Why didn't Verizon sue Cisco instead?

[Ramon F Herrera]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-02-19-vonage...
Verizon claims to be the sole owner of VoIP.
-Ramon

It seems like Darth Vader's troops are winning...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-08-vonage-ve...
-Ramon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6433525.stm

The Verizon lawsuit is about the gateway which converts circuit
switched calls to packet switched (VoIP) and viceversa. I use that
technology at work on a daily basis, with Cisco devices. If I purchase
one of those boxes from Cisco (like Vonage did), it means that Verizon
can sue me!? Why don't they sue Cisco instead?

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

Post by Ramon F Herrera

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-02-19-vonage...
Verizon claims to be the sole owner of VoIP.
-Ramon

It seems like Darth Vader's troops are winning...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-08-vonage-ve...
-Ramon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6433525.stm
The Verizon lawsuit is about the gateway which converts circuit
switched calls to packet switched (VoIP) and viceversa. I use that
technology at work on a daily basis, with Cisco devices. If I purchase
one of those boxes from Cisco (like Vonage did), it means that Verizon
can sue me!? Why don't they sue Cisco instead?
-Ramon

The URLs got truncated. Here they are again:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-02-19-vonage
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-08-vonage-verizon-patent_N.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6433525.stm

-RFH

[Ramon F Herrera]

Post by Ramon F Herrera

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-02-19-vonage...
Verizon claims to be the sole owner of VoIP.
-Ramon

It seems like Darth Vader's troops are winning...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-08-vonage-ve...
-Ramon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6433525.stm
The Verizon lawsuit is about the gateway which converts circuit
switched calls to packet switched (VoIP) and viceversa. I use that
technology at work on a daily basis, with Cisco devices. If I purchase
one of those boxes from Cisco (like Vonage did), it means that Verizon
can sue me!? Why don't they sue Cisco instead?
-Ramon

The URLs got truncated. Here they are again:

http://tinyurl.com/28xn52
http://tinyurl.com/2xv986
http://tinyurl.com/2ckjkf

-RFH

[T]

Post by Ramon F Herrera

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-02-19-vonage...
Verizon claims to be the sole owner of VoIP.
-Ramon

It seems like Darth Vader's troops are winning...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-08-vonage-ve...
-Ramon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6433525.stm
The Verizon lawsuit is about the gateway which converts circuit
switched calls to packet switched (VoIP) and viceversa. I use that
technology at work on a daily basis, with Cisco devices. If I purchase
one of those boxes from Cisco (like Vonage did), it means that Verizon
can sue me!? Why don't they sue Cisco instead?
-Ramon

Because the intent is to try and kill the VoIP providers, not the
equipment manufacturers.

Verizon is losing business at an alarming rate and they know it. So look
forward to more desparate grasps.

[JF Mezei]

Post by T
Because the intent is to try and kill the VoIP providers, not the
equipment manufacturers.

If Vonage just bought turnkey solution from Cisco and didn't develop the 3
technologies in question, then shouldn't Vonage now sue Cisco for having sold it
"damaged" goods and hold Cisco responsible for the cost of the Verizon lawsuit ?

When you buy a product from a reputable vendor, shouldn't you rightly assume
that you are given full rights to use said products and that if there are any
patent infringements, it will be between your vendor and the claimant, and you
won't be involved ?

If Vonage actually developped some of the software in question, then it was the
right target for the lawsuit. But if this is just stuff Vonage bought from
another vendor such as Cisco, I find it strange that a court would have eben
allowed this lawsuit.

[Lee Hollaar]

Post by JF Mezei
If Vonage just bought turnkey solution from Cisco and didn't develop the 3
technologies in question, then shouldn't Vonage now sue Cisco for having sold it
"damaged" goods and hold Cisco responsible for the cost of the Verizon lawsuit ?
When you buy a product from a reputable vendor, shouldn't you rightly assume
that you are given full rights to use said products and that if there are any
patent infringements, it will be between your vendor and the claimant, and you
won't be involved ?
If Vonage actually developped some of the software in question, then it was the
right target for the lawsuit. But if this is just stuff Vonage bought from
another vendor such as Cisco, I find it strange that a court would have eben
allowed this lawsuit.

Who gets sued for patent infringement depends on the nature of the
claims of a patent (sometimes they are written so that only an end
user or a systems integrator are the actual infringers) and who ticks
off the patent owner. There is no requirement that a patent owner
sue every infringer, but a pattern of not suing infringers that leads
a person to believe that they won't be sued could rise to the level
of a defense called "laches."

Even if you buy something from a reputable vendor, you are never given
full rights to use the product, because that vendor may not have all
the rights. Some may be held by patent owners unknown to the vendor.

What you do get is what the sales contract provides, which is often
that the vendor will pay any damages from your infringement, or will
refund your money, or will make the product noninfringing, or some
combination of those. But you generally have to notify them of any
infringement suit and allow them to handle it.

In the absense of any agreement, here's what the Uniform Commercial
Code provides as a default:
Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly
dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be
delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way
of infringement or the like but a buyer who furnishes specifications
to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim
which arises out of compliance with the specifications.

