Verizon has lost an infringement lawsuit against Cox

Below is a news item that Verizon has lost an infringement lawsuit against Cox, with a jury ruling that there was no infringement. The lawsuit was the classic "troll" tactic - sue a little guy (Cox) before going after the big companies. Now one reason trolls are so labeled (I prefer patent yakuzas to troll) is that they are falsely criticized for not practising the technology in the patent. But assuming that is a legitimate criticism, what do you call it when the patent tr-ll denies the technology .... TO ITS CUSTOMERS? From the article: "Verizon has been aggressively asserting its patents in Internet phone technology, despite not promoting the service to its own customers." Sounds like a tyrant to me - and thus making Verizon a tyrant troll. If one is going to engage in silly labeling of problems in the patent world. Verizon Loses Patent Lawsuit Against Cox By AMOL SHARMA Verizon Communications Inc. lost its patent-infringement case against Cox Communications Inc., signaling that Verizon may have a difficult time extracting royalties from cable providers for Internet-based telephony. A federal jury in the Eastern District of Virginia found that Cox didn't infringe on six Verizon patents related to Internet telephony. Cox, which has more than three million residential and business phone customers, said in a statement it would "look forward to competing vigorously with Verizon in the marketplace, not the courtroom." Verizon has been aggressively asserting its patents in Internet phone technology, despite not promoting the service to its own customers. Many analysts and patent lawyers said its case against Atlanta-based Cox, which was filed early this year, was a prelude to further lawsuits against bigger cable rivals. Verizon was seeking past damages from Cox of $404 million. "Despite the decision, we believe our patents were infringed," Verizon said in a statement. "We will continue to innovate and protect our intellectual property." The New York company said it hasn't decided whether to appeal the decision. Cox argued that it wasn't liable because it doesn't actually offer Internet phone service. While its call traffic is broken into digital voice "packets," it isn't routed over the public Internet, the company said. Cox said it controls the calls through its own cable network. A Verizon spokesman declined to say whether the company would target other major cable providers like Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. with patent lawsuits. Verizon recently reached a deal with Comcast Corp. in which both companies agreed not to sue each other for patent infringement for a period of five years. That agreement covers all patents the companies hold. Write to Amol Sharma at amol.sharma@wsj.com Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

UC Berkley to offer degrees in Financial Engineering

Next Monday, the Haas School of Business at U.C. Berkeley is having an afternoon panel lecture for business school students seeking degrees and jobs in their newly invented field of financial engineering. Is the use of "engineering" here the same as in "electrical engineering"? Or does "financial engineering" refer to doing finance while erroneously drinking lots of alcohol - "financial in-Gin-erring" (which watching Wall Street implode is a reasonable alternative). UC Berkeley is one of the leading engineering schools and one of the leading business schools, so their use of the word means much. If in their minds, and the minds of other universities offering degrees in financial engineering, is that "engineering" is being used in the same way as with "electrical engineering" and "chemical engineering", i.e., applied science, then FOR ALL YOU IDIOTS - business methods belong to a technical field of knowledge. To all of the anti-Bilski people (at least those of your whose financial firms are not bankrupt) - either learn the science and engineering or shut up. Consider the flyer for the panel lecture, and notice the words used: "The recent explosive growth and current events in quantitative finance have led mathematics, physics, computer science, economics and engineering students of all levels to wonder whether a career in quantitative finance is right for them." Notice all of the fields of students they suggest this pathway: mostly fields of science and engineering as preparation for a career in financial engineering - how can anyone (outside PTO/EPO management) deny that there is much that is technical - applied science - here? The flyer continues: "With the rapid increase in sophisticated quantitative and computational techniques employed in financial firms there has been increasing demand for students with highly quantitative backgrounds to work in the financial field." "For more information, please visit the the Berkeley MDE Master's in Financial Engineering program, http://mfe.haas.berkeley.edu" So the PTO, EPO, CAFC, House of Lords, etc., all must ask themselves one question here: is this use of "engineering" the same as when the word is used in phrases like "electrical engineering"? If so, many business methods are as technical as anything else is technical. When Wall Street bond traders are using quantum field theory to calculate interest rates, what idiot denies they are not being technical - not engaged in engineering? When Wall Street traders subscribe to the montly "Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities", are they deluding themselves as to the relevance of "technical"? No.

Twin lawyers charged with court fraud

From New York Times, 27 September page A7: "An Italian lawyer has been charged with fraud and false representation because she is suspected of having her identical twin sister fill in for her during court hearings. The lawyer, was also a part-time judge near Milan, helping other judges with heavy caseloads. But when she had to fill both roles, she twice sent her sister, who is not a lawyer, in her place, collecting legal fees even when she was elsewhere. The sisters will be tried next month.