Apple, AT&T sued over iPhone's visual voice mail

Apple has been sued for patent infringement over the iPhone's visual voice mail feature.

Apple has been sued over the iPhone's visual voice mail feature.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

Klausner Technologies announced Monday that it has filed suit against the company in everyone's favorite rocket docket, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Klauser is claiming that the visual voice mail feature infringes on two patents that are said to cover the iPhone's method of selectively listening to voice mail messages rather than in the order in which they were received.

Unlike the other inane iPhone lawsuits filed since the device made its debut in June, Apple might have to take this one a little more seriously. Klausner has already won cases against AOL and Vonage asserting the patents in question here, and is asking for $360 million in royalties and damages.

[jimmyhoops]

Apple just won't learn their lesson!!!

Apple just loves to push their technological gadgets through and <br />pay the piper later on down the road. Same game plan... <br />different day! Just as they did with the scroll feature "stolen" <br />from Creative Technology's Zen MP3 player for use in the <br />ubiquitous iPod.<br /><br />Only that time it cost them a cool 100 Million! Guess when the <br />price gets stiff enough, Apple will finally learn to play "ball" with <br />regard to patent infringements the right way.... ask and form <br />agreements before you take!!! Theft is still theft no matter <br />which way Apple likes to paint it!

[rturner2]

I don't think so...

I am no Apple fan boy, but the US patent system is a joke and the world is laughing at you!<br /><br />Simple patents like this shouldn't be allowed - this isn't innovation, it is just a simple concept.<br /><br />The patent system is stifling innovation in the US and globally.

[lkrupp]

jimmyhoops the troll

Trolling makes you look stupid.

[sdotbailey4]

yeah, you're wrong.

Change every "apple" to "microsoft" and Creative's crappy player <br />to iPod (MS trying to play in another market it shouldn't with the <br />Zune) and it's the same thing. <br /><br />You're obviously a MS troll.<br /><br />And, the other two comments here are right, the patent system <br />is a joke and it should be redone soon. It hurts more than it <br />helps and that stupid district in Texas should be banned from <br />hearing this stuff. The obviously just hand out penalties without <br />really looking into anything. it's a joke.

[rdean]

That's a pretty idiotic statement...

Creative's interface was something that was relatively new.<br /><br />Being able to selectively listen to voice mail has existed for as long as there was voice mail. Apple would be idiotic to not fight this suit, because their own acquired product (NeXTSTEP - 1989) had the capability to send voice mail and to selectively listen to it.<br /><br />Taking a concept from a regular computer and moving it to a cell phone does not automatically make it patentable. Cell phones being computers themselves, I'd say it's pretty darn obvious.

[kool_skatkat]

Stolen

You 're assuming or you seem to tell that two people can not solve the same problem the same way independently. That the only way people reach the same conclusion is by "stealing" from the one by the other. <br /><br />I don't see how apple/nExt with so many years of computing interface design could not solve the problem the same way Creative Zen did. Some companies do steal ideas, but some also reach the same solution independently. <br /><br />I think it would naive of Apple to search for all the possible patents on scrolling, just to avoid a potential lawsuit... it's "scrolling"... Need I say more? For touch screen they bought a company before hand! I think you owe Apple an apology.

[peterdom]

what patent infringement?

there's an accusation of an infringement but it hasn't been demonstrated. how do you know it's not just an attempt to get some easy money? wouldn't be the first time someone tried that.

[ev61]

Apple is Microsoft Junior!

I had thought for years that the click wheel was a great Apple invention (seriously, no joke) and that was what separated it from the competition. 100 million doesn't seem to be enough to consider how huge the ipod is. The click-wheel, the visual voice-mail and the Quicktime exploit all show that the Apple fanboys were wrong all along. Those ivory white towers really weren't so clean!<br /><br />Apple is really no different than Microsoft, a money hungry company sharking their way through the business world. That is fine, as long as we all stop thinking they are perfect. <br /><br />(Oh, and I will still buy ipods, I do like them and their stolen click wheels).

[jimmyhoops]

Here's the skinny over Apple's settlement with Creative...

Some might say that patenting the scroll feature is equally <br />stupid. After-all, it's a pretty simplistic feature. Well, that's for <br />the courts to decide. After-all, intellectual property is the <br />property of the inventor and should not be dismissed just <br />because the idea is simple.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/001237" target="_newWindow">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/001237</a><br /><br />E IS mC(Square) writes<br /><br />"CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative <br />Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music <br />player patents for $100 million, the companies announced <br />Wednesday. The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple <br />a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface <br />used in that company's Zen music players. The patent covers an <br />interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding <br />options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by <br />that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed <br />for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001. Apple can get back some of the <br />$100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals <br />with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an <br />Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been <br />granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press <br />release.`"

[rdean]

They shouldn't have settled this suit....

