Patent Infringement of Internet Technology

Is challenge in Dispute & Factual terra firmaThe issue being disputed is whether Vonage contravened indubitable law by using a technological plan registered to Verizon, without permission, in providing its online communicating services. Infringement was claimed by Verizon on three of its patents.Since 2006, a string of patent aggression cases have been filed against Vonage, an online dialogues company providing customers with the actor to authorize by their computers through the network route. Verizon was first to sue Vonage for the use of three patents covering the variant of analog voice signals into digital signals to allow customers to communicate through their computers with broadband connections. In March, a jury verdict found Vonage to have infringed the patents and this was also upheld by the appellate judicial system but only for the two patents.However, the appellate cost remanded the case down to the lower court for re-determination of the monetary award since this was non detailed by the jury. Next to file a case was dah Nextel peck for the use of its secure voice-over internet protocol (VoIP), which allows computer users to name calls using broadband connections. In September, a jury also found voyage to have infringed this patent. Lastly, Klausner Technologies also communicated its claims to Vonage but this has been settled. To date, claims of Sprint Nextel Corporation and Klausner have already been settled. All these claims involved Vonages online use of these technology patents in its online popular communication services.Position of LitigantsVerizon based its claims on the infringement of three patents. Patent 574 enhances translations of communication information such as telephone numbers or clearsites into IP addresses. Patent 711 covers the manner of using computer speakers or microphones to communicate online. Patent 880 covers localized wireless gateway system that enables phones to register with transceivers before conn ecting to the Internet.1Although these patents do non mention online communications, this serves to enhance the system by providing a means of translating numerous digital to analog signals, instructing a means of using speakers and microphones to communicate online, and connecting into local base stations to connect mobile phones to computers. By offering online communication services using these three patents without its permission, Verizon claims that Vonage has violated its patent grant.Vonage claims that it has not violated Verizons patents because it did not understand but merely extracted and reformatted the telephone numbers. Verizon also claimed that the court of first instance erred in the direction it gave to the jury, in particular on the construction of vital terms found in the claims. First contested term is translation, which was construed by the courts generally instead of limiting this to the conversation of higher to lower protocols as contained in the patent g rant.Second contested term is conditional analysis, which was interpreted by the court as generating a result from a prior first condition. Vonage claims that this should be limited only to the preferences of the parties using the system.2 Since its operations do not fall under the technological systems patented by Verizon, it has not infringed any patent.Ethical discover & Opinion on the CasePrior to the cases, Vonage has become popular as an online communications company3. In 2006, it launched realistic phone numbers in Europe4 implying the development of a untried type of Internet based companionship function apart from linking its services to various Internet communication channels such as voicemail. Its popularity was imputable to the free-enterprise(a) prices together with the high Internet accessibility in most developed countries and the higher interconnectivity it offers by being able to link landlines and mobile phones to computers when compared to purely landline or mobile services or with Internet connectivity but limited only to same network calls.Basically, prior to Vonages service, VoIP was already alive but with limited use only to partners of the service provider. Vonage took the VoIP concept fused it with the other online communication connectivity and processes and created a service that higher interconnectivity. Did Vonage violate the law? According to the courts, it did violate the patents of the two companies. Was its actions flop or incorrectly?The answer cannot be plainly stated in black and white. On one hand, this may be wrong because it profited out of somebody elses technological innovation but on the other hand, it served or even empowered the public by gift them an alternative option. Even in a competitive world, consumers, through demand, do not always influence market prices, quality of service, or innovation. This is especially so in the case of online technology sector, which have become a venue for monopoly such as M icrosoft. below existing law and jurisprudence5 there may be infringement. However, this case could have become a bound by clarifying the concept of patent for the purpose of negating infringement. A patent is a property right to use or own inventions for a given number of years and an invention is a new creation6. However, it does not necessarily cover purpose, function or importance to the community. Patent has also been used for call out such as the monopolistic tendencies of technological companies. While private property should be respected, this should also be balanced with public good. Moreover, Internet technologies are virtual, making it necessary to determine or limit the processes or operations considered as qualifying for patents.ReferencesKSR Intl Co.v. Teleflex Inc. (No. 04-1350) 119 Fed. Appx. 282. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZO.html.Richtel, M. (2007, October 26). Shares Rise as Vonage Settles Fight over Patent. The bran d-new York Times. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http//www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/technology/26phone.html.Vonage (2007). Timeline. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from www.vonage.com.US Patent and Trademark Office (2007). General Information Concerning Patents. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.htmlpatent.Vonage Told to Stop Using Verizon Technology By IAN AUSTENPublished March 24, 2007A federal judge utter yesterday that he would order Vonage Holdings, the Internet-based telephone service, to stop using technologies patented by Verizon Communications.The decision, which could force Vonage to close or to install new systems, follows a jury decision this calendar month that awarded Verizon $58 million and monthly royalties.But the judge agreed to postpone the effective date of the cease and desist order for two weeks while he considers a request by Vonage for a stay pending what could be a lengthy appeal.The decision forced a tempor ary halt in the avocation of Vonage shares and eventually sent the companys stock down $1.05, or 26 percent, to close at $3. Vonage began trading last May at $17 a share.For Vonage, everything that can go wrong has gone wrong, say Richard Greenfield, the co-head of Pali Research in New York. The constant stream of bad publicity has got to be adding to customer churn.As it did earlier this month, Vonage quickly moved to assure its two million customers that their service would not be affected. It has said it is developing alternative technology that does not conflict with Verizons patents.We are confident that Vonage customers will not experience service interruptions or other changes, the companys chief executive, Mike Snyder, said in a statement. Our fight is far from over. We remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizons patents.Brooke Schulz, a spokeswoman for Vonage, said the company had not seen any effect on its ability to attract and retain customers be cause of the case.We look at this case has had not impact on churn to date, nor do we expect it to, she said.Judge Claude M. Hilton of Federal partition Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria said yesterday that an injunction was necessary because fines and royalties will not prevent continued erosion of the client base of the plaintiff, The Associated Press reported from Alexandria.Vonage has been the early leader in an attempt by several companies to shift traditional telephone company customers to Internet-based calling.Were pleased the court has decided to issue a permanent injunction to protect Verizons patented innovations, said prank Thorne, a senior vice president and deputy general counsel at Verizon.The three patents that a jury found Vonage to be infringing upon involve the way the company moves calls to and from the Internet from the conventional telephone system, methods for giving customers calling features like call waiting, and means for providin g Internet calling through wireless networks.If Vonage is forced to shed to other technologies, the cost and feasibility of such a change is not clear. It is believed that the company has the ability to make remote software updates in devices that its customers have installed at their homes and offices.Many conventional telephone companies hold patents involving Internet calling. Vonage faces a separate patent lawsuit from Sprint Nextel that has yet to go to trial.