Apple, AT&T hit with lawsuit over iPhone's Visual Voicemail feature
By Donald Melanson 
posted December 3rd 2007 3:47PM
posted December 3rd 2007 3:47PM
Apple's already drawn a bit of unintended attention for the iPhone's Visual Voicemail feature, and it now looks like its facing a bit more heat on the matter, with Klausner Technologies now suing both it and AT&T for alleged patent infringement. Specifically, Klasuner is claiming that the Apple and AT&T violated two of its patents by "allowing users to selectively retrieve voice messages via the iPhone's inbox display" and, according to Apple Insider, its seeking damages and future royalties estimated at some $360 million. But that's not all, Klausner also apparently filed similar claims today against Comcast, Cablevision, and eBay (Skype, specifically), with damages and future royalties in those cases clocking in to the tune of $300 million. What's more, all this apparently follows two other lawsuits over the very same patents, which Klausner's attorney says they've litigated successfully. As is often the case, however, it's now up to the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas to sort things out.[Thanks, Mark]
Then might as well add a bunch of PBX manufacturers to the list. At work we have this voicemail feature where we can just access the list voice messages and play them through our computers' client.
I'm so sick of these patent trolls. They're defeating the purpose of patenting.
I am not sure whether you can file a law suit in a court which doesn’t have jurisdiction over either the plaintiff and / or the defendant. Most likely this company was smart enough to incorporate itself in some small town of Texas.
If it is true that Eastern Texas District is very liberal about such cases, then it is really bad for the state because more and more legit business will think twice before setting up businesses there.
Also, these patent squatters know that big corporations would prefer to settle rather been drawn to long legal battle. I mean, why would a corporation spend 20 to 30 million dollars on lawyers and legal fees if it could just “settle” for 10 to 15 million dollars? It is high time that these corporations made an example of these idiots.
I am not saying that ALL patent disputes are frivolous, but most of them are.
Lastly, the root problem of this are the patent laws which allow an idea to be patented rather than a innovation using this idea. The guy who invented periscope was not granted a patent because a “similar” device was mentioned in Jules Verne’s novel. I mean tomorrow, someone can just patent the idea of “Method of discharging waste fluids in upright position” and then sue anyone who dares to take piss standing.
"If it is true that Eastern Texas District is very liberal about such cases, then it is really bad for the state because more and more legit business will think twice before setting up businesses there."
It also brings in a ton of revenue in court fees.
"Lastly, the root problem of this are the patent laws which allow an idea to be patented rather than a innovation using this idea. The guy who invented periscope was not granted a patent because a “similar” device was mentioned in Jules Verne’s novel."
even today that would invalidate any patent as long as whatever the prior art described the actual process and not the end result. Also obvious patents are not patentable.
"I mean tomorrow, someone can just patent the idea of “Method of discharging waste fluids in upright position” and then sue anyone who dares to take piss standing."
I know this is sarcasm but biological process are not patentable. Case in point Hormones are patatenable only by the process in which they are made in the lab. Natural body process are not patentable. Even thouh a patent is held for Bovine Growth Hormone you could still produce it if you found another way to process it.
On a side note all patents are prosecuted during the application process. It can be a lengthy time from application of a patent to the patent actually getting filed. It should also be noted that in most cases the actual product in question has to be inspected for the process not the end result. design can play a large factor if it is key to the process like say Ink Jet cartridges.
A common strategy is for the plaintiff to set up a shell company with a mailing office in the Eastern District thereby establishing personal jurisdiction (the harm is caused to an in-state "entity").
Though most people don't know it, there is a lot of legislation being considered (and very close to passing if not already done) to reform the patent system. One provision is specifically aimed preventing venue shopping specifically because the E.D. Tx is well-known to be a plaintiff friendly venue. Homework assignment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2007
All that said, your comment is way off on the numbers. A typical patent litigation costs a side around $5 million in attorneys fees/costs from start to finish, not $20 or $30 million. The reason suits settle is because of the potential payout down the road and that is usually based on a "reasonable royalty" computed based on the number of infringing devices sold and a number of other factors (lookup Georgia-Pacific factors).
-p-
"It also brings in a ton of revenue in court fees."
It is a federal court. So doesn't ALL the court fees go to the Federal Govt. than the State of Texas?
Wow, does anyone else think it is funny how apple fans always complain about how Apple is always ahead of everyone else and how everyone else steals Apple's technologies to keep up, but yet Apple is CONSTANTLY being sued for patent infringment?
This is Apple at it's best. Innovation? Stealing other company's technology is right up their alley.
How on earth do you patent the concept of a list on a screen?
Stealing a million dollars isn't easy. And if Klasuner sneaked into Apple's lobby and stole some chairs and potted plants, that would only net him a couple hundred dollars or something.
