AT&T slaps Vonage with yet another lawsuit

Just when you thought Vonage may be catching a breather from the total barrage of lawsuits it has been hit with of late, along comes none other than AT&T to prove you wrong. Reportedly, the company has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court in Madison, Wisconsin alleging that Vonage unlawfully violated a 1996 patent filing that "broadly describes the idea of routing telephone calls over data networks like the internet." It sounds as though the fledgling VoIP provider is hoping to resolve the dispute before it goes to trial, but it did note that it "couldn't guarantee" such an outcome. We're tempted to ask how Vonage's year could get any worse, but quite frankly, we're not so sure we'd like the answer.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 20th 2007 12:13PM]

Why do all the cell phone carriers hate vonage? Next week we'll be seeing T-mobile slapping a lawsuit on them.

[Ed @ Oct 20th 2007 12:19PM]

Remember that Bellsouth is the NEW AT&T.

[Sean @ Oct 20th 2007 12:56PM]

I thought SBC was the new AT&T? Or was it Cingular? Oh, I forgot Pacific Bell...and Nevada Bell...

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 20th 2007 1:15PM]

Those are all the new at&t. Echostar will soon be too. First they take ameritech, my landline, then at&t takes SBC, my DSL, and now it's my cable( Echostar owns Dish). They are taking my favorite companies that also provide me service one at a time. They might as well take sprint while they are at it. But on the plus side they would probably change sprint to GSM.

[CraigJ @ Oct 20th 2007 1:38PM]

Because it's competition, and it's easier to sue a company than invest to compete with it.

[Jesse S @ Oct 20th 2007 1:39PM]

How would that be better? 1. That would cost billions to change all of the tech in the towers, and keep it accessible to CDMA phones. 2. CDMA is superior to GSM in every way.

[DavidP @ Oct 21st 2007 1:38AM]

AT&T is scaring a lot of US Consumers. Monopolies are not healthy companies without trust. Google is a monopoly phenomenon, they try to promote free markets because of how their business model works, and everyone seems to trust it. AT&T try to eliminate competition and plan some type of utopia.

[Muneer @ Oct 20th 2007 12:30PM]

Anybody have a link to the filing papers? Are they public record?

Heh, I should go to the trial. The courthouse is a 10 minute drive from my house.

[Tom O @ Oct 20th 2007 12:30PM]

Because VOIP is threatening sales in the future and vonage was one of the leaders in VOIP leaders.

[Cagrino @ Oct 20th 2007 12:33PM]

The phone companies will do anything to put Vonage out of business.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone with a broadband service would keep a "traditional" phone service that costs 2 or 3 times as much.

Switch to Vonage or one of its VOIP competitors and you will not be sorry.

[CraigJ @ Oct 20th 2007 1:39PM]

I switched to Vonage in 2004 and haven't looked back.

[Asha Kydd @ Oct 20th 2007 3:50PM]

I know. I have the cheap package from Vonage which is all I need. The only person I call from my house is a friend of mine would lives two time zones away. Why the hell would I want to pay $40 plus long distance charges when I can pay $20 for the freedom to call anywhere in North America (for 500 minutes a month).

[Jeff A @ Oct 20th 2007 8:02PM]

I just cancelled my Vonage service this week. I had it for almost 2 years but never used it. Lately people had been saying they could tell I was on VOIP because the quality was staticy (yes I adjusted the quality to try to make it better). I just figured I would rather take the $30 a month and put it toward my cell phone bill or save it.

[Tomahawk @ Nov 11th 2007 11:23AM]

I just ditched Vonage last week for AT&T CallVantage (or is it at&t who knows these days), only because I was worried of Vonage turning into SunRocket after those lawsuits they could've just close up one day without warning. I had them for two years with no complaints. I also now get my service for a cheaper rate through AT&T; since I have a Cingular cell phone (I will always call them Cingular, Long live Jack!) I get unlimited minutes in the US for $14.99. So far my only complaint with AT&T, is that their website isn't so straight forward, and I really hate that when ever I reboot/power off my router/modem I have to reconfirm my address for 911 (it really gets annoying).

[Bruno @ Oct 20th 2007 12:33PM]

It's the US way to crush companies in the courts if you can't compete with them in the market. That's why you see these dinosaurs like ATT after Vonage. It's setting a very bad precedent and the only reason Vonage is the target is because they're the largest and most visible VOIP player (excluding VOIP services by the dinosaur telco and cable companies). You'd better believe the bigger picture is to eventually squeeze all the smaller voip players out too.