But that's between the vendor and the user. It doesn't keep the patent
owner from suing anybody who infringes the patent, as Vonage did.

[John L]

Post by Lee Hollaar
Who gets sued for patent infringement depends on the nature of the
claims of a patent ...

Large companies typically have blanket patent cross license agreements.
Considering the size of Cisco's patent arsenal, I'd expect them to have
made an agreement with VZ or one of its predecessors long ago.

Regards,
John Levine, ***@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by John L

Post by Lee Hollaar
Who gets sued for patent infringement depends on the nature of the
claims of a patent ...

Large companies typically have blanket patent cross license agreements.
Considering the size of Cisco's patent arsenal, I'd expect them to have
made an agreement with VZ or one of its predecessors long ago.

It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

[T]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by John L

Post by Lee Hollaar
Who gets sued for patent infringement depends on the nature of the
claims of a patent ...

Large companies typically have blanket patent cross license agreements.
Considering the size of Cisco's patent arsenal, I'd expect them to have
made an agreement with VZ or one of its predecessors long ago.

It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

There's that, but this was a calculated move by Verizon to try and kill
Voice over Internet Protocol. It wasn't as successful as they hoped it
woudl be.

Personally I'd be happy to see Verizon and at&t tank at any given
moment.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the hypocrisy of
this lawsuit ?

The only logical validity of this is if Vonage had developped its own software
instead of purchasing a turn-key solution from Cisco or other vendor.

OR: Cisco's agreement with Verizon would have allowed Cisco to sell its VoIP
systems to private users (such as corporations implementing their own internal
VoIP networks), but Vonage took that equipment and deployed it to provide public
services, at which point, some agreement between Verizon and Cisco would no
longer have applied. (this is just speculation on my part).

In such a speculative case, the question becomes whether Vonage would have
deployed the Cisco equipment with a warning/knowledge that it wasn't really
legal to deploy it as a public network.

In the end though, even if it is just speculation that Cisco gear was involved,
it hurts Cisco's image. Do you really want to buy any Cisco gear if you risk
being sued by some legacy Telco that is starving for revenus ?

[Steven Lichter]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the
hypocrisy of this lawsuit ?
The only logical validity of this is if Vonage had developped its own
software instead of purchasing a turn-key solution from Cisco or other
vendor.
OR: Cisco's agreement with Verizon would have allowed Cisco to sell its
VoIP systems to private users (such as corporations implementing their
own internal VoIP networks), but Vonage took that equipment and deployed
it to provide public services, at which point, some agreement between
Verizon and Cisco would no longer have applied. (this is just
speculation on my part).
In such a speculative case, the question becomes whether Vonage would
have deployed the Cisco equipment with a warning/knowledge that it
wasn't really legal to deploy it as a public network.
In the end though, even if it is just speculation that Cisco gear was
involved, it hurts Cisco's image. Do you really want to buy any Cisco
gear if you risk being sued by some legacy Telco that is starving for
revenus ?

Cisco makes a lot of switch gear for Verizon, the patents belong to
Verizon. This action is very much like the law suits involving the
makers of the Blackberry.

The methods to talk over the net are open source, but the way that they
link to the switched network is owned by Verizon; actually much earlier
then Verizon; GTE Systems had the patents.

I believe that Verizon has tried to settle this and just could not.

[T]

Post by Steven Lichter

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the
hypocrisy of this lawsuit ?
The only logical validity of this is if Vonage had developped its own
software instead of purchasing a turn-key solution from Cisco or other
vendor.
OR: Cisco's agreement with Verizon would have allowed Cisco to sell its
VoIP systems to private users (such as corporations implementing their
own internal VoIP networks), but Vonage took that equipment and deployed
it to provide public services, at which point, some agreement between
Verizon and Cisco would no longer have applied. (this is just
speculation on my part).
In such a speculative case, the question becomes whether Vonage would
have deployed the Cisco equipment with a warning/knowledge that it
wasn't really legal to deploy it as a public network.
In the end though, even if it is just speculation that Cisco gear was
involved, it hurts Cisco's image. Do you really want to buy any Cisco
gear if you risk being sued by some legacy Telco that is starving for
revenus ?

Cisco makes a lot of switch gear for Verizon, the patents belong to
Verizon. This action is very much like the law suits involving the
makers of the Blackberry.
The methods to talk over the net are open source, but the way that they
link to the switched network is owned by Verizon; actually much earlier
then Verizon; GTE Systems had the patents.
I believe that Verizon has tried to settle this and just could not.

Oh sure they did. I bet they asked for about 90% royalties.

