$360M Patent Suit Over iPhone Voicemail

Stony Stevenson writes "Klausner Technologies said on Monday the company had filed a $360 million suit against Apple and AT&T over voicemail patents that Klausner claims the Apple iPhone infringes. New York-based Klausner said the lawsuit also names Comcast, Cablevision, and eBay's Skype as infringing its patent for 'visual voicemail.' The plaintiff seeks an additional $300 million from the three." Klausner has won on two previous occasions with this patent. The new suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, of course.

Still Obvious

[pembo13 (770295)]

I know. You're going to say "why didn't you do it" or something similar. But considering we already have email, so called "Visual Voicemail" isn't that big a leap.

Re:

[mozkill (58658)]

Well, there is no such thing as 'visual' voice mail. anyone who speaks english knows that. I would file a new patent called "visual picture mail" and then you would have a real patent in your hands.

Re:

[zappepcs (820751)]

The reasoning used in granting patents by the USPTO needs to have a new basic clause. The not-obvious one is not cutting it for new technology. Why don't we try something like "if it makes too much common sense, do not grant a patent"....

Oh, so you thought of a way to visually represent and access voicemails... hmmm, that makes a lot of fscking sense... nope, sorry, no patent.

Oh, sending emails to a mobile device.. yes, yes, that is indeed novel... but it just makes too much sense. Sorry, denied. Good luck

Re:

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

But it was done -- see: every spy movie since 1950. [Screen pops up: "007, here is your mission."]

I know, it's a movie, but shouldn't the fact that the idea was entirely contained in a fictional work be proof that someone thought of it before?

Re:Still Obvious

[by Anonymous Coward]

This -- along with other posters' comments, to be fair -- goes to a common misconception about patents.

They aren't patenting the idea of doing X. The idea of doing X doesn't have to be new or non-obvious. They're patenting a method of doing X, or a device that does X, etc.

Yes, science fiction and spy movies have depicted technologies well in advance of anything "real" that would let you do what your favorite action hero can do. But when they wrote the movie -- get this -- they faked it. They didn't have a method or a device to do it, they just made it look like someone was doing it.

So years later someone comes up with a method or device. Sure, it's obvious that someone would want to do X -- they've been drooling over it in the movies forever, man -- but the question is, was the method or device obvious?

Also note that if someone else comes up with a different method of doing X, that would fall outside the scope of the first patent. This goes to inventors' efforts to make their patent as broad as possible (while still keeping them valid), but the point is, the capability the invention makes possible isn't what's covered by the patent.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

I understand that, but the point is that (based on the descriptions), the patent is so broad as to cover *any* method of doing X, thus being effectively equal to patent on the idea of doing X.

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

No idea. Not that I feel sorry for Apple or anything, I just think that this so called patent is obvious.

Re:Still Obvious

[Dan Ost (415913)]

They reached a settlement with Vonage, if I remember correctly. That's not the same as getting a judgment in your favor that states the patent is valid.

Re:

[timbck2 (233967)]

IIRC, Vonage and AOL technically didn't "settle" the previous lawsuites; they paid Klausner licensing fees for use of the technology.

Re:

[Penguinisto (415985)]

Possibly because they (Apple + AT&T combined) have a better legal team than the last two victims/defendants? Also note that Comcast and eBay (for Skype) are included as defendants. There are at least three really big names in that pile...

Not real sure, but I'm thinking that just because two other companies folded (Vonage, who was already under a ton of legal strain and prolly wanted to get this out of the way quickly, and AOL, who was at that time undergoing serious problems of their own)... why shoul

AT&T prior art from 1995

[cbunix23 (1119459)]

IANAL, however, the AT&T Intuity Audix Message Manager is a desktop product that gives you random access to your voice mail messages. The Message Manager user guide dated January 1995 is on the Avaya site at:

http://support.avaya.com/edoc/docs/intaudix/iammusr1.pdf [avaya.com]

Go to page 25 "Listening to your messages" shows how to select any voice mail message displayed on your screen. This wasn't rocket science. I wasn't involved with that products development, but I don't recall any patents being issued for it. Even at the time it seemed like an obvious thing to do and should be to any practitioner in voice mail.

