Apple, AT&T sued over iPhone's Visual Voicemail feature
Apple and AT&T on Monday were hit with a hefty patent infringement lawsuit from Klausner Technologies, which charges the pair with treading on patented technology by offering Visual Voicemail service to iPhone customers.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, asserts that sales of that iPhone, Visual Voicemail and other visual voice messaging services implemented by AT&T infringe Klausner?s U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818.
Klausner is seeking damages and future royalties estimated at $360 million.
Owned by a group of private investors, the firm has successfully defended and then licensed the same patents to other industry heavyweights that provide visual voicemail services, including Time Warner?s AOL for its AOL Voicemail services and Vonage Holdings for its Vonage Voicemail Plus services.
In the latest suit, Klausner specifically alleges that the iPhone violates its intellectual property rights by allowing users to selectively retrieve voice messages via the iPhone?s inbox display.
"We have litigated this patent successfully on two prior occasions," said Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner, counsel for Klausner. "With the signing of each new licensee, we continue to receive further confirmation of the strength of our visual voicemail patents."
Separately on Monday, Klausner also filed similar claims against Comcast Corporation, Cablevision Systems Corp. and eBay Inc.?s Skype with damages and future royalties estimated at $300 million.
In that case, Klausner?s alleges that Cablevision?s Optimum Voicemail, Comcast?s Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay?s Skype Voicemail each violate intellectual property rights by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, asserts that sales of that iPhone, Visual Voicemail and other visual voice messaging services implemented by AT&T infringe Klausner?s U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818.
Klausner is seeking damages and future royalties estimated at $360 million.
Owned by a group of private investors, the firm has successfully defended and then licensed the same patents to other industry heavyweights that provide visual voicemail services, including Time Warner?s AOL for its AOL Voicemail services and Vonage Holdings for its Vonage Voicemail Plus services.
In the latest suit, Klausner specifically alleges that the iPhone violates its intellectual property rights by allowing users to selectively retrieve voice messages via the iPhone?s inbox display.
"We have litigated this patent successfully on two prior occasions," said Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner, counsel for Klausner. "With the signing of each new licensee, we continue to receive further confirmation of the strength of our visual voicemail patents."
Separately on Monday, Klausner also filed similar claims against Comcast Corporation, Cablevision Systems Corp. and eBay Inc.?s Skype with damages and future royalties estimated at $300 million.
In that case, Klausner?s alleges that Cablevision?s Optimum Voicemail, Comcast?s Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay?s Skype Voicemail each violate intellectual property rights by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.
Comments
I'm curious about AT&T's non-iPhone visual voicemail services. I hadn't heard of them. If they already existed before the iPhone then that certainly would have given Apple reason to want to work with AT&T.
I believe the other "Visual Voicemail" might be non-related to cell phones, for example AT&T's VOIP phone systems (much as these guys are also suing cable companies over VOIP "visual voicemail").
All these stupid things I think up that I don't know how to make I'm just going to patent. Sooner or later someone will create it and I'll be rich.
For shame.
To many greedy people in the world.
I don't know how our spineless patent-office could approve such basic common-sense patents.
anyway I don't think visual voice mail should be a patentable commodity. it seems like more of an evolutionary feature. like cable channel guides, email and umm... voice mail.
So basically you're implying that while Klausner Technologies invented the technology and spent thousands of dollars patenting it, they should just let AT&T have it?
Klausner did not invent anything, they were lucky enough to be awarded such a simplistic common-sense idea. it's like patenting hand soap, "a liquid to clean your hands"
Klausner did not invent anything, they were lucky enough to be awarded such a simplistic common-sense idea. it's like patenting hand soap, "a liquid to clean your hands"
How can that be patented at all? I know at least 3 different analogue and ISDN modems from 3 different companies from 1994/1995 that came with "visual voicemail" software - it is a simple list of caller IDs and voice recordings... just putting same on a server and the interface on a mobile cannot make that a new invention. This whole patent thing is getting more and more ridiculous.
This patent was filed in 1992.
If you read the patent, it's like patenting the idea of writing: marks on paper that represent words.
And had you invented that common-sense, billion dollar hand soap idea that every household and company uses, and someone decided they were going to use it instead without paying you anything, you would be on one hell of a journey in the courts.
You're still not hearing what he's saying. He's suggesting that if you DON'T actually invent a product from your patent, then you should NOT be given the patent. So sure if he invented the hand soap then yes he should fight it out in court. If he only patented the idea and never made hand soap then he's a squatter.
You're still not hearing what he's saying. He's suggesting that if you DON'T actually invent a product from your patent, then you should NOT be given the patent. So sure if he invented the hand soap then yes he should fight it out in court. If he only patented the idea and never made hand soap then he's a squatter.
This patent was filed in 1992.
But they didn't defend their patent for 15 years, so they lost it long ago.