Patent Infringement of Internet Technology

Is carry out in Dispute & Factual BackgroundThe issue macrocosm disputed is whether Vonage contravened patent rectitude by using a scientific invention registered to Verizon, without permission, in providing its online communicating servicings. Infringement was claimed by Verizon on tercet of its patents.Since 2006, a string of patent infringement cases ware been filed against Vonage, an online parleys companion providing customers with the path to report done their computers through the mesh route. Verizon was first to sue Vonage for the riding habit of three patents covering the translation of analog voice signals into digital signals to allow customers to communicate through their computers with wideband connections. In March, a control board verdict establish Vonage to have infringed the patents and this was also upheld by the appellate hail unless only for the 2 patents.However, the appellate butterfly remanded the case big bucks to the lower court for re-det ermination of the monetary award since this was non detailed by the jury. Next to file a case was Sprint Nextel Corporation for the use of its patent voice-over internet protocol (VoIP), which allows computer users to bemuse 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(prenominal) these claims involved Vonages online use of these technology patents in its online touristed communion services.Position of LitigantsVerizon based its claims on the infringement of three patents. indubitable 574 enhances translations of communication information such as foretell numbers or websites into IP addresses. procure 711 covers the manner of using computer speakers or microphones to communicate online. Patent 880 covers localized wireless gateway sys tem that enables phones to register with transceivers before connecting to the Internet.1Although these patents do not constitute 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 lively phones to computers. By fling online communication services using these three patents without its permission, Verizon claims that Vonage has slanderd its patent grant.Vonage claims that it has not violated Verizons patents because it did not translate but merely extracted and reformatted the send for numbers. Verizon also claimed that the court of first instance erred in the direction it gave to the jury, specially on the construction of vital terms found in the claims. inaugural contested term is translation, which was construed by the courts generally instead of constricting this to the c onversation of higher to lower protocols as contained in the patent grant. plunk for 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 trammel only to the preferences of the parties using the system.2 Since its operations do not plunge under the technical systems procure by Verizon, it has not infringed any patent. estimable Issue & Opinion on the CasePrior to the cases, Vonage has hold up popular as an online communications familiarity3. In 2006, it launched virtual phone numbers in Europe4 implying the development of a sensitive type of Internet based society function apart from linking its services to various Internet communication bring such as voicemail. Its popularity was due to the competitive prices together with the high Internet accessibility in most developed countries and the higher interconnectivity it offers by be able to link landlines and mobile ph ones to computers when compared to purely landline or mobile services or with Internet connectivity but limited only to uniform network calls.Basically, prior to Vonages service, VoIP was already existent 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 right or wrong?The answer privynot be seemingly 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 giving 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 technol ogy sector, which have become a venue for monopoly such as Microsoft.Under existing law and jurisprudence5 there may be infringement. However, this case could have become a landmark by clarifying the concept of patent for the purpose of negating infringement. A patent is a property right to use or have 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 abuse such as the monopolistic tendencies of technological companies. While private property should be respected, this should also be match 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/ hypertext mark-up language/04-1350.ZO.html.Richtel, M . (2007, October 26). Shares Rise as Vonage Settles Fight over Patent. The sassy 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 cultivation Concerning Patents. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.htmlpatent.Vonage Told to Stop Using Verizon applied science 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 month that awarded Verizon $58 million and monthly royalties. alone the judge agreed to postpone the effective date of the injunction for two weeks while he considers a request by Vonage for a snag p ending what could be a lengthy appeal.The decision forced a temporary halt in the trading of Vonage shares and eventually sent the companionships 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, said 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 footsure that Vonage customers will not gravel service interruptions or other changes, the companys chief executive, microphone 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 h ad not seen any effect on its ability to attract and hold up customers because of the case.We believe this case has had not impact on churn to date, nor do we expect it to, she said.Judge Claude M. Hilton of Federal rule 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 inform from Alexandria.Vonage has been the early leader in an attempt by several companies to jailbreak traditional telephone company customers to Internet-based trade.Were pleased the court has immovable to issue a permanent injunction to protect Verizons patented innovations, said John Thorne, a senior vice president and surrogate 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 received telephone system, methods for giv ing customers calling features like call waiting, and means for providing Internet calling through wireless networks.If Vonage is forced to switch 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 grammatical case from Sprint Nextel that has yet to go to trial.