So what's a thief to do? Litigate!
Pfffft. Burn in hell, Klasuner.
So how is the patent owner the thief? Typically, the patent owner is the one *suing* the thief for damages.
If you people had your way, there wouldn't be a court system and we'd be back to a "state of nature" Hobbesian world where you take what you want so long as you can get your hands on it.
I think it's very amusing seeing the flecks of foam flying from the rabid fanboys' lips as they snarl in defense of Apple and denegrate the patents trolls.
Apple filed against Microsoft for infringements on their copyrighted visual elements and lost (in fact, Apple later gave unlimited access for Microsoft to adopt the "interface" in exchange for Excel and Word). The Apple interface and GUI concept was largely evolutionary, and pioneering work in GUI and mouse control existed long before Steve or Woz. Apple was neither original nor revolutionary. They did not invent the GUI, or the mouse. They tried to claim someone stole something they had already "borrowed" yet claimed they invented.
Now Apple is freely "adopting" other people's work (for interfaces, commercials, ad campaigns, names, software, intellectual property, etc) and is getting called out on it. Is Klausner's claim real and relavent? Time will tell, but Apple has an extremely long and negative track record for patent and copyright violation, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
Apple vs. Creative (turned down by creative, stole tech anyway, lost suit)
Apple vs. Burst (never bought licenses for tech, lost suit)
Apple vs. SP Technologies (iPhone keyboard, pending, Apple likely to settle)
There are many, many more, some turned down, some sttled, some pending. While it is true that many claims are just vultures and jackals sniffing aroud for scraps and making trouble, the large number of losses and settlements indicates a trend for Apple's business ethics and behavior.
Apple is a large corporate entity, just like any other, whose singular goal is to MAKE MONEY. They lie, cheat and steal and are just as culpable as any other company or entity who profits on the work of others without paying for it. They are not mystical, hippie do-gooders with people's happiness in mind. They have some neat products, and a certain design philosophy, but their corporate structure, ever increasing outsourcing and lack of significant R&D are causing them much trouble.
By the way, to those who question the concept of patenting an informational menu system for data retrieval... in 2005 Apple submitted for a patent for their iPod user interface data retrieval system. Unfortunately they were denied. Someone else had done it 3 years before them (John Platt, 2002).
They went ahead and used their system anyway (which technically means that their system violated Platt's patent, which they never licensed).
Patents do cover methods and means for heirarchial data retrieval and nested tree menu systems within specific systems and specific devices/platforms. The visual voicemail is no different, as it uses multiple pieces of data to provide a heirarchial display of voicemails that are visually represented according to data sorting. Because it uses visual representation of a specific data type (voicemail) on a specific platform (cell phone) it is directly in contest to Klasuner's patent. Just like Apple's patents of similar data in the past.
Seems they need to work on developing a system for retrieving info on patent and copyright law.
Ok, I didn't read all the comments so i don't know if someone has already mentioned this but, i find it damn annoying that companies or people for that fact patent a certain idea or trademark some phrase or whatever and then DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT and then when some other company actually puts that idea into production and decides to let the general public benefit from it (such as visual voicemail) all these companies/people do is wait for them to make a great profit and sue. Of course this company did not sue when they first found out about Apple making a visual voicemail, in fact, they were probably ecstatic. They did not sue at first because it costs a lot of money to sue, and if the idea hasn't been placed in production, there's not a lot of damages they can get out of it. Therefore they wait a while till they can get big bucks, sue and make a ton of money. I just hate that it's like this because patents shouldn't be determined by when you thought about the idea, but when you put the idea into practice.
So yeah.. this story really isn't about Apple "stealing" somebody else's idea. Hell, nothing is original nowadays, its just who does it first that should matter.
thats my thought...
What a d-bag you are. If you can't be bothered to read what everyone else writes, then don't write yourself.
This was brought up and discussed already. Read next time.
Apple actually WON their patent suit against Microsoft and settled for some cash and foolishly allowed M$ to use the stuff if M$ would do some stuff with M$ Word or something.
This Klausner dude doesnt actually MAKE anything, he's just a greedy, property developer in New York that decided a long time ago to pitch a pile of really OBVIOUS things as patents and see how many fish he could shoot in that barrel. What a jerk. he probably thinks its cool to make money in this oafish slimy, parasitic way.
'Klausner technologies' - just a nasty patent troll - there oughta be a law against it.
The whole M$ thing was kind of funny 10 years ago, but its time has long since passed. You lose.
Is Klausner Technologies a long lost relative of SCO?
It look like they had sued AOL for same patent in 2005 then AOL had been settled to pay for licenses.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_June_15/ai_n13815137
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_April_24/ai_n16132324