[asterisk-biz] Update: Actual Verizon Patent Numbers and ruling from Verizon v. Vonage

[Brian Fertig]

Patent #6,282,574:

I don't believe they can fully be held liable for this one.  In part #7
where it states TCP/IP device Vonage's uses UDP.  I know this cause I used
to use them.  Yes Im guilty..

As far as the other 2 ya more or less..  I just want to know who comes up
with this?   I mean a lot of this stuff is used by everyone in some cases
everyday..

I guess when it comes down to it..  I want to hit the lotto by suing Vonage
I need to hurry up and get a copyright on something they are already doing
and call it mine.  Then maybe I can join the bandwagon..  :)


--
........::::::::::.........
Brian Fertig
Director of Engineering
Molten, Inc.
Delaware Office
Office 800.418.4380 x 160
Direct 302.338.9601


|-----Original Message-----
|From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-
|bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Kristian Kielhofner
|Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:51 PM
|To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
|Subject: [asterisk-biz] Update: Actual Verizon Patent Numbers and ruling
|from Verizon v. Vonage
|
|Hello everyone,
|
|  It seemed like no one could find the actual Verizon patents involved
|in the Verizon v. Vonage case that has been making the news.  So I did
|a little digging.  Let me tell you - the US Federal Government does
|not make these things easy! :)
|
|Here the are...
|
|Vonage Infringed:
|
|Patent #6,282,574:
|http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
|Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.
|htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS=PN/6282574
|
|Patent #6,104,711:
|http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
|Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.
|htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS=PN/6104711
|
|Vonage Infringed, although not willfully:
|
|Patent #6,359,880:
|http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
|Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.
|htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS=PN/6359880
|
|
|No Infringment:
|
|Patent #6,137,869:
|http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
|Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.
|htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS=PN/6137869
|
|Patent #6,430,275:
|http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
|Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.
|htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/6430275&RS=PN/6430275
|
|Here is the actual text of the judgment:
|
|"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton :
|Jury Trial cont'd on 3/8/2007. Appearances as previous. Jury question
|rec'd 3/7/07 addressed w/counsel. Jury reinstructed re: name
|translation and given the definition of 'method comprising'. The jury
|returned to the jury room to continue deliberations. The jury returned
|to the courtroom at 2:50 w/a verdict finding infringement of claim 27
|of the '574 patent, claim 20 of the '711 patent and Claims 1, 6, 7,
|and 8 of the '880 patent and finding that the infringement was not
|willful. The jury did not find infringement of claims 1 & 2 of the
|'869 patent and Claims 1 & 2 of the '275 patent. The jury found none
|of the claims at issue in patents '574, '711, '869, '275, or '880 to
|be invalid. The jury awarded pltfs damages in the amount of
|$58,000,000.00 and found the reasonable royalty percentage to be 5.5%.
|Judgment to be entered in accordance with the verdict. Pltfs motion
|for Permanent Injunction to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter
|Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)"
|
|  I'm no attorney.  Hopefully someone else can make more sense out of
|this.
|
|  WARNING: Watch this thread - I am sure a long rant is to follow!!!
|
|--
|Kristian Kielhofner
|_______________________________________________
|--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
|
|asterisk-biz mailing list
|To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
|   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz