Re: Why didn't Verizon sue Cisco instead?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Barry Margolin on March 11, 2007, 12:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
> 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). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by T on March 11, 2007, 4:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options barmar@alum.mit.edu says... >
> > >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. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by JF Mezei on March 11, 2007, 4:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Barry Margolin wrote: > 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 ? | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Steven Lichter on March 11, 2007, 6:47 pm
Please log in for more thread options
JF Mezei wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote:
>> 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). >
Cisco makes a lot of switch gear for Verizon, the patents belong to
> 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 ? > 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. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2007 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by T on March 11, 2007, 8:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options
diespammers@ikillspammers.com says... > JF Mezei wrote:
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> >> 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. | ||||||||||||||||
> >claims of a patent ...