Apple settles visual voicemail lawsuit, licenses Klausner's patents

Klausner Technologies' litigious ways have already proven successful with Vonage, and it now looks like the company has got what it wanted out of Apple as well, which it had sued (along with AT&T) back in December over the iPhone's Visual Voicemail feature. As Reuters reports, both Apple and AT&T have agreed to license Klausner's patents relating to Visual Voicemail, and settle the lawsuit that was brought against them, although any other details are expectedly light at the moment. It seems that Klausner isn't quite content to sit on its patents just yet, however, with Reuters also reporting that the company is "in discussions" with both Comcast and Cablevision about them using the very same technology.

[Via CNET News.com]

[Kris S. @ Jun 17th 2008 2:57PM]

Logging in on FireFox 3 for the first time! W00T!

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Jun 17th 2008 3:06PM]

Been using the beta version for months now. It's only just a browser.. isn't it? lol.

[mymaclife @ Jun 18th 2008 2:55PM]

If it's only a browser then why did you rush to download the beta?

[Ellianth @ Jun 17th 2008 7:41PM]

I think what he meant was it's only a browser in the sense that he's free to download and use it but he doesn't feel the need to tell the world about it on unrelated posts. Get it now? :P

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Jun 17th 2008 6:50PM]

Oh, trying to spin this around are we? lol. I'll just say that Firefox is a great browser and leave it at that.

[iJuleguy @ Jun 17th 2008 2:58PM]

Mmkay, what about the Instinct again...?

[PoisonEye @ Jun 17th 2008 3:54PM]

They licensed the patents with Klausner

[Fusion Fuzo @ Jun 17th 2008 3:03PM]

Apple rocks.

Appole eats RIM for breakfast.

[kjb434 @ Jun 17th 2008 3:18PM]

You do know that this story means that Apple and/or ATT took the visual voicemail concept from someone's patent?

At lease Microsoft would have bought them to make it their own.

[phanbouy @ Jun 17th 2008 3:58PM]

lowest rank still exists apparently. funny how Fusion isn't quite there just yet.

[Major4Play @ Jun 17th 2008 7:59PM]

Is phanbouy Engadget's own Dr Phil ?
Who are you really eh ? People who argue with you get banned !

[phanbouy @ Jun 17th 2008 9:14PM]

dude... i get ragged on for raggin' on the 8 year old apple fanboy? what a strange, strange e-world.

[Jarhead2012 @ Jun 18th 2008 11:15AM]

@Phanbuoy

That's not the reason. You're getting ragged on cuz nobody likes you.

That said, I've never heard of the company, but good for them. Apple's so-called innovations are, more often than not, ideas stolen from obscure companies.

[Fez @ Jun 17th 2008 3:07PM]

Does anyone seem to notice that the PC Newswire add on the top goes to Apple.com?

Nice try Apple-Gadget.

[natels @ Jun 17th 2008 3:16PM]

Sorry but Engadget isn't out to get you.

[John @ Jun 17th 2008 3:38PM]

that's because it's part of the 2-banner Apple ad, retard.

[fanman @ Jun 17th 2008 3:43PM]

Apple are really pissing me off with their cheap and unfounded slander.

[phanbouy @ Jun 17th 2008 3:59PM]

And meat products are pissing me off with their hormones and preservatives.

How is your comment relevant to even this misplaced comment, fanman? Or is your bitching on autopilot?

[Minilap @ Jun 17th 2008 6:14PM]

Clak do you get paid to post on engadget?

[Jarhead2012 @ Jun 18th 2008 11:17AM]

@ Phanbuoy

Sorry, still nobody likes you, but everybody dislikes clak fiercely. So, + 1 for you...this time.

[iJuleguy @ Jun 17th 2008 3:10PM]

It's a joke. Read the scrolling text, you'll get it.

[Bushka @ Jun 17th 2008 3:11PM]

one day your passing thoughts will be patented and they guy at the bus stop will SEE YOU IN COURT!

[mark @ Jun 17th 2008 3:36PM]

Have they gone after Grand Central/Google yet?

[gerbick @ Jun 17th 2008 3:43PM]

Who and why?

[some dude @ Jun 17th 2008 3:42PM]

"Patent holding companies" shouldn't be allowed to exist. What a frickin' leech on the market...PURE EVIL. (How does it make sense that can you retain a patent if you don't produce something that implements it?)

[Mikey @ Jun 17th 2008 3:53PM]

@ some dude

It makes sense because then anyone can invent something, not just a company in that business. Therefore, literally billions more people have an incentive to improve technology in a particular area, not just the handful of companies that actually sell something in that space.

If your idea to bar all patent holding companies or individuals from owning patents just because they don't practice it, the pace of technology would slow way down.

[Patents Hertz @ Jun 17th 2008 5:04PM]

@Mikey:

"If your idea to bar all patent holding companies or individuals from owning patents just because they don't practice it, the pace of technology would slow way down."

The visual voicemail patent has caused the pace of technology to slow down. Why would I want to implement anything _remotely_ similar to visual voicemail?

At least patents have to be very specific. The more general they are, the more ideas they stifle.

[Ellianth @ Jun 17th 2008 6:42PM]

They should exist because how how apple was behaving when they first announced the iPhone. What was it Steve jobs said, we have over 500 patents and we plan to be a huge bitch with them?

[Mikey @ Jun 17th 2008 7:41PM]

@ Patent Hertz

Your response has nothing to do with my post (not even remotely). I wasn't talking about Visual Voicemail (although your premise that the existence of visual voicemail slowed down the pace of technology development makes no sense). I was talking about patents in general.

