"Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case that could threaten
phone services for its 2.2 million customers.
A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival Verizon for infringing
three patents, plus royalties of 5.5% of future sales.
Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would stop Vonage from
connecting its customers to landline telephones."
"^^artnada^^" <notneedto@knowanything.com> wrote in message
news:ddeIh.1389$DX5.618@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> "Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case
> that could threaten phone services for its 2.2 million
> customers. A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival
> Verizon for infringing three patents, plus royalties of
> 5.5% of future sales. Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would
> stop
> Vonage from connecting its customers to landline
> telephones."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433525.stm
>
> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in the first place.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "^^artnada^^" <notneedto@knowanything.com> wrote in message
> news:ddeIh.1389$DX5.618@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>> "Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case
>> that could threaten phone services for its 2.2 million
>> customers. A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival
>> Verizon for infringing three patents, plus royalties of
>> 5.5% of future sales. Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would
>> stop
>> Vonage from connecting its customers to landline
>> telephones."
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433525.stm
>>
>> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
>
> Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in the first place.
>
> Ivor
Nothing daft about signing up to Vonage. As a telco they have served me
well. Had I known about this possible outcome then maybe I would not have
signed up to them.
I await to see what may happen to them in the future.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:55dcdqF24v4a9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
>
> Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in the first place.
>
> Ivor
What does Vonage do that is so special, that Voipfone, VOIP and even SIPGATE
does not do? If Vonage has been hit with this , then maybe other SIP VOIP
providers are next.
I am sure if any organisation believed they hold the patent for residential
VOIP to PSTN termination, they would be nuts not to go and cash in on the
patent and take every VOIP provider to task over it.
In this case where a telco owns the patent, they have even more incentive to
try and cash in
^^artnada^^ used his keyboard to write :
> "Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case that could threaten
> phone services for its 2.2 million customers.
> A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival Verizon for infringing
> three patents, plus royalties of 5.5% of future sales.
> Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would stop Vonage from
> connecting its customers to landline telephones."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433525.stm
>
> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
"Vonage had "done very well with our patents and our technology for a
number of years""
"The $58m payout was about as high as Vonage's quarterly losses"
How does losing $58m a quarter equate to "done very well"?
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:55dcdqF24v4a9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "^^artnada^^" <notneedto@knowanything.com> wrote in message
> news:ddeIh.1389$DX5.618@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>> "Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case
>> that could threaten phone services for its 2.2 million
>> customers. A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival
>> Verizon for infringing three patents, plus royalties of
>> 5.5% of future sales. Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would
>> stop
>> Vonage from connecting its customers to landline
>> telephones."
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433525.stm
>>
>> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
>
> Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in the first place.
>
> Ivor
I think we have had enough of these punch and judy arguments...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:43:06 -0000, "RH" <spicedham@no-ham-exelsys.com>
wrote:
>
>"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>news:55dcdqF24v4a9U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
>>
>> Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in the first place.
>>
>> Ivor
>
>What does Vonage do that is so special, that Voipfone, VOIP and even SIPGATE
>does not do? If Vonage has been hit with this , then maybe other SIP VOIP
>providers are next.
Exactly my thoughts. What are these patents that have been infringed?
Vonage is only a SIP voip provider, as you say, and it using the same
technology as other SIP providers.
>I am sure if any organisation believed they hold the patent for residential
>VOIP to PSTN termination, they would be nuts not to go and cash in on the
>patent and take every VOIP provider to task over it.
Yes but it would put up the cost for everyone, probably put some
providers out of business, a would stifle the competition betwen
landline and voip providers - that is probably what is really behind
this.
This is like Microsoft and its OTT DRM in Vista - we all know what is
behind that - Microsoft want to control movie downloads - they quite
correctly see this as the future - the furture isn't blueray and HDDVD
it's downloads.
What Verizon, with mobile interests etc, like Microsoft, are trying
to do is to achive control and stifle competition.
If anything like this is likely to affect the many hundreds of other
voip providers, I'd like to see Governments outside of the U.S. show
them 2 fingers like the Russians do with allofMP3.com
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:50:34 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:
>^^artnada^^ used his keyboard to write :
>> "Internet phone company Vonage has lost a patent case that could threaten
>> phone services for its 2.2 million customers.
>> A US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m ($30m) to rival Verizon for infringing
>> three patents, plus royalties of 5.5% of future sales.
>> Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would stop Vonage from
>> connecting its customers to landline telephones."
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433525.stm
>>
>> Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
>
>"Vonage had "done very well with our patents and our technology for a
>number of years""
>
>"The $58m payout was about as high as Vonage's quarterly losses"
>
>How does losing $58m a quarter equate to "done very well"?
>
Here's more from the Register:- http://tinyurl.com/2ue9zf
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
"RH" <spicedham@no-ham-exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:ess9rt$icg$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:55dcdqF24v4a9U1@mid.individual.net...
> > > Looks like that could be us screwed up then! :(
> >
> > Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in
> > the first place. Ivor
>
> What does Vonage do that is so special, that Voipfone,
> VOIP and even SIPGATE does not do? If Vonage has been hit
> with this , then maybe other SIP VOIP providers are next.
My dislike of Vonage is twofold - one, their monthly charge is IMHO
excessive and two they have a nasty habit of locking their ATA's.
"Ivor sucks" <"=?x-user-defined?Q? Þ @ Þ ?="> wrote in message
news:btm4v29nif13saa5ekacb1coi20rhei8fk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:56:29 -0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>>My dislike of Vonage is twofold - one, their monthly charge is IMHO
>>excessive and two they have a nasty habit of locking their ATA's.
>
> My dislike of Ivor is onefold. He's just an anti-Vonage propaganda
> puppet.
Puppet? brings me back to the punch and judy theme. sort it out guys.
"Ivor sucks" <"=?x-user-defined?Q? Þ @ Þ ?="> wrote in
message news:btm4v29nif13saa5ekacb1coi20rhei8fk@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:56:29 -0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > My dislike of Vonage is twofold - one, their monthly
> > charge is IMHO excessive and two they have a nasty
> > habit of locking their ATA's.
>
> My dislike of Ivor is onefold. He's just an anti-Vonage
> propaganda puppet.
At least I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
Does your father know you've been playing with his computer..?
"Herman" <whitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:qwtIh.56407$wP3.23623@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net
> "Ivor sucks" <"=?x-user-defined?Q? Þ @ Þ ?="> wrote in
> message news:btm4v29nif13saa5ekacb1coi20rhei8fk@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:56:29 -0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
> >
> > > My dislike of Vonage is twofold - one, their monthly
> > > charge is IMHO excessive and two they have a nasty
> > > habit of locking their ATA's.
> >
> > My dislike of Ivor is onefold. He's just an anti-Vonage
> > propaganda puppet.
>
> Puppet? brings me back to the punch and judy theme. sort it out guys.
I hope you're not including me in this. I am merely posting my opinion, as
is my perfectly legal right. I don't recall making any offensive or
otherwise unacceptable (according to the group charter) remark.
"J Clavox" <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:f1k3v25oaejatv06s39no1imrf6lferjgb@4ax.com...
> >
> >Not necessarily. All it is is a cue to bring Ivor out of the woodwork
> >to spurt out his ill-informed anti-Vonage propaganda.
> On the other hand it could bring me out with my very much informed
> anti SIPGATE propaganda I suffered loss of telephone service for three
> whole days thanks to RUBBISHGATE .
Big deal. That'll teach you to rely on a single service.
No doubt there are many people who have experienced the same or longer
service failure from BT or other providers.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:55fcuaF24ri7oU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Herman" <whitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:qwtIh.56407$wP3.23623@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net
>> "Ivor sucks" <"=?x-user-defined?Q? Þ @ Þ ?="> wrote in
>> message news:btm4v29nif13saa5ekacb1coi20rhei8fk@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:56:29 -0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > > My dislike of Vonage is twofold - one, their monthly
>> > > charge is IMHO excessive and two they have a nasty
>> > > habit of locking their ATA's.
>> >
>> > My dislike of Ivor is onefold. He's just an anti-Vonage
>> > propaganda puppet.
>>
>> Puppet? brings me back to the punch and judy theme. sort it out guys.
>
> I hope you're not including me in this. I am merely posting my opinion, as
> is my perfectly legal right. I don't recall making any offensive or
> otherwise unacceptable (according to the group charter) remark.
>
> Ivor
Yes I am including both of you in this.
Punch and Judy is not illegal or (generally) offensive or unacceptable. You
have missed or ignored my point. As an adult I wouldn't voluntarily sit
through a Punch and Judy show and I would like to think many others here
wouldn't which is why I used that analogy. And then a second performance?
