Vonage is not influential enough to trigger a review of the patent law in the US. It would be realistic to expect quite the opposite. All those US based VoIP providers that have done the hard work these past few years will be running scared in 2008.
Therefore, rather than have more suits I think more and more VoIP companies in the US will either be bought up by Verizon (or other large companies), or you will see some kind of licensing agreement where Verizon will start getting royalties. The suits are likely to end pretty quickly because if Vonage – with comparatively larger cash reserves – lost, these other VoIP providers that are not so well known and don’t have the resources that Vonage has will probably opt for an out of court settlement.
Verizon on its part will also prefer more deals done at the back. So while we may not see many suits that should not lead us to think that Verizon is done with the VoIP providers. Verizon recently went after Cox and Charter. And if the company does not make a deal with Comcast it will go after Comcast. The issue with cable MSOs is that although they originate calls over cable lines but they still use the public internet for the service. Any IP-PSTN session breakout would potentially fall within the scope of Verizon patent(s). And the words used to describe these patents are very broad.
For example, Verizon’s patent mentions the word ‘Network’. And while Vonage argues that the word should be interpreted as a closed network, Verizon is arguing that this word should mean any network. A large part of the case hinges on that issue because if it is not a closed network the door is open for Verizon to keep going. And if it IS interpreted as closed network that is the end of Verizon’s case.
It is unfortunate that the patent examiner at the US Patent Office granting Verizon the patent a decade ago did not force Verizon to narrow down the scope and definition of its patent. But then the poor examiner did not know (back then) that VoIP was going to become a mainstream communications technology.
Verizon must be thanking its stars that somebody a decade ago had the foresight to choose those words to define its patent.
Comments (2)
There are probably lots of lobbying going on backstage cause the decision is clearly simple in this case (in my humble opinion).
At the time the patent was initially filed, the word network should be implicitly limited to the kind of networks already existing and the way they are being used at the time of the filing.
My point is, let's assume that I invent today a type of network technology called for instance "Psynet" that uses organic brain cells electronic components to communicate using telepathy through the solar system as P2P without the need or a repeater (I am allowed to dream, right?). I would never ever accept that those Verizon people support that they were refering to my Psynet whilst filing their patent decades ago.
The law in North America is very flawed and every time there is a ridiculous case someone has to fight to make the point. The common sense is simply no longer existent.
Cheers
Asiby
Posted by Abdoulaye Siby | February 18, 2008 6:44 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 18:44
Most providers and vendors are just burying their heads in the sand hoping they don't get sucked into the morass. These patents are specious at best, and the only way justice can be served is a) if there is patent reform (which isn't going to happen); or b) industry leaders like Jeff Pulver and/or Rich Tehrani can act as the central point to collect and disseminate information on prior art and/or information to dispute these patents while insulating these providers/vendors from exposure.
If Verizon had their way they'd have us believe they invented the Internet when everyone knows it was Al Gore :)
Posted by Randall Thompson | February 18, 2008 8:32 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 20:32