Re:

[DustyShadow (691635)]

I am not familiar with this technology but am familiar with patent law. A quick search through the claims does not mention DTMF. I am assuming you read the "DTMF" that is in the abstract of the patent and in the specification (the part that comes before the claims). The claims are what define the invention and the limitations from the spec are not allowed to be read into the meanings of the claims. The descriptions with "DTMF" are most likely descriptions of possible uses of the invention.

It is a common

Re:

[Gr8Apes (679165)]

I skimmed over both patents, and they both relate to touch tone dialing and landline operation. I'm not sure how to re-apply that to "wireless" phones that work on digital systems.... The claims themselves are so broad that you would not be able to retrieve any information about your call without stepping on either patent. That would seem to make telephone testing equipment that pre-dates both of these patents by decades enough prior art to invalidate large portions of the patents, so much so, that there's

Re:Still Obvious

[Brickwall (985910)]

re: prior art

I worked for a distributor of VMX voicemail systems in the early 90's (they were later acquired by Octel). They had a working "visual voicemail" application at the time. You could open up a window on your PC, see a list of all the messages in your voicemail box, including (if the Caller ID was available) the number, the time and date the message was left, message length, whether the caller had flagged it urgent, and for older messages, whether you had returned it (available only on networked systems). If you had opted for our fax-mail system, the system would also show all your incoming fax messages.

So when does this Klausner dude claim to have patented this? TFA didn't say.

Re:Still Obvious

[davidsyes (765062)]

I worked for a courier company into the early 90's and sometimes was an on-call driver/dispatcher after hours. I had this honkin Motorola cell and pager. When customers ordered an after-hours delivery, I'd go into the voice mail via the phone line in my computer. A graphical box displayed calls and messages. I could pick them. I'd completely forgotten about that and I think I was the one who told my company's president about the software. I can't remember how or where I'd found it, but it worked out for a while.

I hope that is prior art that can be found. I don't have the disks. I WANT to think it might have been part of Killer Windows Utilities for Win 3.x (the big thick book with the tiger on the cover...), but that I cannot remember is frustrating. I DO still have my KWU book somewhere...

Re:

[arminw (717974)]

......They had a working "visual voicemail" application at the time......

I had a visual voice mail on our SE/30 Mac in 1989. It was called DoveFax+ and it did faxes and voice mail. The callers were listed on the screen and could be randomly listened to. The system could also respond to various touch tones and give the caller specific recorded messages to these. It could also give specified recorded messages based on time, dates and days of the week. Callers could route calls to various voice mail boxes and

Re:Still Obvious

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Possibly because they thought that such a simple idea couldn't possibly be patented. It's not that much of a novel idea. It probably doesn't deserve a patent. If everybody had to research every measly little feature they developed to find out if it infringed on some patent, then no products would ever get released.

Re:Still Obvious

[devjj (956776)]

The greater problem is that the patent system has morphed from being a means to protect intellectual property into a system for fighting competition. "Ideas" should not be patentable, and software should break ground before it's patented, if you buy that software should be patentable at all. This isn't an issue of ATT and/or Apple reverse engineering a software system and then selling the reimplementation. This is a carrier-specific implementation that is similar only in concept. It simply boggles the mind that effectively moving from a linked list to an array can cost you $360M. Here's hoping Apple doesn't cave in yet again, and together with ATT wipes the floor with these trolls.

A long history of litigation

[SIGALRM (784769)]

A cursory search [google.com] for "Klausner Technologies" doesn't easily locate their corporate site, but is certainly a long laundry list of all their legal deeds.

Re:A long history of litigation

[Lindsay Lohan (847467)]

NO, No, no!!! They are a real company with a REAL WEBSITE [klausnertechnologies.com].

oh... sorry.

Re:

[tomzyk (158497)]

you bastard!
some of us can't change our browser settings or add plug-ins to stop all of those pop-ups on our computers at work!

er.. um... not that i'm surfing /. here at work... errrr... i mean THERE at work... i'm at home now... wait.. only 3:30pm... oh geez...

Re:

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

...but is certainly a long laundry list of all their legal deeds.

Not really. They sued AOL and ATT, prior to targeting Apple. Not exactly a "long list". But certainly, they are a "litigation company", not a "technology comapany".

