|

While I always follow the big patent battles, the recent ugly fight between Verizon and Vonage has been of interest to me for more than just its implications in the broader patent fight.
That's because for a while now I've been a very happy customer of Vonage's VOIP service. I use its lower-tier basic service, which for under $20 a month provides 500 minutes of calls (which I've never come even close to reaching) along with multiple features such as caller-ID and three-way calling that POTS providers like Verizon all charge extra for.
So besides my normal position against companies that use patents to stifle innovation and crush pesky competitors (which is definitely the case in this fight), I'm following this patent battle because I don't want to lose a service that I like.
For the record, I don't believe that Vonage will get shut down completely. No judge will all of a sudden shut down the phones and 911 access of more than two million people.
But even if Vonage wins its appeals and eventually gets the Verizon patent claims thrown out, the fight is bleeding the company very badly. Whether Vonage will survive as it is remains very much in doubt.
A large number of people think that part of Verizon's goal is to take over Vonage itself. Others think some other major company will jump in and acquire Vonage. We'll see. Though I can say with certainty that if I once again become a Verizon phone customer, I'll be looking for other options right away.
On the larger patent side, this case illustrates one of the more frustrating aspects of patent claims, namely that patent holders can (and often do) go after customers of products rather than the vendors that make the products (and are assumedly directly infringing the patent).
From everything I've seen, it appears that Vonage is using all commercial products to run its VOIP infrastructure, probably from major vendors like Cisco.
Doesn't it make more sense for patent law to center around the other inventers and companies making products that violate the patents, rather than the customers who in good faith bought a product?
Even if we don't see some of the major patent reform that is desperately needed, a good small step in reform would be to limit the ability for patent holders to go after customers of technology and limit claims to only those companies actually making products that violate a patent.
We'll see. But if it happens don't call me, I'll call you (though I might have to borrow someone else's phone). |
Comments (4)
Vonage is so well known and such an obvious target for Verizon because of it's extensive advertising. There are a lot of other VoIP services that may or may not become a Verizon target that offer the same or better service at a better price. Who is paying for Vonage's advertising in the end?
Posted by Joe Budelis | April 19, 2007 8:09 AM
That's a good point Joe. Vonage has spent an insane amount on advertising. To a large degree they're like an old school bubble company.
Posted by Jim Rapoza | April 19, 2007 5:46 PM
I am in total agreement with you. There also now seems to be prior art coming out as indicated by a PC World.com article. Members of a VoIP forum had previously discussed the concepts that Verizon ended up patenting. And now another company is speaking up that has basically the same patent as Verizon filed in a similar timeframe. When it comes to patent lawsuits, it seems as if better research should be done on possibilities of prior art before any such suit is allowed to go forward. Would Vonage be able to recoup damages with a win of the appeal? Somehow companies should be held accountable for such damaging lawsuits and attempts to stifle general innovation through overly broad patents. I will do my best to hold Verizon accountable by never using their services. Hopefully the patent reform act this year will have some effect as well.
Posted by Aaron Moore | April 20, 2007 4:03 AM
I saw that news about the prior art. I'm not at all surprised by that. Right now the way the law is set-up you can't fight back if the patent is eventually found to be invalid. That's why patents are so damaging. If a company like Vonage or RIM could strike back hard after a patent was found to be invalid, it would make companies hesitate before using them. Right now, outside of the lawyer costs there's no downside for companies like Verizon.
Posted by Jim Rapoza | April 20, 2007 2:59 PM