin a good thing (and I'm not even in your service area!).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NEW VONAGE THEME JINGLE, PLEASE READ (Score:5, Funny)
woo woo, we got sued!!!
woo woo, we got sued!!!
woo woo, we got sued!!!
woo woo, woo woo,
woo woo, we got sued!!!
Bye Bye!
Parent
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Hoo hoo, hoo hoo hoo.
Hoo hoo, hoo hoo hoo.
Hoo hoo, hoo hoo.
Woo hoo, Woo hoo hoo.
Parent
The stage is set (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that AT&T owns MANY of the patents on much of the phone technology currently in use. Or at least, owns patents that are "close enough" to successfully sue everybody for infringement.
It's all so crazy. The telecom industry in the US is fucked.
Re:The stage is set (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't be long: only have to wait until this approach is more profitable than providing phone service.
"Renting switching equipment is not a good business model when switching equipment is ubiquitous". -- Eben Moglen
Parent
Re:The stage is set (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The stage is set (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The stage is set (Score:4, Funny)
He posts here often, but seldom does anyone see the posts, since they are moderated down as 'moronic'...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Maybe they ARE the AT&T of old.
pwnage (Score:4, Funny)
New commercial for Vonage... (Score:5, Funny)
Whooo-hooo, wooo hoo-hoo!
Whoo-hoo-hoo, oooh-oooh...oops.
Quiet weekend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quiet weekend (Score:5, Funny)
"have you heard the new fall out boy single? it. gets. me. pumped!"
y'know what gets me 'pumped'? the thought of stabbing that man repeatedly and flaying the corpse.
Parent
Re:Quiet weekend (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...commercials...
Oh yeah! I saw those last time I visited my parents. I kept trying to fast-forward through them, but it wouldn't work. They said it was because they didn't have TiVO -- but that just didn't make sense to me.
Apparantly there are actually people out there who watch TV shows when the network execs tell them to. They have to put up with these "commercial" things, and the show doesn't pause when they get up to go tot he restroom.
I don't want to live in that kind of world.
Parent
Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themeselves believed in patents. While I feel this judgment is counter-market, it doesn't cause as much damage as patents do in general. The idea that someone can monopolize the thoughts, motions or creations of another individual is ridiculous, especially in the multitude of patents we all know are ridiculous.
So be it. Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve. I feel no pain for Vonage, nor anyone who decides to base their businesses on forcing other businesses not to compete in a certain way.
Rest in pieces, Vonage. Maybe Verizon will be next.
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me add a dose of reality to your delusion. They simply would have been sued out of business sooner.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is clear to me that the parent considers defensive patents the same as using patents in a predatory manner. He's wrong.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can not hope to prevail against that armored knight. If he lands one blow, you are effectively dead. If you land 100 blows, maybe he gets a few bruises. If you fight you are guaranteed to die, it is just a matter of how many minutes it will take.
If you negotiate, you might convince the guy to stop, you probably won't but you've got a much better chance of coming out alive than if you take the inevitable path to death of engaging in a totally mismatched fight.
Of course there is a third option - get the hell out of the room. Same thing with patents, if there were no patents to fight with, then they wouldn't be able to kill you with them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DM: You see a fully armored knight charging you with his sword held high.
PC: I close the door.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are a government granted monopoly (on an idea, in this case) to encourage a certain behavior (inventing). This sort of monopoly has lots of hidden costs for the economy and an unknown benefit for the patent holder. Why not keep everything clear and open? Don't allow the patent. If they idea is really great, it should be easy for the company that that discovered it to dominate the market in the future. Their competitors should take some time to get "me too" products to market, and that time can get them some real dough. If the idea isn't that innovative, it'll be copied easily and won't mean much. This system -- the one without patents -- still rewards people with good ideas.
This is the Adam Smith warning all over again. Government granted monopolies seem like cheap ways of subsidizing desired activities (research, in this case), but they end up costing a fortune. It's like funding things on bond issuance. The government regularly gives money to the NSF and the NIH because science has a solid track record of providing big returns on the investment, but using patents to cover research is obviously bad, since we're taking a loan instead of buying an investment. Business patents involve the government taking a loan to subsidize business, but without any public discussion about the possible benefits of taking that loan.
Locking up ideas in patetents is, to me, morally reprehensible too. It inhibits the free flow of ideas by regulating techniques, knowledge, and even the conclusions one can draw from data. I believe that the cost to society of the patent is too high. People invented things before they were granted monopolies, and they will continue to do so after those monopolies are removed. As the pace of innovation accelerates, more people encounter roadblocks caused by this unwise funding. And its exactly that they are paying for the discoveries of a past era through royalties now.
Intellectual property of all sorts is absurd. The idea could sink our culture.
Parent
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the false assumption that innovative == technically difficult. Often it isn't, it's simply a matter of thinking outside the box.
How technically difficult is it to produce the opener on the top of a modern soda can, especially once you've seen one? Not very. However, as a solution to the problems of pull-tab cans it was a pretty damn clever innovation. There are thousands of examples where people say "I could have thought of that". Well maybe, but they didn't and there is no reason to penalize the people who did since the non-inventors see the system as "unfair".
The place where the current patent system fails is in the area of process patents. A method of interconnecting any two existing things should not be patentable unless truly new technology was invented to accomplish the purpose. The same with tacking "on the internet" to any existing process (eg One-Click). However, an infinitely variable valve timing assembly for automotive use... at least a "maybe".
