In the tech business, especially where you are disrupting, someone is almost certain to have to make the call for lawyers, guns and money. I was a bit surprised that Vonage was the first to make the call (or the first of significant note it seems). The expected strategy is to pick on those least able to defend themselves and establish a trend that somehow makes the weakest of claims more believable. In this case Vonage has the lawyers and money, but both pale by comparison to Verizon’s war chest. It seems the lacks of guns may be a factor in this legal action.
If you wanted to bleed money even faster than Vonage’s own marketing strategy, this may be a good strategy. If Vonage has no patent portfolio to respond in kind, a standoff may be unlikely. Seems like a high stakes game for sure, but if you are holding on to a broken business model where do you turn. Ideally real competition would resolve this business problem, sooner than later. Everyone outside can see this easier than those stuck on the inside and looking in the rear view mirror. With the resources of a Verizon, you would think someone could clean the windshield.
The travesty in nearly all these cases is that logic, or I should say truth, is lost somewhere in translation. What was really invented and how worthy is it of patent status is not something that a judge and jury can be expected to review. Somewhere it says we are supposed to be judged by our peers. What if patent cases could be held with a jury of practicing engineers, professors and consultants? You would still call for lawyers, guns and money, and that’s where we are.