Verizon Patent Lawsuit

Posts: 1 · New Forum Member Joined: May 05, 2007 Posts: 1

Verizon in my opinion are just a bunch of soar losers. Verizon in my opinion just wants to remain a monopoly and does not want to provide good service.

Without going in complete detail of my war story and the reasons why I switched to Vonage. I will say the Verizon does not want to change their mentality and compete for the customers with good service.

Verizon just acted to slow here in Snohomish Washington a suburb near Seattle. Verizon locally took a take it leave attitude with me. Promised DSL here within a year and that was three years ago. Verizon claimed that it would cost too much money. Yet Comcast stepped up with high speed cable access in my rural area. Frankly Verizon is just going have to learn to provide service with a better attitude and lower price.

Posts: 90 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: May 05, 2005 Posts: 90

jcovert wrote:

And all of this is "patently" ridiculous, and mark my words will finally bring about needed change in the completely broken U.S. patent system.

The deal is, if Verizon has a Patent that PREDATES this technology, and Vonage infirnges all the elements of at least one independent claim, then they infringe, period. There is nothing "broken" about the system. That is how it WORKS.

Similarly if Vonage can "work around" the Patent by not practicing one element of the claim, then they don't infringe, period. That is how the system works, and it works.

If the "Prior Art" you allege is so well known, you would think the $500-an-hour litigators and their expert witnesses Vongage hired would have found it and presented it to the jury. Or Vonage could have requested a Re-exam at the Patent Office. There is ample opportunity to invalidate a Patent at every level and step in the process.

I suspect, however, that your explanation is over-simplified. Again, the "Prior Art" to invalidate a Patent has to be PRIOR to the patent in question. You can't just say "well, everyone does this, so we don't infringe". It has to predate the Patent.

We have a LITIGATION problem in the USA, not a Patent problem. Litigation costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per MONTH, due to the arcane procedures and wasteful discovery techniques. This acts to punish the little guy in any Patent Litigation.

The Patent "reformers" pushing for the new Patent "reform" bill include all the big corporations, headed up by none other than Bill Gates of Microsoft, who argues that patents owned by individual inventors and small companies are stifling the "innovations" of Microsoft.

(If you don't get that bad joke, I can't help you. Microsoft was built on other people's technology, starting with DOS, which was little more than a knock-off of CPM and continuing with Windows which was copied from Xexox PARC).

Do you really think your interests are alligned wth Bill Gates'? Think carefully about that.

Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it.

The corproate interests who want to gut the Patent system have been flooding the internet newsgroups with messages about how the Patent system is "broken" - for well over a decade now. When I hear that "broken" line, I know someone has been taken in by this "talking point".

I recall replying to one message on a USENET newsgroup (remember those?) - over 10 years ago, that claimed that by the year 2000 Bill Gates would own the internet because of Patents and that the software business would grind to a halt because of Patents. 10 years later, and it still hasn't happened.

The joke is, Microsoft had no patents then, and had to pay out to buy smaller companies (like Stacker) with Patented technologies. It was (and continues to be) the little guy who benefits mostly from the Patent system.

If those start-ups, solo inventors, and small companies did not have patents, Gates would have just taken their ideas and crushed them without giving them a penny (as would have been his right). Patent law is the only thing protecting the little guy in the technology arena.

Vonage's mistake was not getting its own Patent IP to fight back with. A search of the USPTO website reveals no pending applications or patents assigned to Vonage.

Big mistake, right there.

Posts: 90 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: May 05, 2005 Posts: 90

jcovert wrote:

The case is Verizon Services Corp v Vonage Holdings, 06-cv-682, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court has four divisions: Alexandria, Newport News, Norfolk, and Richmond. http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/ This case was heard in Alexandria.

The E.D. of VA is known as the "rocket docket" because of its reputation for handling cases rapidly. The new courthouse has a statue mounted on the front of lady justice (blind with her scales) astride a winged turtle, with the motto, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied."

Strict rules are applied in discovery, and a case can go from initial filing to trial in 6-12 months, which is spectacularly fast, considering some courts (like in SD NY) such cases can drag on for years and years before trial even begins.

The ED VA is a popular Patent venue as more than 60% of all registerd Patent attorneys practice in the DC area. The Patent Office itself, is now literally next door to the courthouse.

For a plaintiff, it is a dream venue, as you can spend a year or more lining up your facts, witnesses, arguments, and even write your pleadings and have your motions in place before you file the case. The defendant has to then scramble to find an Attorney, discover the facts, present a defense, find an expert witness (if there are any left) and get ready for trial.

All Patent Appeals are heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in DC, regardless of which circuit court the original case was brought in (Patent cases are Federal causes of action and are brought in Federal, not State courts). So a local attorney in DC or Norther Virginia has not far to travel to try the case and the appeal.

The Federal Circuit was created in 1981 or therabouts, to hear speciial appeals such as Patent Cases. One of the first landmark cases was Polaroid v. Kodak, in which the court upheld a permanent injunction against Kodak. Kodak instant cameras were all taken off the market as a result, and are something of a collector's item for Patent Attorneys.

The modern Patent era started with the Polaroid case and the CAFC. Since then, several Patent "reform" laws have been passed limiting the rights of Patent holders in fliling for Patents and also curtailing some abuses of the procedures. However, the main problem remains the litigation side. There is no easy or cost-effective way to invalidate a clearly invalid Patent.

FWIW.

Posts: 90 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: May 05, 2005 Posts: 90

Storm_Law wrote:

This may be a little off topic but I just read about a case there a company patented a multi-color speedometer on a car. Ford installed a speedometer in some of their new cars that had two colors. The company sued Ford for patent infringement. Ford then settled, and licensed the patent.

