Apple settles suit with Klausner over Visual Voicemail technology
Klausner Technology Inc. said Monday that both Apple and AT&T have agreed to license its patents on "visual voicemail" technology, thus settling an iPhone-related lawsuit filed against them.
The privately held Klausner in December formally charged the two companies with treading on its patented technology by offering Visual Voicemail service on the iPhone which lets customers see a graphical list of their voicemails and choose only the ones they want to hear.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the Apple handset and other visual voice messaging services implemented by AT&T infringed on Klausner’s U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818.
Neither the licensing fees nor the other terms of the settlement announced Monday were made public, though Klausner was originally seeking damages and future royalties estimated at $360 million.
Klausner, which is owned by a group of private investors, also told Reuters that it has struck a licensing deal with eBay, and is presently in discussions to achieve similar results with Comcast and Cablevision. Lawsuits against those three firms had also been pending.
Klausner has also in the past successfully defended and then licensed its two visual voicemail 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.
The privately held Klausner in December formally charged the two companies with treading on its patented technology by offering Visual Voicemail service on the iPhone which lets customers see a graphical list of their voicemails and choose only the ones they want to hear.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the Apple handset and other visual voice messaging services implemented by AT&T infringed on Klausner’s U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818.
Neither the licensing fees nor the other terms of the settlement announced Monday were made public, though Klausner was originally seeking damages and future royalties estimated at $360 million.
Klausner, which is owned by a group of private investors, also told Reuters that it has struck a licensing deal with eBay, and is presently in discussions to achieve similar results with Comcast and Cablevision. Lawsuits against those three firms had also been pending.
Klausner has also in the past successfully defended and then licensed its two visual voicemail 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.
Comments
and this company always wanted to build their patent, right. what a pathetic system.
that's capitalism.
Damn it all.
One word for these people... goldbricks.
I remember using that technology [online] A DECADE AGO. How might you ask? Through some company I can't remember...
You should have defended Apple in court. That's quite a case you could have made.
and this company always wanted to build their patent, right. what a pathetic system.
It's one thing to patent some thing and THEN use it, but to just patent good ideas and do nothing, that's just a waste of talent save it for someone else.
I like patents in US. It is like the coolest things on earth. You can charge and sue people whenever you want after you patents everything under the sun.
I'm just going to start making crap up, filing patents on it, and then when someone just happens to make a product that does something that works the way one of my made up things does, I'll sue the crap out of them...
One word for these people... goldbricks.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The problem with most AI readers is that most don't even know what a patent is. The value of the patent is NOT the description. It is in the claims. It is not about what it does, but how it does it.
So what if there were other ways to do the visual voice mail? Their way was unique (when it was filed), so it is a valid patent.
In 10 years, people would think multi-touch is "so common sense, blah blah". Still, it will be a strong and valid patent for Apple.
that's capitalism.
I seriously am going to rummage through the attic and find my old sketch books; they are filled with what at the time were wild ideas and dreams. The older I get, the more I realize how many money-making opportunities I've missed!
Could probably get a couple of hundred patents and then sit back and watch the cash roll. Retire before 45! (and build that dreamhouse that has an entire notebook dedicated to it and would likely earn a few more hundred patents.)
The system is screwed.
that's capitalism.
On the contrary, it's anti capitalism. Captialism is the opportunity to EARN wealth, not be handed it as you sit on your duff. What's going on here is Oligarchy--rule and manipulation of society by the rich to keep themselves rich and the rest poor, with complete disregard for productivity. Capitalism increases GDP and other such metrics--this does not.
So what if you don't implement the technology? It may costs a lot of money and time but that shouldn't stop you from excluding others to use that idea. If you received a patent and were forced to sell it, big rich companies would always have an edge.
Also, I don't think people realize that patents are HARD to get. There are several elements to be met, its not some 1-day thing like those late night commercials for DIY patents make it out to be.
Many people have great ideas, but few actually have any that can be patented. Moreover, if you can clear those standards you still must pay dearly to draft a patent that will actually withstand the scrutiny of high-level legal teams.
Without patents, why would Apple or any other company have the incentive to innovate and develop ideas? This system is much better than just about any other one currently implemented IMO.
You people are kidding, right?
No.
There is widespread dissatisfaction with current intellectual "property" law. Ethics and laws differ greatly around the planet. Much of the world considers the western system to be both immoral and counter-productive.
You obviously disagree with that assertion. But keep in mind that billions of people, reasonable and well intentioned people, hold a differing opinion.
No.
There is widespread dissatisfaction with current intellectual "property" law. Ethics and laws differ greatly around the planet. Much of the world considers the western system to be both immoral and counter-productive.
You obviously disagree with that assertion. But keep in mind that billions of people, reasonable and well intentioned people, hold a differing opinion.
Much of the world? Immoral? I am not aware of this.
I do agree that our system, based off of English law that was created to stop corruption within government, can be counter-productive.
However, having studied the history of intellectual property and alternative forms to the US/English system, including grants, contests, hybrid auctions, and cross-licensing pools, I would like to know of a system that does protects rights as productively as the current one.
Much of the world? Immoral? I am not aware of this.
I do agree that our system, based off of English law that was created to stop corruption within government, can be counter-productive.
However, having studied the history of intellectual property and alternative forms to the US/English system, including grants, contests, hybrid auctions, and cross-licensing pools, I would like to know of a system that does protects rights as productively as the current one.
You are starting with the assumption that they are "rights". This is perhaps what has blinded you to the existence of opposing views on the subject.
Hint: Communists, and to a degree socialists, view privatized idea ownership as not necessarily a good thing. While you may disagree with non-westernized notions of intellectual "property", it is at least important to acknowledge the difference of opinion.
But that is a discussion for another thread. It would be best to keep this thread about the Apple V Klausner suit rather than rehashing IP world views yet again.
You should have defended Apple in court. That's quite a case you could have made.
http://web.archive.org/web/200010180...ww.ureach.com/
They don't do the freebie 800 number anymore, thus why I opted to pull up archive.org instead of the modern site. Anyway, part of the service included voicemail and you could log in, and select which voicemail you wanted to listen to [and by extension of inaction which you didn't]. It would show the numbers they came from, just like "visual voicemail" on the iPhone.
You are starting with the assumption that they are "rights". This is perhaps what has blinded you to the existence of opposing views on the subject.
Hint: Communists, and to a degree socialists, view privatized idea ownership as not necessarily a good thing. While you may disagree with non-westernized notions of intellectual "property", it is at least important to acknowledge the difference of opinion.
But that is a discussion for another thread. It would be best to keep this thread about the Apple V Klausner suit rather than rehashing IP world views yet again.
So long as you are in America, the "right" is defined as one in the constitution. If you don't like the constitutional right, or are an innovator in another country, then you are of course free to your opinion. There is, however, a precedent of the US government acting as a communist organization in violating property rights during times of war, or when desperately needed. They compensate the owner later though.
If you are speaking to medical patents, which is the only area of innovation I would see related to morality, people in other countries that need the drugs will obtain them legally or illegally. It is up to the holder of those patents to bring international charges, so they can selectively choose to sue people who are selling drugs purely for financial gain. The point is, they wouldn't have developed the drugs in the first place without a right guaranteed in our constitution.
Communist countries are currently doing nothing to protect the hard work of innovators in this country. Do you honestly think that innovators in other countries would rather file for patent rights in these countries or in the US? Do you think that those licensing said technology would rather do so through communist regimes or in the US?
Just wondering, have you ever filed a patent in the US or in other countries? If not, this may just be an academic exercise.