Article text

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

Ad-free printer friendly version [itnews.com.au]. Article text:

Klausner Technologies Inc said on Monday the company had filed a US$360 million suit against Apple and AT&T over voicemail patents that Klausner claims the Apple iPhone infringes.

New York-based Klausner said the lawsuit also names Comcast, Cablevision Systems and eBay's Skype as infringing its patent for "visual voicemail." The plaintiff seeks an additional US$300 million from the three.

Klausner said in a statement that it filed the lawsuit in U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A copy of the filing was not yet available from the court.

The suit alleges asserts that the defendants' Internet-based voicemail products and services violate a Klausner patent. It seeks damages and future royalties estimated at $300 million, according to the press release.

The complaint involves U.S. patent 5,572,576, the same one at issue in a suit Klausner filed in 2006 against voice-over-Internet telephone service provider Vonage Holdings Corp. The two sides agreed to settle that earlier case in October 2007, according a spokesman for Klausner.

Vonage is now a licensee of Klausner's voicemail technology for its Vonage Voicemail Plus service, as is Time Warner Inc's AOL for its AOL Voicemail services, Klausner said.

A company spokeswoman said Apple's pioneering Newton personal digital assistant was covered under a licensing deal between Klausner and Japan's Sharp Corp, the manufacturer of the Newton, tied to Klausner's U.S. patent 4,117,542.

The suit naming Apple as a defendant targets the sleek visual voicemail application offered by Apple in its iPhone.

The company alleged in its statement that Cablevision's Optimum Voicemail, Comcast's Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay's Skype Voicemail violate Klausner's patent by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.

An Apple spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

EBay spokesman Hani Durzy said his company has not received the suit and would not comment until its lawyers have seen it.

"We haven't seen it," echoed a Cablevision spokesman, who declined to comment further.

The suit was filed for the plaintiff by the California law firm of Dovel & Luner in Texas. "We have litigated this patent successfully on two prior occasions," Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner, said in the statement issued by Klausner.

Big Money for a company with no website

[overbom (461949)]

You can read the patents in question here. It's an interesting suit -- I can't tell if Klausner has legitimate patents or not, but just because Vonage and AOL rolled over, it doesn't mean that Apple will [phonedifferent.com] (disclaimer: my blog link), especially not at those prices.

That high of damages makes me think they want Apple to settle. But that high of damages also makes me think Apple would rather invalidate their patents than settle.

Re:

[Dynedain (141758)]

but just because Vonage and AOL rolled over, it doesn't mean that Apple will

Except of course that Apple is one of the few entities to actually license Amazon's One-Click patent.

Visual Voicemail = Email with Audio Attachment?

[pwnies (1034518)]

This, like many patent lawsuits today, is entirely ridiculous. Visual voicemail is essentially identical to an email with an audio attachment and a fancy wrapper around it. If these types of cases keep happening, corporate America is going to eat itself whole. We're going to see more and more people who's business model is to patent trivial things and try to lynch anyone who approaches something similar to it.

Re:

[Osurak (1013927)]

Isn't that what's already happening?

A List

[nwf (25607)]

Yes, seeing a list of things in a list format is so amazingly original. Just add "voicemail" and, sure it's patentable! I've been using internet-based "visual" voice mail for like 10 years. Octel VM systems come with a web option and have done so for at least 8 years. This patent, filed in 1977, is just being enforced now? Seems a good case for being invalid just based on the fact that they ignored all infringers until now. I skimmed that patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4117542.html) and I'm at a loss to see how it applies. They talk of being able to speak letters a numbers. Specifically, under "Talking Phone Book" it can read your phone number from an address book as well as displaying it. (a) not rocket science, and (b) not what Apple's product even does. Looks more like a patent on an electronic address book.

Re:

[queequeg1 (180099)]

That's a link to the old patent (covered by the Newton license), not the patent that is the basis of the current claim. Too bad, since the old patent is long expired.

Because all innovation must be punished...

[KingSkippus (799657)]

I'm so tired of reading stories like this. The guy who is suing actually thinks he's not a patent troll. I read an article about this guy where he denies he's a patent troll. Here's an excerpt:

This sounds suspiciously like a patent troll treading down the litigation track. Yet, Klausner says: "I'd be as happy as a pig in mud if I never have to go to court again." That would be pretty tough to achieve in an increasingly litigious sector. Klausner puts some of the blame for this trend on the defendants. "The infringers are becoming more litigious. There are lots of theories as to why. On the whole everyone is becoming more litigious."