[Steven Lichter]

Post by T

Post by Steven Lichter

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the
hypocrisy of this lawsuit ?
The only logical validity of this is if Vonage had developped its own
software instead of purchasing a turn-key solution from Cisco or other
vendor.
OR: Cisco's agreement with Verizon would have allowed Cisco to sell its
VoIP systems to private users (such as corporations implementing their
own internal VoIP networks), but Vonage took that equipment and deployed
it to provide public services, at which point, some agreement between
Verizon and Cisco would no longer have applied. (this is just
speculation on my part).
In such a speculative case, the question becomes whether Vonage would
have deployed the Cisco equipment with a warning/knowledge that it
wasn't really legal to deploy it as a public network.
In the end though, even if it is just speculation that Cisco gear was
involved, it hurts Cisco's image. Do you really want to buy any Cisco
gear if you risk being sued by some legacy Telco that is starving for
revenus ?

Cisco makes a lot of switch gear for Verizon, the patents belong to
Verizon. This action is very much like the law suits involving the
makers of the Blackberry.
The methods to talk over the net are open source, but the way that they
link to the switched network is owned by Verizon; actually much earlier
then Verizon; GTE Systems had the patents.
I believe that Verizon has tried to settle this and just could not.

Oh sure they did. I bet they asked for about 90% royalties.

I believe it was 5% which is pretty much standard.

[T]

Post by Steven Lichter

Post by T

Post by Steven Lichter

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the
hypocrisy of this lawsuit ?
The only logical validity of this is if Vonage had developped its own
software instead of purchasing a turn-key solution from Cisco or other
vendor.
OR: Cisco's agreement with Verizon would have allowed Cisco to sell its
VoIP systems to private users (such as corporations implementing their
own internal VoIP networks), but Vonage took that equipment and deployed
it to provide public services, at which point, some agreement between
Verizon and Cisco would no longer have applied. (this is just
speculation on my part).
In such a speculative case, the question becomes whether Vonage would
have deployed the Cisco equipment with a warning/knowledge that it
wasn't really legal to deploy it as a public network.
In the end though, even if it is just speculation that Cisco gear was
involved, it hurts Cisco's image. Do you really want to buy any Cisco
gear if you risk being sued by some legacy Telco that is starving for
revenus ?

Cisco makes a lot of switch gear for Verizon, the patents belong to
Verizon. This action is very much like the law suits involving the
makers of the Blackberry.
The methods to talk over the net are open source, but the way that they
link to the switched network is owned by Verizon; actually much earlier
then Verizon; GTE Systems had the patents.
I believe that Verizon has tried to settle this and just could not.

Oh sure they did. I bet they asked for about 90% royalties.

I believe it was 5% which is pretty much standard.

That was what the courts gave them. I was just making a point about why
Vonage might not have settled with Verizon out of court.

[Lee Hollaar]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the hypocrisy of
this lawsuit ?

No district court judge not wanting to be reversed on appeal would consider
for a moment letting Vonage bring that up in court. It's not a defense
to patent infringement, which are listed in 35 U.S.C. 282. Whether another
is also infringing the patent has no bearing on whether Vonage did. And
depending on the claims of the patent and what Cisco supplies, Cisco may
not even be an infringer.

Keep in mind that supplying equipment that can be used to infringe a patent
is not infringement if that equipment has another substantial noninfringing
use. 35 U.S.C. 271(c).

Again, there is no requirement at a patent owner sue every infringer to
go after any infringer.

[T]

Post by Lee Hollaar

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Barry Margolin
It's also quite likely that Cisco supplies quite a bit of the hardware
in Verizon's infrastructure. Would you want to hurt one of your major
suppliers (well, I suppose you might do this and then try to acquire
them).

But wouldn't Vonage have brought this up in its defence to show the hypocrisy of
this lawsuit ?

No district court judge not wanting to be reversed on appeal would consider
for a moment letting Vonage bring that up in court. It's not a defense
to patent infringement, which are listed in 35 U.S.C. 282. Whether another
is also infringing the patent has no bearing on whether Vonage did. And
depending on the claims of the patent and what Cisco supplies, Cisco may
not even be an infringer.
Keep in mind that supplying equipment that can be used to infringe a patent
is not infringement if that equipment has another substantial noninfringing
use. 35 U.S.C. 271(c).
Again, there is no requirement at a patent owner sue every infringer to
go after any infringer.

No but providing a piece of software that even remotely facilitates file
sharing can be thought to violate copyright law. It's a really screwed
up world we live in.

[Lee Hollaar]

Post by T
No but providing a piece of software that even remotely facilitates file
sharing can be thought to violate copyright law. It's a really screwed
up world we live in.

Not at all, at least in the United States. Copyright law, after
the Supreme Court's Grokster decision, tracks patent law. If
you supply something that has a substantial noninfringing use,
you will not be liable for contributory infringement. But if
you actively promote infringement, you will be liable for
inducement of infringement.

And just because one if liable under some theory doesn't mean that
the patent or copyright owner has to sue the person. But just
because the patent or copyright owner doesn't sue everybody doesn't
mean that the competitor that bothers the patent or copyright owner
the most won't get sued.

[James]

Here's an interesting point - A small service provider that I deal
with carry all of Verizons traffic in the Western Pacific. They carry
the voice using VoIP with Cisco equpiment...

Maybe Verizon could sue them so that they loose their service in the
Pacific ;-)

James