Now that I see more information about Creative's interface, I don't agree that Apple should have settled the patent.<br /><br />Once again, Apple's own acquired product (NeXTSTEP - 1989) had a hierarchical interface resembling that of the iPod. Just because an interface element is moved from the computer screen to an MP3 player doesn't make it patentable. I'd say the iPod interface looks a lot like the Browser from NeXTSTEP.

[PzkwVIb]

If an idea is obvious

It is not really patentable. This does not prevent ore inane patent office from regularly granting junk patents. The system is broken.

[Pete Bardo]

What's new about drill-down?

I've been devising, programming and implementing drill-down data views since 1975! I guess I should have sued Creative!<br /><br />My bad...

[dargon19888]

So why haven't they sued Cisco?

Cisco sends a copy of the vm as a .wav file to your mail folder. So you can see who left you a message and if you want to open the file and listen to it.<br /><br />The patent should be invalidated since it becomes obvious when you have the ability to visually look at your voicemail box to see incoming calls.

[jimmyhoops]

Perhaps they are next on the list...

According to Mandelbomb his comment was: "The same lawsuit is <br />being brought against Comcast, Cablevision (VoIP Phones) and <br />Ebay's Skype."

[rdean]

I sure hope they sue Comcast

Comcast's interface is very much like NeXTSTEP c. 1989, which predates the patent in question. Clearly it's prior art. Hopefully Comcast has enough of a backbone to stand up for what's right.<br /><br />Patents should be reserved for legitimate inventions, not minor (and quite obvious) tweaks to existing ideas.

[Penguinisto]

They did.

The patent troll did, that is. Comcast and eBay (Skype) are also named defendants.<br /><br />I suspect that this may end up being what obliterates the patent troll industry. AT&#38;T has patents and archived ideas stretching back to well before computers were small enough to pick up by one person, and before telephones were something you could actually buy and own, not just rent. <br /><br />/P

[gggg sssss]

ms exchange

has been able to selectivley listen to voice mail since Bill Gates was young. Putting a touch screen on it does not make it unique or non obvious. More lawyers to the bottom of the sea, quick.

[DrtyDogg]

not M$

Those features where written by smaller companies as addins to Exchange. If M$ wrote them they would surely be a defendant.

[chinesejudge]

Patent system broken like Theismann's leg

This is a story that I have followed for the past few months. I am <br />betting that everyone in this forum understands the basic <br />reason why the US government awards<br />patents...to promote innovation. If an inventor created a new <br />widget, but anyone else was allowed to copy and steal the idea, <br />then there would be no real chance for financial gain<br />or incentive to innovate. That is all well and good for actual <br />inventions. THe US Patent Office (USPO) has gotten lazy. The <br />director of the USPO stated: "This isn't a place where we say 'no.' <br />We are here to give out patents, not to tell people no." The USPO <br />is now giving patents for ideas, that is, thoughts without proof <br />of concept (no prototype, no proof the thing works).<br /><br />If you feel that someone in the future will invent a working <br />whatsit, then just apply for a patent on the idea of the whatsit <br />and then take anyone to court that actually invents the thing <br />(happens every day). Things have gotten so much worse.<br /><br />Now, companies are patenting gene sequences. No, not drugs or <br />techniques to work with the gene sequences, but the genes <br />themselves. I am sorry but that is like patenting the femur; you <br />didn't invent it, change it, or use it, you just found it. If<br />companies want to name sequences that they determine are <br />important, then fine (pretty much always been an explorers <br />right). No, the companies will find a gene sequence that, if a <br />patient has it, makes the companies drug treatment for a certain <br />heart ailment totally ineffective. So, what does the company do? <br />They patent the sequence then forbid doctors from using it or<br />testing for it. Why? Because if doctors knew whom had the <br />sequence, then they wouldn't prescribe the drug as treatment. <br />The company forces doctors to prescribe a treatment that is <br />worthless to half of those receiving it just so the company can <br />sell more drugs. Also, because they "own" the sequence, no one <br />else can work with it to come up with other treatments. Why <br />doesn't robitussin patent the common cold, then only they could <br />sell treatments for its symptoms.

[brettpweb]

iphone sued is joke on this topic

okay...the patent in question is for a Land Line telephone only and not a cell phone. further the method of receiving the messages with this patent are left at the same time when the phone call is placed.<br /><br />Not true with apple's Iphone. It gets it voicemail or Voicemails(yes, it can receive more than one voicemail at a time when the packet of data is sent to the iphone via ATT... remember the message is not left on the phone as the call was made, unlike what this old Land line TAD devise patent is claiming...

[mgarc1125]

very well said

That is exactly what I thought when I read the patents in question.

[bob1960]

random access is now patentable?

I read this thread out of order... Did I break the law?

[Dalkorian]

Yes you did.