Riiiight, it's Apple's fault he has to sue them. He had an idea, and as far as I can tell, never saw, met, or discussed it with anyone at Apple. They happened to have a similar idea and acted on it, and now they have to pay. Dearly. Some more wisdom from him:

Klausner denies that his company is a patent troll, as he defines the term: "Just change the 'n' in inventor to 's'. These investors start up a fund and put patents in a portfolio. They see them as oil wells. I am an inventor. The value I bring to the universe is my ideas. I'm not a marketer or a manufacturer or a distributor. We are a company that invents and receives patents - my own - and licenses them."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see having an idea as meriting hundreds of millions of dollars. Acting on an idea, now that's worth something.

I have lots of ideas, too. I don't patent most of them, because I don't plan on acting on them, and I don't feel like I deserve hundreds of millions of dollars if someone else does. Even if there were something I feel like would make the world a better place, it's likely I wouldn't pursue it because I know I'd get sued into oblivion for just about anything I might do.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how patents spur innovation. Every time I read articles like this, patents are being used to hinder it.

Re:Because all innovation must be punished...

[merreborn (853723)]

Just change the 'n' in inventor to 's'

What the fuck is an "isvestor"?
We're supposed to believe this Klausner guy is a brilliant inventor, even though he's not aware there are two Ns in "inventor"?

Re:

[syrinx (106469)]

Just change the 'n' in inventor to 's'.

I just sat here for about 10 seconds thinking "isventor? what?"

Did not get enough sleep last night, apparently...

Re:

[KlomDark (6370)]

It's a bool that returns true if the person has their personal genome fully decoded:

isVentor() // http://www.jcvi.org/ [jcvi.org] // Spelled wrong, I know... Maybe this:

isVentor() // is relatively unknown geriatric Jedi http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Halagad_Ventor [wikia.com]

Hmm

[aarku (151823)]

Someone at Apple is going to throw an impeccably designed chair about this.

Star Wars?

[by Anonymous Coward]

What about the famous scene in episode 4 with R2D2 "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope..."

Does that count as prior art?

No Surprises Here

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Klausner has won on two previous occasions with this patent.

If they've won on this issue before, then this shouldn't come as any big surprise to anyone.

As for East Texas juries, their state should be ashamed of them, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The RIAA would probably file all their cases there, if they could.

hey, this should be fun

[m2943 (1140797)]

Given Apple's litigious history, it will be fun to see how this shakes out. Hand me the popcorn, please. No matter who loses, we all win.

Oops

[FireIron (838223)]

While I strongly feel that no one should be able to patent putting certain types of sequential data objects into a scrolling list widget (on the grounds that the invention is the widget, not the application of the widget to some kind of data), Apple has sort of hyped their way into a corner here, having touted this amazing feature of the iPhone as cool and innovative, they now cannot consistently claim that it is obvious and trivial.

I'm done.

[lorenlal (164133)]

The wheels of invention have officially come spinning off. Visual voicemail? Does this cover video voicemail? If not, who owns the patent to that... And when do those lawsuits come?

If you own a patent, and have no desire to do anything with it, you're not helping innovation, nor are you protecting anything. You slow progress, and you hurt the people who actually do want to change the world. I'm starting to believe in the idea that the US has about 90 years left. At this rate, we won't be able to devel

!Patent Troll

[physicsboy500 (645835)]

I don't want to say that his invention has enough merit to gain or loose a patent, but it seems many people are crying "patent troll" without knowing the specifics of the case.

this [google.com] is the patent in question which specifically is an improvement of current voicemail systems which provides visual information. To add to that it was issued over a decade ago and was filed for in 1994. Priority may go back further. The claims specifically show the intended improvement of the voicemail system, and right off the top of my head I don't recall anything that complex regarding voicemail in 1994. Now it's pretty common because we have more than Pentium 133Mhz computers at the bleeding edge to power equipment, but back then something like this (while it maybe somebody did dream it up) was unheard of. I don't like that he did (as far as I can tell) nothing to advance the technology, but I don't think this patent is without some merit.

The nuclear rocket patent!

