Vonage Loses Yet Another Patent Case

from the not-looking-good dept

Vonage has already had enough trouble actually making their business profitable without having to worry about a barrage of patent lawsuits over highly questionable patents. But thanks to a patent system that approves a tremendous number of overly broad patents on obvious ideas, that's what you get. Already appealing a similar case from Verizon, a jury has found Vonage guilty of violating a bunch of Sprint patents. Juries will often find in favor of the patent holder, so this isn't much of a surprise. Vonage will most certainly appeal and the case is far from over. However, given how much effort the company needs to put into fighting these patents, the company may not be able to survive. The really sad thing is that the technology behind VoIP has almost nothing to do with Vonage's success. There were a ton of companies that had tried and failed to make popular VoIP plays before (and after) Vonage. What Vonage did was actually innovate: taking the basic idea that everyone knew about, and turning it into an offering that people wanted to buy. That's where Verizon, Sprint and other incumbents failed. For them to come back afterwards, and claim patent infringement is simply sour grapes. They were unable (and unwilling) to create the services that people wanted -- and now they want to shut down the company that actually did innovate -- and they're likely to succeed. That's not how the patent system is supposed to work.

Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, voip
Companies: sprint, vonage

GPS 'Selective Availability' Ends -- Where Are We Now?

from the map?--we-don't-need-no-stinking-maps dept

The US GPS system set its 'Selective Availability' levels to zero back in May 2000, and now the DoD is permanently removing the feature that allows the US to degrade GPS signal accuracy at will. While this probably saves US taxpayers a few pennies by not having to include some unnecessary signal processing parts in new GPS satellites, the decision also seems to mark a turning point in the availability of wireless location data. With more and more location based services cropping up that don't actually rely on GPS signals, such as the location-aware mobile search from Sprint and Microsoft which triangulates a caller's position between cell towers, the access to accurate location data is becoming commonplace. In fact, as more terrestrial wireless signals broadcast potentially-useful location data everywhere, the idea of using far away satellites to tell us where we are seems like an archaic concept -- and projects like Galileo begin to sound even more redundant. The adoption of GPS (or location-aware) devices reduces the uncertainty in several aspects of our lives -- giving users the sense that they *can't* get lost. So interestingly, the DoD's decision to switch from possibly hiding location information in order to keep Americans safer -- now to accepting that accurate position data is a critical component of our economy's future efficiency -- indicates a tacit admission that the open accessibility of information really does make us more secure.

Filed Under: gps, lbs, location, microsoft, sprint
Companies: microsoft, sprint

Playlist Patented... Everyone Sued... But Did Apple Pay Up?

from the sounds-like-it dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the latest story on a patent hoarding firm, Premier International Associates, who appears to have absolutely no other business than getting its hands on questionable, overly broad, obvious patents and then suing everyone possible. In this case, the patent is for the basic concept of a playlist, which can be found just about anywhere. So, it should come as little to no surprise that the list of companies sued is quite long, including: Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Viacom, Real, Napster, Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Sandisk, HP, Acer, Gateway and Yahoo (phew!). That's quite a list, though it's not surprising to see that there are a ton of companies offering software that has a concept so basic and so obvious as a playlist.

However, there is one very interesting point here. Apple is missing from the list. As the folks over at Ars Technica figured out, Premier actually had sued Apple about this same patent back in 2005, but at the same time it was filing all these new patent lawsuits it filed to dismiss the Apple suit, suggesting that Apple most likely paid off the company (perhaps giving it the money needed to suddenly sue every other company in the universe. Apple certainly has a history of doing this. When the company was sued on a rather similar obvious patent on a hierarchical menu-based user interfaces held by Creative, it eventually (after spending some time fighting it) decided to simply pay $100 million to be left alone. Of course, all that did was allow Creative to head out and sue plenty of others. Sound familiar? By settling on these questionable patent claims, all Apple is doing is encouraging more lawsuits of this nature for itself, as well as others.

Filed Under: patent trolls, patents, playlists
Companies: apple, at&t, dell, lenovo, microsoft, napster, real, sprint, toshiba, verizon, viacom

NTP's Back, And It's Brought More Lawsuits

from the oh-you-again? dept

Everybody's favorite patent troll, NTP, is back. It, of course, was the company that managed to wring $612.5 million out of RIM, maker of the BlackBerry, for patent infringement -- despite the patents in question being on their way to being rejected by the USPTO after a bunch of prior art came to light. NTP has now sued AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, as well as T-Mobile, for infringing on the same patents. RIM's settlement with NTP was widely believed to protect its carrier customers from infringement suits, but it's likely such protection extended only to their use of RIM products, not other mobile email systems. It's not too surprising that NTP sued, since it's a patent troll and that's what they do, though it's slightly curious since the suits were filed in the same Virginia court, with the same judge, as its previous cases. This includes its earlier suit against Palm, which the judge put on hold until after the validity of NTP's patents is finally assessed. It's likely the same thing will happen here, but NTP probably doesn't care too much -- it's just looking for more leverage to wring undeserved settlements and licensing deals out of anybody it can.

