Vonage Hit With $69.5M Judgement

andy1307 writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Net telephone company Vonage Holdings Corp. was ordered in federal court Tuesday to pay Sprint Nextel $69.5 million in damages for infringing on six telecommunications patents owned by competitor Sprint Nextel Corp. In addition to the damages, jurors awarded Sprint Nextel a 5 percent royalty from Vonage on future revenues. It was the second verdict against Vonage this year. A jury in Virginia determined in March that Vonage had violated three Verizon patents in building its Internet phone system. The jury awarded Verizon $58 million in damages plus 5.5 percent royalties on future revenues. Greg Gorbatenko, a telecommunications and media analyst for Jackson Securities, said the decision 'feels like a death knell' for Vonage because future revenue will likely dry up, preventing the company from investing in better technology or improving customer service."

i've seen this problem before.

[User 956]

In addition to the damages, jurors awarded Sprint Nextel a 5 percent royalty from Vonage on future revenues.

The correct legal strategy here is, change their name to an unpronounceable symbol, and force everyone to call them "the telecommunications company formerly known as Vonage".

Hurray

[Scorchmon]

Well, on the bright side, we won't be having to hear anymore of that damn "Woohoo" song from their commercials.

Which whipping boys?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how slashdot operates. Remember ALL patents are bad (unless they benefit us). It doesn't matter what the patents says because no one here even understands IP let alone patents. We do however understand that they're bad and if they're held by our enemies, then they're doubly bad (unless it's IBM...or Google...or well I'm sure another friend will pop up soon).

Re:And so, the incumbent telcos smugly feel...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. they have destroyed VOIP as a threat, and they can go about their usual greedy, grasping ways. Sprint will raise a glass to Verizon and toast to their continued wealth.

Gentlemen. . .to evil.

Patents Working as Legal System Intends

[YetAnotherBob]

I see from the article that the patent system is working as intended.

Patents really exist to slow the pace of innovation down to the point where the legal system can deal with it. They are also intended to protect the large economic organizations from threats by smaller corporations that may not be able or care to carry the loads for the system that the larger entities do. (However inefficiently.)

That patents promote innovation is a propaganda line that has never been true. Patents were created as a mechanism to prevent the rapid spread of a technology that threatened a royal monopoly in the late 1600s. They have always been no more than a way to slow down or stop change in the economy.

Preventing other people from using new ideas is all patents allow anyway. To really use a patent, you have to have a large amount of money to spend on lawyers. The results are usually chaotic, with the normal result being that the side with the most money wins. Often by bankrupting the other side with legal bills. Private patent holders are even told this in court, with the judge agreeing. There are exceptions, mostly when the patent owner is a law firm (Patent Troll). Even then the systems works, as the Trolls increase the cost of doing anything in a new way to the point where only truly outstanding ideas are ever doable.

The problem here is that this crowd (Slashdotters generally) doesn't understand the real reasons for the system. They are falling for the propaganda reasons, which are obviously not working. If you understand the real reasons, the system is working just fine. Those very public reasons of 'promoting innovation' are only out there to dupe the masses, and allow for the usual corruption at the top to continue.

Next thing I know, you will be claiming that drug patents reduce the cost of drugs. I guess P.T. was right, there really is one born every minute.

Re:Thats too bad.

[Leto-II]

This is convenient as most of my family, as well as my wifes, are located in one geographic area which is a long distance call.

I can't tell if you made a grammar mistake by leaving out the apostrophe, or a spelling mistake by not change the f to a v... Or maybe both?