And a third??? ......
Both of you make really useful contributions to the group. But I am just
asking for less of the Punch and Judy (or pantomime or whatever other
analogy comes to mind). It is a real turn-off.
"J Clavox" <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h4f5v254tlcl0b54vnedqktkn6fr3btl6l@4ax.com
[snip]
> I just wish you would stop ramming the "group charter"
> down peoples throats every time you read something you do
> not like stuff the group charter .
The group charter was the basis for the foundation of the group. The group
could not exist without it. You might want to think about that.
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:0ut5v2l18makdccjf3fdpb36k1st735s3n@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:43:44 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > The group charter was the basis for the foundation of
> > the group. The group could not exist without it. You
> > might want to think about that.
>
> You find me anyone in ANY news group who goes on about
> group charters like you do or even mentions them Ivor, it
> served its purpose so forget about it like everyone else
> does it just doesn't matter anymore .
*ANY* newsgroup..? Are you *sure* you want to go there..?!
Ever heard of moderated groups..? You would never get a single post
accepted by *any* of the three of which I am a user..!
> What does Vonage do that is so special, that Voipfone, VOIP and even
> SIPGATE does not do? If Vonage has been hit with this , then maybe other
> SIP VOIP providers are next.
Bear in mind that a) the patents in question are held in the US and b) there
are no software or business method patents in the UK [and possibly the EU]
at the moment.
> I am sure if any organisation believed they hold the patent for
> residential VOIP to PSTN termination, they would be nuts not to go and
> cash in on the patent and take every VOIP provider to task over it.
Yep - once they've built up enough of a revenue stream to make them worth
suing.
> In this case where a telco owns the patent, they have even more incentive
> to try and cash in
If you can't get your customer to stay with you because of the service you
provide, just sue them!
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
00:31:26 up 16 days, 4:44, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.16, 0.17
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
"Ivor sucks" <"=?x-user-defined?Q? Þ @ Þ ?="> wrote in
message news:89f7v2p4rdv26kifp4snaa7t5jgk7gb9gb@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:25:04 -0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > If people abided by charters then moderated groups
> > would not be necessary.
>
> If people like Ron and yourself stopped acting like
> puppets this newsgroup would benefit enormously.
I'm nobody's puppet, mate. And at least I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
Mr. Chew started the argument between us, only he can finish it.
"Probation Service" <Á@> wrote in message
news:bqg7v2hgf0hopam7m1ff7j9p86m20s8vl2@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:41:04 -0000, Ivor Jones said in
> article <55fcplF24g3a0U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
> > Does your father know you've been playing with his
> > computer..?
>
> Does your probation officer know about your anti-social
> behaviour here?
Another psudonym. Why can't people use their real names..?
"Polly" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a6m7v29q0gshsbat2ts0ivh96tr8s8lkpg@4ax.com
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:57:17 -0000, Ivan Jones postulated:
>
> > Another psudonym. Why can't people use their real
> > names..?
>
> Boring old fart Ivan.
Ivor.
I may be boring to you, but I'm still not afraid of standing up to be
counted. What have you got to hide that you are unwilling to identify
yourself..? Everyone knows who I am, who are you..?
"Monty" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:cu98v21lno0fco74tls46od4uq8hupmbmd@4ax.com
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:22:31 -0000,
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Only if you were daft enough to sign up to Vonage in
> > the first place.
>
> You pillock, Ifan.
Somebody else with a false name. And mine's Ivor BTW.
<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:63j8v2hq4vda0henaalleh2hf12i55v9tv@4ax.com
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:04:46 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > I may be boring to you, but I'm still not afraid of
> > standing up to be counted. What have you got to hide
> > that you are unwilling to identify yourself..? Everyone
> > knows who I am, who are you..?
>
> But DO we know who you are ??? .
I have never hidden my identity, Ron. There are even photos of me on the
web if you look for them. Try Google if you have a strong stomach ;-)
"Monty" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:mjr8v29fte5plcebpa5qjr0kcuo850l4bs@4ax.com
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:05:54 -0000,
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Somebody else with a false name.
>
> WTF are you Ifan? You've got an ego the size of an
> elephant.
If you say so. But my name is still Ivor not Ifan.
Vonage loses phone patent dispute 
Linear Mode