Filed Under: patents
Companies: at&t, ntp, palm, rim, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

Sprint Claims Vonage Wouldn't Exist Without Sprint's Patents

from the stop-laughing dept

Already facing possible shutdown and huge fines from Verizon over some VoIP patents, Vonage is apparently facing a similar threat from Sprint as well. The case was filed nearly two years ago, but it finally is underway, with Sprint making the ridiculous claim that without Sprint's patents, Vonage wouldn't exist. We've already gone through this with Verizon, but there's a ton of prior art on VoIP offerings -- and almost all of these patents seem overly broad and quite speculative. Lots of different folks all figured out how VoIP could work at about the same time (suggesting that the concept was the natural progression of the technology, which isn't something that's supposed to receive patent protection). Vonage's real innovation was in figuring out how to package and market the service -- something that neither Sprint nor Verizon did. Both companies are now simply trying to shut down a rival who out-innovated them in the market. That's not what the patent system is designed to do, and it's a blatant abuse of the patent system by both telcos to claim that Vonage somehow "stole" anything from them.

Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, voip
Companies: sprint, verizon, vonage

Jury Out On The Impact Of 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Rules

from the new-spectrum-same-players dept

The talk around the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auctions continues. After Google's CEO earlier this week said the company would "probably" bid in the auction, even though the FCC didn't implement the open-access provisions Google wanted, a couple of divergent opinions on the auction's impact on the telecom landscape have come out. On the one hand, former FCC bigwig Blair Levin says the auction isn't likely to result in a new nationwide mobile operator; on the other, a "source at a major cellular company" says the auction isn't attractive for incumbent operators. Who to believe? As usual, the truth in somewhere in the middle, but we're more inclined to take Levin's view of things. Incumbent operators will likely shy away from the 22 MHz of spectrum with open-access rules -- not just because they don't want to operate under the restrictions, but also because if the auction for those licenses fails to generate $4.6 billion, the open-access rules will be lifted, and the auction will start over. Once it hits $4.6 billion on that first go-around, though, operators will bid because there's simply too much spectrum on offer to ignore it. Their choice of technology could render the open-access rules useless, really -- after all, if they pick a proprietary or unpopular technology for their network, they'll be the only people selling compatible devices for it. When you get down to brass tacks, the incumbent operators are going to spend whatever's necessary to acquire the spectrum, despite what anonymous sources within them say. Spectrum in general is their lifeblood, and this 700 MHz spectrum in particular has too many positive attributes for mobile broadband for them to pass up. They'll bid aggressively to defend their turf, and if anybody is going to unseat them, it's going to take a hell of a lot of investment.

Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: at&t, frontline, google, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

After All That Fuss, AT&T No Longer Claiming It Has The Fewest Dropped Calls (Perhaps Because It Doesn't)

from the why-let-facts-get-in-the-way dept

We've joked about ever mobile operator claiming it has the "best" network in some way or another, with each using slightly different descriptions to explain how their's is the best. Sprint and Cingular apparently got into a legal spat about the whole thing, with Cingular wanting the courts to say that claiming it had "the fewest dropped calls" is accurate. Eventually, the Better Business Bureau had to weigh in on which silly marketing claims Cingular could use. The latest, however, is that following all of this legal positioning, AT&T (the rebranded Cingular) is dropping the ad campaign that claims "the fewest dropped calls" perhaps because it's not a claim that can be substantiated well. A variety of studies have shown AT&T's wireless service ranking pretty low on the reliability scale. That said, the whole "dropped call" thing is becoming less and less of an issue. All of the various mobile operators have greatly improved their networks over the last few years, and dropped calls seem to be increasingly rare on any carrier. Sure, they still happen, but with much lower frequency -- so perhaps AT&T is phasing out the campaign because it's just not a big deal to most people any more.

Filed Under: mobile operators
Companies: at&t, cingular, sprint

Record Label Sells Sponsorship Of P2P Downloads

from the change? dept

Nathan Wilhoft was the first of several people to submit the story about Sprint "sponsoring" the P2P download of 16 million copies of a song by the artist Plies. Sprint is paying a "substantial six-figure" sum to embed its logo in the song (apparently as the cover art), so that when users play the downloaded track on their computer or MP3 player, it will be displayed. It's an interesting tactic, both in terms of an advertising strategy, but also on the part of the artist and record label. While the label is still focused on selling the music, this is another small step in investigating some alternative business models. What's slightly odd, though, is that MediaDefender is in on the deal. It sounds like it's the middleman here, hooking up the record label with advertisers, then also uploading the tracks onto the P2P networks. MediaDefender is best known for uploading spoof tracks to P2P networks on behalf of labels to thwart file-sharers -- so perhaps they do know a thing or two about uploading. But that company's involvement could also be taken as another sign that things are starting to change, and that the music industry realizes it needs to evolve to survive. But before getting too carried away, plenty of questions remain. Perhaps the biggest has to do with that 16 million downloads figure -- after all, once a track's onto P2P networks, how will the label control how many times its downloaded? Will users be allowed to actually upload and share the track on their own, with no fear of retribution from the label?

Filed Under: p2p, sponsorship
Companies: sprint