They just sued Harley Davidson on the same patent. Harley Davidson installed a two color speedometer on their motorcycles.

How can you patent a multi-colored speedometer? If I put two different colored light bulbs in a fixture, will they allow me to patent the multi colored light fixture?

I think that the patent laws need to be re-visited.

The problem is not the laws, but how they are enforced. A lady sues McDonald's for $5 million because she spilled hot coffee in her lap. (My litigator friends say "but it was really hot coffee!"). This is clearly an abuse of the legal system and not what liability laws were intended for.

Should be invalidate all liability laws? Well, no. The problem is the litigation sytsem is broken. McDonalds spent more money on attorneys fees in that case than on the eventual payout. Full-blown litigation can cost $100,000 per MONTH and drag on for years.

You may have oversimplified the nature of the Patent involved (usually in these internet discussions, that is the case). If the invention was that simple, why not simply put in a monochromatic bulb in the speedometer? I doubt that would hurt sales of Harleys or Fords much.

Regardlless, the problem is, once a Patent is granted, you have to go to court to litigate it, and that can cost a lot of dough. So if the Patent holder offers to settle for "merely" a million bucks, well, that might seem like a good deal to the defendant.

3rd party Re-Exam has been touted as a solution to this problem. It might very well be a good idea. This would allow people to challenge patents at the Patent Office itself, rather than go to court. It would be a lot faster and cheaper.

Posts: 90 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: May 05, 2005 Posts: 90

Wht Vonage is talking to Voip, Inc. See:

http://www.voipincorporated.com/aboutus.aspx

"Intellectual Property:

At the core of VoiceOne’s value proposition and industry differentiation lies in our proprietary softswitch technology, which was developed in-house. The protocol agnostic architecture enables virtually any network protocol, from legacy switches to the latest MPLS standards, to communicate with the VoiceOne softswitch. Our CTO, Shawn Lewis, wrote the patents for the first softswitch (patent 6,614,781) and SS7 Media Gateway (patent 6,442,169). "

* * * *

These are all pretty old Patents (we are in the 7 million series now) so they likely predate any Verizon Patents or other Prior Art. I've seen this happen before - the company without a Patent porfolio ends up beholden to the one with a Patent Portfolio. If Vonage can team up with Voip, together they stand a better chance against the Telcos.

But speaking of IP, Voip certainly chose a crappy trademark. I mean, talk about "merely descriptive"! I would think the USPTO would have a hard time granting Voip Inc, a mark on a name that has become generic for "Voice Over IP".

Voip did get a logo mark for their logo, but disclaimed the name itself:

NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "VOIP, INC" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

So maybe Voip can bring its patent portfolio to the table, and Vonage can bring, well, let's see.... it's name.

And of course, "Woo Hoo". Got to be some goodwill in that mark.

Oh wait, someone else already claims that......

Word Mark WOO HOO
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Lottery services. FIRST USE: 20020800. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020800
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78412414
Filing Date May 3, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition October 11, 2005
Owner (APPLICANT) Iowa Lottery Commission STATE AGENCY UNITED STATES 2015 Grand Avenue Des Moines IOWA 50312
Attorney of Record Emily E. Harris
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Posts: 1 · New Forum Member Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 1

I have Vonage and I feel like I should bail. I use their service for my very small business and I can’t afford to have my number “disappear”. I feel bad but I am looking for alternatives where I can port my current number – like Net2Phone. I hear that they have been around for over 10 years and they are solid. I feel guilty but I don’t feel like I should risk staying with them. Am I wrong?

Posts: 81 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 81

Quote:

I have Vonage and I feel like I should bail. I use their service for my very small business and I can’t afford to have my number “disappear”. I feel bad but I am looking for alternatives where I can port my current number – like Net2Phone. I hear that they have been around for over 10 years and they are solid. I feel guilty but I don’t feel like I should risk staying with them. Am I wrong?

I have to agree. If I were in your position and had a business that depends on consistent service and not loosing my current number, I would bail. In fact, I have already done so for my home office lines at the insistence of my employer. Ported my two office lines back to big, bad "A**". I don't think any of the current independent Voip companies have the stability at this time to bet my business on.

Port your Business numbers back to a Legacy telco before you loose them.

Posts: 2 · New Forum Member Joined: Oct 03, 2007 Posts: 2

voipster2 wrote:

I have Vonage and I feel like I should bail. I use their service for my very small business and I can’t afford to have my number “disappear”. I feel bad but I am looking for alternatives where I can port my current number – like Net2Phone. I hear that they have been around for over 10 years and they are solid. I feel guilty but I don’t feel like I should risk staying with them. Am I wrong?

Dont feel bad. This is something I am considering doing as well. I looked at the company you talked about and they sounded like they are pretty good. Net2Phone and Lingo are at the top of my list as possible replacements. I hope it doesnt come to it but if things get any worse then I think I will go ahead and switch over so I dont lose my number.

Posts: 20 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 20

Jimster wrote:

...but if things get any worse then I think I will go ahead and switch over so I dont lose my number.

Things get any worse??? Oh, right, they can. VG may run out of dough and shut the doors. This is certainly a possibility, and I guess there is some risk you could lose your number in the event. However note that SunRocket customers ported away after the SR offices were dark.

So I'm not sure fear of bankruptcy is a reason to leave VG. A more compelling reason is that VG is no longer obviously cheaper than Comcast or Verizon, if you are buying the bundle. (Business users probably are not. At least we don't have TV where [/I]I[I] work.)

This is a reason to quit VG and it is also a reason why VG faces real problems going forward in attracting new customers.

This stock is probably still a good short at $.99, but my money is not where my mouth is at this point because I cannot understand why there are any buyers at all.