On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:45:50 -0500, Eric \"ManxPower\" Wieling wrote
> Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
> > That's not a change in the status of the case. Vonage lost in that
> > District Court, supposedly setting them up for an appeal in the court
> > where actual patent and IP expertise is available
ECTED]; Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk
> > Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update
> >
> > Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
> > > That's not a change in the status of the case. Vonage lost in
> that
> > > District Co
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric "ManxPower" Wieling
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk
> Discussion
> Subjec
Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
That's not a change in the status of the case. Vonage lost in that
District Court, supposedly setting them up for an appeal in the court
where actual patent and IP expertise is available. Verizon is just
hitting Vonage with an injunction to enforce the patents fo
Mark C wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
A hardware provider and a service provider are two completely
different animals.
It is legal (in Maryland anyways) to sell products such drug
paraphernalia, it only becomes a problem when it is used.
Thanks
Steve
This is not entirely true. A product manuf
CTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Fertig
*Sent:* Saturday, 24 March 2007 10:14 PM
*To:* 'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'
*Subject:* RE: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update
Kristian the astlinux guy and the last name that is almost impossible t
Steve Totaro wrote:
A hardware provider and a service provider are two completely
different animals.
It is legal (in Maryland anyways) to sell products such drug
paraphernalia, it only becomes a problem when it is used.
Thanks
Steve
This is not entirely true. A product manufactured with t
Senad Jordanovic wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
A hardware provider and a service provider are two completely
different animals.
It is legal (in Maryland anyways)
Agree...
to sell products such drug
paraphernalia, it only becomes a problem when it is used.
Thanks
Steve
So
Steve Totaro wrote:
> A hardware provider and a service provider are two completely
> different animals.
>
> It is legal (in Maryland anyways)
Agree...
to sell products such drug
> paraphernalia, it only becomes a problem when it is used.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
So.. Why mention this and puttin
um.com
*Subject:* Re: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update
I'm curious Vonage is using off the shelf (as they say)
equipment... available, probably, from Cisco.
Can anyone sum up what the patents (3) say, and how Vonag
Cisco is MUCH smarter, in my opinion to get them self into that mess...
Senad
www.bicomsystems.com
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: 25 March 2007 02:02
To: asterisk-biz@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Fertig
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2007 10:14 PM
To: 'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'
Subject: RE: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update
Kristian the astlinux guy and the last name that
/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter
Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)"
I'm no attorney. Hopefully someone else can make more sense out of this.
WARNING: Watch this thread - I am sure a long rant is to follow!!!
--
Kristian Kielhofner
--
.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
That's not a change in the status of the case. Vonage lost in that
District Court, supposedly setting them up for an appeal in the court
where actual patent and IP expertise is available. Verizon is just
hitting Vonage with an injunction to
I'm curious Vonage is using off the shelf (as they say) equipment...
available, probably, from Cisco.
Can anyone sum up what the patents (3) say, and how Vonage infringed?
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-biz ma
That's not a change in the status of the case. Vonage lost in that
District Court, supposedly setting them up for an appeal in the court
where actual patent and IP expertise is available. Verizon is just
hitting Vonage with an injunction to enforce the patents found infringed
in this first
Why go after the little guys? Can they pay out $52,000,000 in damages?
Do they pose any real threat while they are little? It makes more sense
to let them get big and then cut their legs off, steal their wallet, and
their customers.
I wonder how many not very technical people using Vonage
Sucks to be them but what about the rest of us? I wonder if Verizon will
be ballsy enough to come after every little guy..
--
::.
Brian Fertig
Director of Engineering
Molten, Inc.
Delaware Office
Office 800.418.4380 x 160
Direct 302.338.9601
From: [EMAIL P
18 matches
Mail list logo
