Apr 07 2007
Vonage Wins Temporary Stay: Can Continue To Sign Customers
A federal appeals court granted Vonage a temporary reprieve late Friday from an injunction granted earlier in the day that would have prevented the Internet phone provider from signing up new customers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent disputes in Washington, D.C., blocked the injunction from taking effect until the judges were able to consider arguments in the patent case brought by Verizon Communications.
During a Friday morning hearing here that lasted about an hour, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ordered Vonage not to accept any new customers while it continues to infringe on Verizon’s patents covering some aspects of Internet phone calls.
A copy of the one-page appeals court order(PDF) provided to CNET News.com by Vonage’s legal counsel gives Verizon until April 13 to respond to the voice over Internet Protocol company’s request to lift the injunction during the appeal process. It was signed by Chief Judge Paul Michel.
Roger Warin, Vonage’s attorney, protested Hilton’s no-new-customers order during Friday’s hearing. Arguing the decision was just as threatening to Vonage as a full injunction, he said “it would be the difference of cutting off oxygen as opposed to a bullet to the head.”
I’d like to be idealistic and say that the good guys (Vonage) would prevail over the government-endorsed monopoly and stagnant non-innovative phone company, but it really looks bad for Vonage. I’ve said it before, though. If Verizon thinks suing Vonage out of business is going to get me back as a customer, they’re sadly mistaken. If anything, I’ll just turn my phones off altogether and use only my mobile phone (which incidentally isn’t a Verizon phone either).
Call me an idealist, but I have a real problem when a big company tries to sue a more innovative smaller company, particularly when the bigger company claims to have patents for things its been sitting on for years and not actually doing anything with.
A patent is not a business model.
via Cnet
April 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
My recient correspondence with Vonage:
Case # 11289786
I called many time today (4-7-07) concerning an invoice dated this date, and charged to my account the same day (apparently before I was even sent the charge) The charge is 118.74 for a Starcom telepone, that I never ordered, and never received. Invoice # 44806470. I had, in February of last year (2006) oredered a new account with a starcom wi fi telephone. I had it for a year, but was never able to make it work properly. I couildn’t log into wi fi systems that required a log in. (this defect was apparently noted on sever blogs, which I wish I had read before ordering the service).
I called last month (March) to cancel the service. I was serviced by a very understanding reprehensive of Vonage, who persuaded my not to cancel, but to try a v phone instead. I asked about a credit for my Starcom phone, since it was useless to me, and he said I could receive a credit, by mailing it back to Vonage. He gave me mailing instructions, and a return code, which was followed up by an email with the same information. I mailed the starcom back the next day. He also said he would give me credits for the past inability to use the service. I never got credit for the phone I sent back, and am now being charged for an additional starcom that I never ordered, would not want in any event, and never received.
I spent all afternoon with vonage representatives on 4-7-2007, and had to ask for a supervisor 3 times. Although I had a case number (112897) each representative gave me different answers, and two supervisors put me on hold, and disconnected me after long waits.
I do not intend to forget about this, and asked that the last supervisor note on the case file that I will contact the credit card company asking the charge be denied, and that I intended to contact the attorneys for Verizon, and the federal judge handling the Verizon case against Vonage, and that I will try to contact every regulatory agency I can find with an interest to make this matter known. I consider you’re charging me before billing me for an item I neither ordered or received, fraud. I again demand that charge be reversed, and in addition that a credit be issued for the starcom phone I returned, and in addition, a credit for the service between Feb of 2006 and March of 2007 which would not work.