[Steffen Jobbs @ Jun 17th 2008 3:50PM]

Bless you, Apple. iPhone is all set for world domination in a few weeks.

[Jash Sayani @ Jun 17th 2008 4:11PM]

Yeah! Just a few weeks....

[MK @ Jun 17th 2008 11:26PM]

I have seen your avatar here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwlphotography/2317637750/

Are you the photographer? or you are stealing someone else's photo?

[redspear @ Jun 17th 2008 3:55PM]

This actually could be pretty good for us consumers. I really don't know much about this trial so I admit ths is premature but if the questioned patents were key to getting visual voicemail to work it maybe possible to see this feature appear on other services AND phones.

Before anyone starts saying well apple and AT&T did all the hard work without fully reading the decision(if you have please post about it) I remind you that a lot of the big companies and especially apple and MS have a history of this type of thing(The biggest one that comes to mind is MSJET[a database spreadsheet linking program]) and it is not fully out of the realm of possibility that they took from the little guy pitching their ideas to other companies and having them rejected. Of course if this is a Marshall TX lawsuit it immediately casts doubt on the validity of the claim(though once again any smart lawyer would in fact prosecute their if they could even if they are right since the object is to win their lawsuit).

this is just a preliminary posts I will be researching this case to see what the findings were and whatever else I can look up. I hope this does mean that the visual voicemail feature could appear on Sprint and Verizon and Tmobile though it is the only feature the Iphone has that makes me want the thing in the first place.

[generally @ Jun 17th 2008 4:10PM]

Although I agree that large companies such as Apple and MS do steal ideas quite frequently, this patent just doesn't hold up.

In a day-in-age when we have networked music services which show you, visually, all the songs available for listening to, then direct streaming of the song once you select it, simple patents like this should be outlawed.

[redspear @ Jun 17th 2008 4:25PM]

@Generally

I am still trying to read through the patents. So I am still reserving my final opinion until I do. that said if it does fall under your scenario than I would have to say that any patents held by Apple and AT&T on this matter would also be invalid. It isn't a matter of a patent being simple the first patent issued in the US is how to create pearl and pot ash it is more of a matter if the patent is common knowledge to people in the field at the timeit is filed which it can take many years for a patent to be approved. This very well could be or it may not be the idea may be prominent but the process by which it is carried out may have been out of grasp until such a patent came about. Though I do respect your opion and overall general point.

[generally @ Jun 17th 2008 5:42PM]

Either way, a new patent system is definitely needed. It's one of those gray areas in law. I think that patents are meant to protect the little guy, but big companies often abuse the power granted by patents, when they really don't need the protection that they offer.

[p3t3b2 @ Jun 17th 2008 6:11PM]

Sprint received a license for Visual Voicemail from Klausner Technologies as well for the Samsung Instinct. Future Sprint devices will also have the same Visual Voicemail.

[Reid @ Jun 17th 2008 9:35PM]

I'm too lazy to RTFA, but IIRC from back when this suit came out, the grounds for the suit actually seemed pretty legit, didn't seem like a patent troll to me.

[putte @ Jun 17th 2008 4:04PM]

Amusingly, Apple wouldn't need Visual Voicemail if they supported MMS like everyone else. My provider has an option to deliver every voicemail message as a regular MMS message, so they show up just like all other messages right in your inbox. Boom.

[LaMu @ Jun 17th 2008 4:20PM]

Amazingly, that interface would suck, and Klausner would still probably have a (weak) case against that method.

Boom.

[Drew Scott @ Jun 17th 2008 4:22PM]

No thanks.

[thak @ Jun 17th 2008 4:23PM]

visual voice mail goes a step further...you get to pick and choose what msgs you want to listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_voicemail

[pip @ Jun 17th 2008 4:54PM]

Isn't this just an "obvious" evolution of voice mail, though? I mean, it just seems like the next step to calling a number for voice mail and listening to a menu of options, that it just displays it on todays phones?

I thought you couldn't patent obvious things.

Guess not?

[Mile @ Jun 17th 2008 9:11PM]

One Click! One click!

[Mikey @ Jun 18th 2008 4:16PM]

Maybe its obvious *now*, but what matters is whether it was obvious when Klausner invented it. Everything looks obvious years later once the product or process in question is successful. Since this was probably invented before wireless technology was advanced enough that this type of visual interface was obvious.

I guarantee Apple's lawyer's wouldn't have settled so quietly if they hadn't already looked at all the prior art out there and determined that they couldn't invalidate the patent.

[Major4Play @ Jun 17th 2008 7:55PM]

Wow another revolutionary "feature" Apple didn't actually design !
Bit like dashboard (cough*cough* Konfabulator)
Touch screen UI (cough*cough* Perceptive Pixel)
Keyboard, Mouse, PC UI (cough*cough* Xerox)
HDD based Mp3 players (cough*cough* Thompson)

[Christy McGrory @ Jun 17th 2008 8:11PM]

cough coug.... go to hell

[01 @ Jun 18th 2008 3:46PM]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple doesn't invent a good amount of their products (you left out CoverFlow and Touchscreen phones) but unlike others, Apple makes the IMPLIMENTATION and USE of these ideas/technologies much easier and more user-firendly than 99% of other companies out there.

[kevin @ Jun 18th 2008 6:48PM]

Yeah I am not an Apple fan either.

But based on the list you made, you have to be impressed with Apple's marketing. All of those companies you listed failed to get customers using the same technology. (I guess not Konfabulator, but still).