The US patent office needs more than a reform. It needs to completely abolish software patents of any kind. If not, at most limiting them to 2 or 3 years. As it stands, most exist because the founding rules aren't being met in the first place (non-obviousness being a key one).

Maybe it's time for Vonage customers to file a class action suit against ATT and others? It's doable after all - just look at the other CA suits in progress right now.

[blahh @ Oct 20th 2007 4:31PM]

if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em!!

[Brian @ Oct 20th 2007 8:42PM]

I wholeheartedly agree that it should come full circle as a class action suite from Vonage customers to AT&T + Verizon if Vonage is forced out of business.

This is getting out of hand, forcing a company to pay off a lawsuit based on broad and generic patents.... Utterly ridiculous!

Karma

[Big John @ Oct 20th 2007 12:37PM]

I don't understand why people don't just use cell phones.

[Cagrino @ Oct 20th 2007 12:52PM]

Because you don't necessarily want all your phone calls routed to your cell phone.

1. If you're running a business, you need a phone not dependent on signal strength and atmospheric conditions and battery capacity and so on.

2. For businesses you also often need multiple lines in order to not keep your customers waiting on busy signals. VOIP makes that even more affordable compared to the traditional telcos.

3. For home use, same as above plus the advantages of a location based phone such as 911 calls; although, it does work slightly different for VOIP.

[Mark @ Oct 21st 2007 10:57AM]

Because international long distance is a little expensive on cell phones.

[Big John @ Oct 20th 2007 1:23PM]

Businesses, well and fine. The third point, have you not heard of E911? I called 911 a few months ago and they knew where I was.

[Tomahawk @ Oct 20th 2007 10:46PM]

When I call 911 They know where I am also, because I registered my address with my VOIP provider......whats your point? The only time they would know where I was, was if I moved and didn't update my address that I had registered......and I don't know about you, but I don't move that often, and it's really easy to update the address they have on record.

[Mayur @ Oct 20th 2007 12:39PM]

Man I love vonage. Verizon and ATT are just upset because Vonage is a leader and offers it very cheap. I love Vonage and I hope they can pull it out and continue business as usual.

[Darkest Daze @ Oct 21st 2007 1:41AM]

Unfortunately for Vonage, I don't think they've ever turned a profit, which means they better not get back to business as usual. They had received a large sum of money to keep them going a couple years ago since they were on the verge of going under. I personally had a horrible experience with them which was mostly due to completely unhelpful customer support. I've heard of 2 customers, the ones that have no issues or the ones that don't last more than a couple months due to unresolvable problems and the inability to get someone that can help them find out the reason for service issues.

I do like competition even if I don't find them to be the greatest company, but the reality is that Vonage has been in trouble for a while and these constant lawsuits are just making it much harder for them to keep afloat. It looks like just a matter of time at this point.

[prokanda @ Oct 20th 2007 12:44PM]

ehh.. this is really lame. So these bigazz companies can't compete and aren't looking forward enough, so instead of innovate like a good competitor should, they just bomb them in the courts? that's bs.

but on the other hand, having worked tech support for the only Canon call center in the US... having to deal with these people that think it's OUR fault that ANALOG fax machines can't work on DIGITAL lines.. screw VoIP.

Also, I don't know what some of you guys are talking about, but I've never heard of a regular local line that costs more than $30/month. Vonage is like $24.95. Not to mention that if you're one of those people still on a home line, with cells having free long distance and such, then you're prolly not the type to care too much about a relatively new technology that requires you to "get with the times".

ALSO, not to mention that vonage (and other VoIP services) can't work on their own.. they require that (around)-$50/month broadband service, don't use 911 (properly) and can't access traditional analog systems (the only reason to keep a phone line), AND can't help you if the power goes out...

...cell phones are the way to go unless you have analog needs, then VoIP won't work reliably anyway.. so it voids the point.

lame. the whole damn thing.

[SweetSauce @ Oct 20th 2007 1:20PM]

"...but I've never heard of a regular local line that costs more than $30/month. Vonage is like $24.95."

Vonage offers all the bells and whistles for that 24.95. Regular phone service adds everything for an additional price.

