<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593585118-25032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The difference is that Cisco could drag this out in the
courts indefinitely as they probably have more cash than
Verizon.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593585118-25032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593585118-25032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I could see those Verizon patents made invalid if they went
after someone with enough money to fight it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593585118-25032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593585118-25032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The bottom line is that Verizon wants to hurt and/or kill
ITSP's before they have enough cash to make it a fair fight
IMHO. </FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Matt [mailto:mhoppes@gmail.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, March 25, 2007 5:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Commercial and
Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [asterisk-biz]
Verizon Vs Asterisk ?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>This is basically enum. There's nothing to say
Asterisk can't provide this functionality in their software, just like Cisco
can. The problem is in if you use it. We don't, and Vonage
clearly feels they can get around it, so I don't think it's a huge
issue. Originally, people were saying the patent was against "the
way VoIP was connecting to the PSTN" which would have been a huge issue, but
that really ISN'T the patent that the claim is against. <BR><BR>I
agree, the patents are way too broad... especially the one about billing... to
me I don't see how Vonage WOULDN'T infringe upon that one....but the judge says
they didn't.<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 3/25/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Alex
Brecher</B> <<A
href="mailto:abrecher@successfulhosting.com">abrecher@successfulhostingcom</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">I
read through each of the patents Verizon alleges Vonage is infringing.<BR>The
patents are extremely broad and two seem to possibly apply to parts
of<BR>Asterisk. If Verizon is successful in its case against
Vonage, could Digium <BR>be next in its sights ?<BR><BR>See:<BR><BR>Enhanced
internet domain name server Patent # 6,104,711<BR><A
href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1
</A><BR>&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711<BR>&RS=PN/6104711<BR><BR>Method,
server and telecommunications system for name translation on a<BR>conditional
basis and/or to a telephone number Patent # 6,282,574
<BR><A
href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1</A><BR>&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=
6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574<BR>&RS=PN/6282574<BR><BR><BR>I'm sure I'm
not the only one looking to hear from Digium, Inc. about this<BR>issue
?<BR><BR><BR><BR>Best Regards,<BR><BR>Alex Brecher<BR><BR><A
href="http://PremierPBX.com">http://PremierPBX.com</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>--Bandwidth
and Colocation provided by <A href="http://Easynews.com">Easynews.com</A>
--<BR><BR>asterisk-biz mailing list<BR>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
<BR> <A
href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>