Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses Cellphones Government The Courts Apple News

$360M Patent Suit Over iPhone Voicemail 190

Posted by kdawson from the reading-from-a-list dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$360M Patent Suit Over iPhone Voicemail More

$360M Patent Suit Over iPhone Voicemail

Comments Filter:

  • Still Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @02:56PM (#21576267) Homepage
    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: (Score:2)

      by 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.
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:22PM (#21576705)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 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.
    • Obvious and the patent holder should be shot at dawn.

      And let's not forget every modern office phone with the blinking voice mail light. Or the answering machine that flashes when a message is available. So much for expanding our scientific knowledge. Visual Voicemail my ass.

  • A long history of litigation (Score:5, Informative)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @02:56PM (#21576273) Journal
    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.

  • Article text (Score:4, Informative)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @02:57PM (#21576287)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arminw ( 717974 )
      ....The complaint involves U.S. patent 5,572,576.......

      I looked up that patent and the claims they make. It sounds pretty much like a device I first used, attached to my SE/30 Mac in 1989. I still have this gadget and the Color Classic Mac I last used it with. The little box and its included software, enabled the Mac to receive voice, send/receive faxes and data and recorded these on the HD. Callers could be identified by name and calls could be listened to randomly from the on screen list. The little gadg

  • Big Money for a company with no website (Score:3, Insightful)

    by overbom ( 461949 ) <overbom@yCOLAahoo.com minus caffeine> on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @02:58PM (#21576315)
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pwnies ( 1034518 ) * <j@jjcm.org> on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:00PM (#21576337) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Osurak ( 1013927 )
      Isn't that what's already happening?
    • In that case, the greedy bastards behind Asterisk are infringing this poor inventor's patient as well! I get emails with voicemail attachments all the time!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111

      </sarcasm>The above is sarcasm for politically correct moderators with no sense of homour

  • A List (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nwf ( 25607 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:04PM (#21576401)
    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.
    • 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.
    • If you read Slashdot a few months ago, you would find glowing reviews of the iPhone and its amazing and innovative visual voicemail features. Nowhere during the keynote did Steve Jobs say "it's just like email with wav files attached, very obvious." You can't have it both ways.

  • Because all innovation must be punished... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:05PM (#21576425) Homepage Journal

    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... (Score:5, Funny)

      by merreborn ( 853723 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:22PM (#21576701) Journal

      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: (Score:2)

        by SendBot ( 29932 )
        Seriously! And how does one own an idea? If your phone rings and you are distracted by that enough to suddenly forget something you just thought of, did that person "steal" your idea? (defining theft as depriving someone of property)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by neoform ( 551705 )
      I'd like to see some of this guy's designed/products that have been infringed upon.. unless of course they're all still in his head.
    • We are a company that invents and receives patents - my own - and licenses them.

      He invents patents, he doesn't patent inventions. Pure patent troll.

      • He invents patents, he doesn't patent inventions. Pure patent troll.

        I think he means, "We are a company that invents and [a company that] receives patents..."

        I do agree that he's a pure patent troll, though. He sits around and patents ideas without doing anything to develop them. Then, he waits for someone else to come up with the same idea. He watches as they develop it, market it, sell it, and become successful with it. After he sees that such an idea is a success, he pounces and extorts money fro

  • Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by aarku ( 151823 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:15PM (#21576591) Journal
    Someone at Apple is going to throw an impeccably designed chair about this.

    • Someone at Apple is going to throw an impeccably designed chair about this.
      That statement should have read,

      Someone at Apple is going to throw an impeccably designed chair in California, made in China, about this.

  • Star Wars? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:19PM (#21576637)
    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?
    • Only if someone can find the cutting room floor footage of Obi-Wan selecting from a number of messages for him (maybe from Anakin) to play the one from the Princess.

      I can see why it would be cut, it would give away the whole storey in the first half hour.

  • 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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by m2943 ( 1140797 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:22PM (#21576707)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FireIron ( 838223 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:36PM (#21576897)
    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. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tekrat ( 242117 )
      I'm starting to believe in the idea that the US has about 90 years left.

      You're an optimist.

      Between the RIAA suing the masses, Bush and Co. about to nuke the whole world, and Corporate America clamping down on what you can do with the stuff you are forced to buy (yes, they'll sue you if you don't make them a profit), China killing us with cheap garbage, all jobs outsourced to India, and what we have that can laughably be called an "economy" (saddled with enourmous debt), I'm giving "America" exactly un

  • !Patent Troll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by physicsboy500 ( 645835 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:45PM (#21577049)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      Just because something like this didn't exist back then doesn't mean the idea isn't obvious.

      In fact, the patent doesn't actually list any claims regarding how do what the other claims describe. So essentially he patented only the obvious parts of visual voicemail.

      We really need to return to the days where a working prototype was required to receive a patent.

      • In fact, the patent doesn't actually list any claims regarding how do what the other claims describe. So essentially he patented only the obvious parts of visual voicemail.

        I just have to chime in here because the claims only have to describe the invention itself unless it is an improvement that needs a specific implementation. The specification is needed to describe the how of the patent claims.

        Additionally, in order for it to be obvious in a court of law, there must be prior art which does something very similar and is generally more of a combination of art than a random step included by an examiner unless it's a very small step. (larger steps are generally seen as hindsi

    • The nuclear rocket patent! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['ong' in gap]> on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @04:33PM (#21577819) Homepage Journal
      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."
      • The real funny part is what Feynman did to Clark for that invention. Smith gave Feynaman some routine paperwork to sign the patents over to the government for 1$. He signed it over and demanded that one buck. Since no one actually wanted that dollar, Smith had no idea of how to start the paperwork to pay Feynman his 3 dollars. So he gave it from his pocket. Feynman went to a bakery and bought dozens of donuts and bagels and distributed it saying it is from that dollar for his invention. Many of the people i
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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 [legal] merit.

      Which makes this case a very good argument for dismantling the patent system as we know it. This guy has no product, and no intention of producing one; we don't need people like him in the world, and certainly don't need to encourage them.

      PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
      Lose has one 'o'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pluther ( 647209 )
      1994?

      My NeXT, which I purchased in 1990, had a software program that would act as an "answering machine" - complete with a menu listing call, sorted by date/time, and who it was for. (The caller could hit a number on their phone's keypad to direct it).

      If I had subscribed to caller ID, I believe it would have listed that, too.

      I dunno what happened to all the NeXT patents when they went out of business, or if this app was even patented (I don't think it was part of the OS - probably a third-party tool I downl
    • it's been 15 years and they still have no product, only a string of lawsuits. I dont care if it's a valid patent or not, it's being used to do little more than stifle innovation and that's wrong.
  • 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
  • For those not familiar with the area (Eastern District of Texas), what is up?

    Does the Eastern district just give away money to any patent troll?

    Can Apple, AT&T, etc ask to have the case heard some where else?
  • ...essentially cover allowing users to selectively retrieve voice mail messages using an inbox-type display.

    How is NeXTSTEP's mail app (with integrated voice support) not prior art?

    AOL and Vonage may not have been able to turn up prior art, but Apple owns NeXTSTEP. It would seem reasonable for them to fight it, considering the damages claimed. If the suit weren't filed in patent troll central, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

  • The patent describes an Ericsson PPX/pager/phone system I was using in early, mid 80's perfectly except it didn't use names to display the caller but the telephone numbers.
    Once you contacted(phoned) the PPX you got the names of the caller(s) in voice (if programmed in PPX) and a list of messages by caller in any order you selected. You could listen, skip, delete and archive those messages for later use. You could also tell the PPX to call back the caller or reroute the calls to another phone(user) or start

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Close