"...then you're prolly not the type to care too much about a relatively new technology that requires you to "get with the times"."

"prolly"? Really? I suppose this is just another example of how I have yet to get with the times. Obviously, it is difficult to add the extra two letters it takes to actually spell "probably".

"ALSO, not to mention that vonage (and other VoIP services) can't work on their own.. they require that (around)-$50/month broadband service..."

Find five people you know that do not already have the $50/month broadband service that Vonage requires.

"don't use 911 (properly)"

Called 911 for my daughter and the ambulance arrived like it should have.

"AND can't help you if the power goes out..."

Of course, in my house, all I have are cordless phones. This would be one of those reasons that you would use the cell phone.

"...cell phones are the way to go unless you have analog needs, then VoIP won't work reliably anyway.. so it voids the point."

Cell phones are great. But personally, I don't have great cell service around my area. I can honestly say I don't know what will not work on Vonage as my fax machine does work (they have a small business plan that even offers a second line as a fax line). The only other thing that I can see needing an analog line is a 56k modem.... but if you have Vonage, it voids the point.

I do agree that this whole thing sucks. I have been a Vonage customer for almost three years and have only had one problem about a month after I got it.

The big phone companies are just trying to beat Vonage into submission until they are borderline bankrupt. Then one of the big guys (Qwest out here) will absorb them and start offering the Vonage service at a jacked-up price....

[Keith S. Anvick @ Oct 20th 2007 2:36PM]

I have 2 phone lines - one AT&T and one Vonage.

A) Our analog fax machine works great on the Vonage line - no problems at all....

B) Although the basic monthly rate for the AT&T and Vonage lines are nearly the same, the final monthly bill for the Vonage line is CONSIDERABLY less expensive. Why? - Anytime we dial out of the "local area" on the AT&T line we get hit with a large long-distance charge. Here is a worst case example - Last year when my wife was in Germany I accidentally called her on the AT&T line. That 15 minute cost about $30.00. The next day I called her on the Vonage line (and talked for about 18 minutes), the long distance charge was only 92 cents!!!

C) For home use, I prefer to use Vonage or my cell phone any day. Why? The voice quality is much higher on the Vonage line than highly compressed voice on a cell phone (not to mention that there are far fewer drop-outs with Vonage as compared to the cell phone.)

D) I can understand why AT&T wants to file as many lawsuits as they can against Vonage & Skype. Why? - Because these state of the art VoIP services threaten the very existence of the AT&T legacy phone system.

"AT&T, Your World, Disconnected"

Keith

[Asha Kydd @ Oct 20th 2007 3:52PM]

My Vonage works fine on the $30 a month cable internet and I get long distance calling. I'm still paying far less that I ever did when I had a regular telephone connection.

Please, stop posting when you are drunk. That way, you're less likely to make up bullsh*t.

[Michael Geary @ Oct 21st 2007 1:24AM]

"having worked tech support for the only Canon call center in the US... having to deal with these people that think it's OUR fault that ANALOG fax machines can't work on DIGITAL lines."

My *Canon* fax works fine on my Vonage line. No problems at all.

[prokanda @ Oct 21st 2007 4:33AM]

@sweetsauce: great.. you have vonage, defend it.. you're like 45 right? I didn't properly spell ONE word (prolly) and you jump on me about it? how childish.. even with your octogenarian mindset.

@ass kid: I'm not making up bullshit, I've worked for Verizon and I've worked for AT&T. Also, I wasn't drunk. But YOU can stop typing with your head in your ass.

@Michael: I didn't say all the time. Much of the time the fax machines work just fine after a second attempt at a slower speed. However analog machines expect a constant signal, not the packet data that IS the internet. This sometimes makes it difficult if there's a lot of lag on the line. I'm referring to many small businesses that have slightly older equipment.

You guys are amazing... simply amazing.

[SweetSauce @ Oct 21st 2007 11:00PM]

@prokanda- Not even close to 45, but... You are trying to say that Vonage has this and that problem and not one of them was valid.

I am sorry for "jumping on you" by pointing out the one word. I guess by pointing it out, it just shows that I, for one, am not "up with the times".

As far as what you said about fax machines, you did say "having to deal with these people that think it's OUR fault that ANALOG fax machines can't work on DIGITAL lines.. screw VoIP." Why say in your response that you didn't say 'all'. 'Can't' usually means that it will not happen, without a doubt.