[argent (18001)]

Feynman's autobiography, where he describes how he became the primary patent holder for the nuclear rocket:

We discussed it back and forth - by this time we're in his office - and I
say, "There are so many ideas about nuclear energy that are so perfectly
obvious, that I'd be here all day telling you stuff."

"LIKE WHAT?"

"Nothin' to it!" I say. "Example: nuclear reactor... under
water... water goes in... steam goes out the other side... Pshshshsht --
it's a submarine. Or: nuclear reactor... air comes rushing in the front...
heated up by nuclear reaction... out the back it goes... Boom! Through the
air -- it's an airplane. Or: nuclear reactor... you have hydrogen go through
the thing... Zoom! -- it's a rocket. Or: nuclear reactor... only instead
of using ordinary uranium, you use enriched uranium, with beryllium oxide
at high temperature to make it more efficient... It's an electrical power
plant. There's a million ideas!" I said, as I went out the door. Nothing
happened.

About three months later, Smith calls me in the office and says, "Feynman,
the submarine has already been taken. But the other three are yours."

Callwave

[mcwop (31034)]

Callwave [callwave.com] offers a similar product (free to most anyone with any phone, computer, email - nice service), which I used before my iPhone. They are covered by patents:

• * Method and Apparatus for Providing Expanded Telecommunication Service, US Patent 6,477,246:
• * Methods and Apparatus for Returning a Call over a Telephony System, US Patent 6,738,461
• * Methods and Systems for Telephony Call Completion, US Patent 6,879,677
• * Method and Apparatus for Providing Expanded Telecommunication Service, U

Re:

[pavera (320634)]

A defensive patent would do nothing in this case.

This guy cannot possibly infringe on a patent because he doesn't actually produce anything. So Apple, MS, IBM can have millions of patents and they wouldn't be able to use them defensively here.

Re:

[fleck_99_99 (223900)]

Whenever anyone ever comes up with a fantastic, patentable idea, they should check if someone else patented it first. That's just common sense!

Don't confuse common sense with legal reality. It is typically discouraged for inventors to do their own prior art searches, because that could expose the company to be sued later for willful patent infringement with accompanying higher damages.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. However, I am a patent holder, so I've been down this roa

Re:

[AndersOSU (873247)]

Whoa there, were do you work?

While inventors may be discouraged from doing their own prior art searches, that is only because in the next breath they are being encouraged to pay someone to do it for them. There actually is a valid reason for this, as the inventor likely knows so much about his invention that there is a fair chance that he either interprets everything remotely similar to be infringing, or he sees his device as being so specialized that nothing, in his mind, is similar.

Companies like apple,

Who says they didn't?

[tompaulco (629533)]

Perhaps their legal team thoroughly researched all the voicemail patents out there, and decided to give Apple/AT&T the thumbs up as their technology was sufficiently differentiated from the patented technology, and the differences would be bloody obvious in any court in the U.S. except for perhaps in East Texas.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

But there's so much crap in the patent system, that it's not feasible to go through searching for patents on every feature you come up with.

Re:

[coolGuyZak (844482)]

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

voice mail || (also voicemail)
noun
a centralized electronic system that can store messages from telephone callers.

visual |vi zh ol|
adjective
of or relating to seeing or sight : visual perception.
noun (usu. visuals)
a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.

So, while you cannot see voice, you can see your voicemail. Particularly, you can interact with it visually rather than audibly. I understand that it's fashionable to poke fun at

Whosoever Uses the Sword...

[MOBE2001 (263700)]

LOL PATENTS RULE LOL

Yeah. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. IP laws are like swords that modern tech companies (Apple included) use to beat the rest of us into submission while they corner a market and reap mostly undeserved and exhorbitant profits. MSDOS was not worth billions of dollars, sorry. Whosoever uses the sword shall perish by the sword. In the end, IP laws will lead to violent wars, if they haven't already.

Re:

[JimDaGeek (983925)]

I agree with you bud. The sad thing is that these patent trolls and their scum-bag lawyers know where to file suit to get the best judgment. It would be great if companies could ask for the trial to be held in a different court.

With that said, I don't feel bad for any of the companies involved. They have all abused the patent system and tried to sue over trivial "IP". I guess Karma is showing how things are done?