Parent
form follows failure: the pop-top can (Score:3, Informative)
I beg to differ:
While the first aluminum cans were noticeably easier to open than steel ones, a separate opener was still required. This was an inconvenience, especially when there was plenty of beer but no church key at the family picnic. It was in such a situation that Ermal Fraze of Dayton, Ohio, found himself in 1959, when he resorted to using a car bumper to open a can. Th
Be careful what you wish for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent system right now SUX, I'll grant that. However it doesn't suck because the idea is completely bad it sucks because the patent office grants overly broad patents and because we have a judicial branch running amuck making decisions on technology they barely understand. Dumping the patent system while nice in fantasy land isn't going to necessarily mean that it will make things better. China, and other countries, are copying products with little to no R&D like mad and undercutting the real companies making these products. The result is that some of the companies are losing their ass due to R&D costs - what you propose, nuking the patent system, would allow this with no penalty. You sure that's what you want?
Oh and yes people invented things before patents. Then they VERY closely held onto that information for fear that others would benefit from it if it was shared with anyone other than maybe an apprentice. They didn't simply tell every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who wandered by how to do the thing that allowed them to make a living I promise you. There also wasn't this huge global information system that would allow the information to spread like wildfire.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least patents give the little guy a chance.
Not much of one. It's expensive to enforce patents. The little guy will find himself out-lawyered when he takes on a mega-corp for infringement and he will not have as big a war chest as the mega-corp. So the mega-corp can outrun him and outgun him in court.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And in reality, that is a failing of the legal system not the patent system. You right about the overall effect (little guy == screwed) but the patent system isn't the one doing the harm.
Thanks, Verizon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, Verizon... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cisco ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL.
Goverment at its best! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for heaven's sake... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some money will get passed around and this will get settled. Corporations don't just fold up shop so a bunch of Perl chimps can feel more righteous about their silly notions of "innovation".
Re:Oh for heaven's sake... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a lawsuit brought by a well-funded telephone company (the largest LEC in the United States, and one of the largest telecom companies on the planet). Wall Street will respond negatively to this news once it starts circulating.
The news is just now hitting the wire, and Vonage stock has already taken a 10% beating. Once the announcements are made by Vonage and Verizon later this afternoon, expect the stock to be in penny-stock territory range on Monday once trading ends.
That does not bode well for Vonage as a company.
Verizon fully intends, through the courts, to shut Vonage down. It appears, effectively, they have.
Next week's news story: Verizon acquires a majority stake in Vonage as a "settlement" to the lawsuit, and begins "transitioning Vonage customers to Verizon's VoIP offering". Six months down the road, Vonage will quietly cease operations, after Verizon uses the leverage of their stock position to shutter the company after all customers have been moved off Vonage's revenue column.
Parent
This will change rapidly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon viewed this as a way to get a piece of a growing market without having to invest anything. tey were going to use the patent to force Vonage to charge a "Verizon Tax" on their customers, which would make the service less attractive to users and maybe send somefolks back to the RBOC's - not to mention the fat licensing fees. But the judge may have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Vonage is money for nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, individual calls out cost them something, but that infrastructure is built and maintained by the other companies. Generally, by the people too dumb to have switched away to Vonage and their VOIP ilk.
The problem is that Vonage is 100% dependent on the telephone network they are competing with. They are selling a service which requires their competitor to operate. This is generally a bad business model, except it can generate extremely high profits for a short period of time. Vonage can't put Verizon out of business as it would eliminate their ability to operate.
Of course having a leech syphoning off the high-value residential customers does nothing but piss Verizon, AT&T and others off. This has been coming for a long time and it isn't over yet. I would guess some telecom company finds some way to put every one of the leeching VOIP services like Vonage and Lingo out of business soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I connect Vonage to my cable broadband and call someone else who connects their Vonage box to their cable broadband, where is the phone company involved?
Seems to me that if Verizon has to charge twice as much as Vonage for half the features, the problem is with Verizon, not Vonage.
How will this affect other VoIP providers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why you can still sign up (Score:4, Informative)
So what about Vonage Canada and Vonage UK? (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Canadian Vonage user, my interest in this case is going to be how it affects me -- but nobody seems to be talking about what might happen to the Canadian (or UK) subsidiaries should Vonage US go down.
It appears that Vonage Canada (and presumably UK) is a wholly-owned, seperate company, and isn't directly constrained by the patent suit (as Verizon has no Canadian presence or patents). However, it is my understanding that Vonage Canada relies pretty heavily on the Vonage US network for call routing (although it is also my understanding that it has been gaining a bit more independence in the past year).
So what happens if Vonage US goes into receivership? Presumably holdings like Vonage Canada and Vonage UK will go on sale. I suspect Vonage Canada's call quality might suffer if they don't put contingency plans in place now, but that if they can stave off the loss of customers due to the US network folding, it could potentially survive (in which case, the 4 Vonage lines I have in my home, and the Vonage lines family and friends have thanks to my recommendation could keep working). But then again, if Vonage Canada isn't all that profitable (I have no idea if they are or not), they could fold up as well.
For now I'm waiting it out, but if anyone has any better info on what could be expected for the Canadian and UK subsidiaries, I'd certainly be interested in learning more.
Yaz.
Re:If you're a current customer, call retentions n (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, at least. There's a world-wide market for this kind of thing however. US patent law isn't and can't be enforced everywhere (thank God!).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I give Vonage six weeks. Hell, if they can't get this injunction lifted, and the don't find a way to work around it and sign up new customers, they may have six hours. We'll see how Wall Street responds to this news.
Re:Secret $5 plan? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been very happy with my Vonage service, and I hope they'll win this one in court eventually. If they don't, I'll reconfigure my Vonage hardware to use another SIP provider (like Gizmo Project): I'll switch back to TPC when heck freezes over.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think I figured out your problem. You were dealing with some company called "Vontage." Try calling "Vonage" and I'm sure you'll have as good an experience as I am continuing to have.