What cracks me up though, is that you are pissed that you were disputed. I still don't see where anything that you originally said was proven or backed up in your response.

I am, however, impressed with the fact that you have access to a dictionary. But "octogenarian"=80's. If you thought that I was 45, your math might be a little off.

Don't be such an angry little guy...

[prokanda @ Oct 22nd 2007 12:05AM]

actually.. I picked up octogenarian from somewhere else, don't assume that because YOU had to look it up that I went to dictionary.com. Thanks.

And you're absolutely right, I said "45" then used a word that meant someone in their 80s. I was just generally referring to your "old person" way of thinking.

Sure, maybe I didn't work it correctly, I said "can't", when I should have said "many fax machines have problems".

And just because I didn't cite sources for all of my claims (although I thought "I worked for a Canon call center".... one of the leading manufacturers of personal and industrial grade fax machines would have been enough of a source.. it's a well known fact across our entire line group that fax machines CAN have problems.. big problems, with VoIP lines) doesn't mean that I didn't have my reasons for the comments. You didn't cite sources AGAINST what I said, yet still seemed dead set on thinking that MY comments were wrong. That's called being a hypocrite.

And little? You don't know me... so don't try to placate me with your sarcastic "old man" there-you-go-buddy slap on the hand.

Move on. Grow into your age mentality.

[The Foo @ Oct 20th 2007 12:47PM]

They should stop doing that. It'll pave the way for cell phone carriers dominating the market for VoIP. I don't want to end up being forced to choose between cell phone carriers for VoIP. This really pisses me off. Vonage is a good company... squashing your competition down with lawsuits is just not right although it seems to be the trend of the modern age (i.e. can't beat them, squash them).

When it comes down to the features, there is no company out there that offers better value for your money than Vonage provides. I have looked at and researched almost all of the VoIP players out there and at the end of the day, I always go back to Vonage as the one that offers all the features I want. It remains to be seen if Vonage goes down whether it'll pave the way for smaller VoIP companies to emerge.

[Stan Winstone @ Oct 20th 2007 1:01PM]

These are total monopolistic corporations out to destroy an upstart competitor. The SEC should be rolling in to b-slap AT&T and Verizon with huge anti-trust suits. But that won't happen because BushCo did massive spy business with these aholes and now they know they have the greenlight to do *whatever* they want.

[opus @ Oct 20th 2007 1:14PM]

Ma Bell is a crabby old bitch for sure. I've been with Vonage from the start (customer #16 I'm told) and plan to stick with them until there's no dial tone left. If you want to help Vonage, pump up their revenue...sign up for service and encourage your friends to as well. Vote with your wallets. We can do to Ma Bell what we have done to the record companies...put them 6 feet under!

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 20th 2007 1:18PM]

well ameritech really merged with SBC communications and then at&t bought sbc communications and DSL service. But that still kinda counts as a takeover.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 20th 2007 1:21PM]

this message was supposed to be a reply message to the one I did up there

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 20th 2007 1:27PM]

wait, NVM. at&t didn't by it. it changed its name. I already know that. Actually Ameritech is the stupid one to merge with SBC to become at&t.

[Christopher @ Oct 20th 2007 1:29PM]

I'm learning about IP law in law school right now, and I need to look up that patent. I don't see how, after the KSR Sup Ct ruling, running voice transmissions over the Internet isn't obvious, or just part of common public knowledge of average people working in the trade. It seems obvious to me, and I don't even work in telecommunications!

Any thoughts?

[SHoe @ Oct 20th 2007 2:47PM]

Agreed - of course this is obvious. But sadly, the U.S. patent system mujst be at least partly broken because they allow obvious patents to be filed and granted all the time. There needs to be an overhaul of the criteria and rules for enforcing the criteria for the patent system.

You could run a simulation of the last 50 years of the planet Earth 100 times and each time you'd end up with VoIP - nothing creative, no major technology breakthough to come up with an idea that "broadly describes the idea of routing telephone calls over data networks like the internet.".

The many ideas behind the internet protocols that are used by VoIP are not so obvious. So it's especially offensive to any sane tax paying citizen, that a private company like AT&T should claim ownershop of an obvious idea that uses the publicly funded internet (The internet was born courtesy of the tax payers, via DARPA). And these assholes want to charge the public, for their 'invention' of voice over OUR internet?

[John Commenter @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:43PM]

Agreed? There is nothing to agree to.

1. You're obviously not learning very much. The first thing you should learn is that any patent decision from the supremes takes 10-20 years to propogate and understand. Only god knows what KSR will do.
2. If you are against software or telecom patents because you believe they stifle innovation, fine, just say so. I'll point out, however, that no-one knows one way or the other, so while your position might be right, it is a "faith-based" position. IP policy effects one way or the other are just not testable. Economic models are always hypersimplified bollocks. It could very easily turn out that 50 years from now, the world looks back and says the GPL stifled innovation because it directed skilled programmers' efforts into areas that were cool to engineers, but not useful for society. No one knows. Go write a science fiction book.
3. Otherwise, you haven't looked at the patent claims, just plain don't know how to, and don't know what it is about. You have no grounds for an opinion of any kind. Go home.

[billy bob thorton @ Oct 20th 2007 1:31PM]

no don't just support vonage by using their service. boycot at&t altogether. I can't believe there are not even rumblings about anti-trust in washington right now. I have been completely sober of at&t for about 10 months now. It's been tough since they keep buying everything that I used. Right now all needs are met by T-mobile and Comcast

Don't use AT&T services

[rlynd3 @ Oct 20th 2007 3:01PM]

Vonage is rock solid!! I switched in 2005 and there service has only improved, despite theese desperate attempts by the fledgling phone companies.

[Devon @ Oct 20th 2007 7:12PM]

Vonage is far from rock-solid. As a person who works the ISP side of things, I can tell you this much about Vonage:

1. It's call quality is, for the most part, sub-par. Now, with cordless phones and the like it's not usually noticed or, if it is, it is attributed to the cordless phone or the ISP.

2. Having just made the above statement, Vonage's reliability and (to some degree) call quality is reliant upon your ISP. Bad ISP or poor line quality= dropped calls and voice digitization and degradation.

I, however, agree wholeheartedly that the conglomeration of baby bells back into Ma Bell is a horrible oversight by our government and should have been stopped before it was allowed to happen. This is just the fallout from cronie capitalism.

[Andrew Wood @ Oct 20th 2007 3:53PM]

What I think is interesting is that AT&T and Verizon seem to be sueing for the same thing. I thought only one entity could own a particular patent? Or are the patents just so vague that they could sue just about anybody with them?

[E. Zachary Knight @ Oct 20th 2007 11:07PM]

That wa my thoughts exactly. I seems that both ATT and Verizon both hold patents for voice over IP. I wonder who else holds these patents. Maybe if this is brought up to the Patent Office, both could be voided.

[Eric @ Oct 21st 2007 2:29PM]

Well, they may be suing for different patents, but it is more likely that they are suing over patents that were developed initially at Bell Labs, which was owned by all the baby bells for a time. Interestingly, these should be expiring sometime soon, so maybe they're trying to milk one last dollar out of them.

[DudeAsInCool @ Oct 20th 2007 5:35PM]

I use Vonage. Isn't it time that ATT was broken up for good?

[Cscamp20 @ Oct 21st 2007 12:49AM]

Had Vonage for almost 4 years now and I've saved tons of money with Vonage. Never had a single problem with them. No issues with call quality for me. I agree with the the other poster said. "If you cant beat them, sue them". If these companies get Vonage out of business" Man! i guess we can sue them as well. This patent lawsuit is bullS#@t!

Vonage shouldn't let these companies just bully them. I wont mind paying 5 more bucks a month so Vonage can afford to get a better lawyer. They need to get a better lawyer coz these telecom companies are suing them left and right. They'll keep on doing this until Vonage waives the white flag...which i hope doesn't happen.

If Vonage was an ISP as well you think these companies would still sue them? probably not. It takes 90 kbps

[Kim @ Oct 21st 2007 1:26AM]

While I am completely nodding in agreement with everyone who has said that our patent system is rubbish, I also question why everyone is picking on Vonage and not say, Packet8 also. I love my Vonage service, but to enforce their patents, should the Bells be suing everyone who offers VOIP? Heck, what about Comcast? I haven't read the patent, but "broadly describes the idea of routing telephone calls over data networks like the internet" is pretty broad.

Rubbish.