Since I was the one who patented the concept of human generated <br />random numbers, you'll have to pay me a hefty sum for each and <br />every violation you have historically made throughout the universe <br />in perpetuity.<br /><br />You can contact my lawyers at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe to <br />arrange to make payments to my estate.

[regulator1956]

Jobs is no idiot

"Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music <br />player patents for $100 million,"<br /><br />A big time patent lawsuit would cost $1mm to $5mm, maybe more if the issues were complex and there were lots of appeals.<br /><br />Steve Jobs wouldn't have Apple just pay some company $100mm when he could win the suit and get their legal costs fully reimbursed.<br /><br />So he weighed $100mm vs $0 (and some management loss of focus). Jobs is no idiot.<br /><br />One or more of the below must have been true:<br />a) He believed Apple was violating<br />b) He felt that the risk of monster jury award was too high<br />c) iPod profit is so big he just wanted Creative to go away<br />d) Apple is a brutal defender of their own IP, so losing in court is a bad example that could be used by defendants when Apple is suing them.<br />e) All of the above and more

[Thomas, David]

How about the Obvious

The company is moving forward, in a critical stage, betting a lot <br />on the iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and OSX. They invested a TON of <br />money in the iPhones (and related tech), and worked hard to <br />integrate OSX.<br /><br />The obvious point is, it wasn't the time for Apple to be involved <br />in ANY kind of dispute, that might get deep into the legal <br />system, because it would cost them a LOT more than 100 <br />million dollars, based upon the past, current, and projected <br />sales.<br /><br />You are right, he is no idiot. When your potential upside is <br />billions, and it would cost your business a lot more to get into a <br />brand new "Windows" dispute (than 100 million), you have to <br />decide what is best for business.<br /><br />Don't forget, they've been down this road before with Microsoft. <br />Sad thing is, they saw the potential in the Xerox interface, <br />licensed key features, re-designed it, and hired Microsoft as <br />contract programmers to help get it out the door on time. The <br />suit didn't never got settled. In the end, they all just said "screw <br />it". Why? Because it was costing ALL of them a ton of money. <br />And only one company had very deep pockets. <br /><br />Yea, the patent is bogus. Any real programmer could see that. <br />But that's our system right now. Think about it, you even <br />have/had people trying to patent XML schemas. What's next, <br />which colors you can use in order?<br /><br />Copyrights exist for a reason. Somewhere down the line, people <br />have confused the differences, and reasons for copyrighting <br />something, and patenting something. Two very, very, very <br />different beasts.

[Thomas, David]

One difference here

AT&#38;T has very deep pockets. I should know, I have to pay my <br />phone bill every month. Sarcasm aside, by naming AT&#38;T in the <br />suit, these opportunistic entities, that try to make a quick buck may <br />have bitten off a hell of a lot more than they can chew.

[kool_skatkat]

General counsel

If only it was Jobs' job to look at things like this. Why do they pay a General Counsel money?<br /><br />What you say is speculation.

[bob1960]

Cause and effect....

Even if the purpose of patents is to protect the little guy (which I really doubt is the root reason), these types of suits would seem to scare off all but the biggest guns. A small business probably doesn't have the capitol to check out every possible patent violation they might accidently break using standard and obvious coding practices.<br /><br />Certainly I would have never thought creating a way to randomly access voice mail (which are probably nothing more than a database of sound files) It would seem to be somewhat easy to impliment programmatically. In fact, it probably would be difficult to think of not providing it. Just think of creating a web page of URLs to sound files that a person could click in any order they wanted... Like maybe samples of music from a CD for browsing before you buy (Amazon, iTunes, etc. all do it!)<br /><br />If this lawsuit goes forward and actually wins, almost every developer out there will suddenly have to start patenting all their code so that they can win as many lawsuits as they might lose. In fact, it would seem possible for a developer to just think up an idea, patent it, and never have to actually code anything, but wait for poor smucks use the obvious code, and then swoop down and sue for millions.<br /><br />a new get-rich-quick-and-not-actually-do-anything plan.... Maybe the system isn't broken after all!!

[billmosby]

And not really that new, either..

I had a friend who invested (that's right, invested) in a patent <br />lawsuit involving, if I remember it correctly, the extended memory <br />system that got early Windows versions (or was it MS-DOS?) past <br />the 640 k address "barrier" back in the 80s some time. Eventually <br />the suit was won by the plaintiff, I think. Anybody remember the <br />particulars?

[chash360]

Software Patents need to be abolished!

All software patents need to be abolished! There should be all the protection needed for software under copyright law. Software is published not invented. Software is useless by itself, and is not even in itself a complete product without hardware to execute it. Therefore no software functions by itself (no working prototype or model), therefore no patent should ever be issued, or even considered. The only thing that even comes close is firmware embedded in hardware, where both are inseparable from each other, which is the only case where a patent should be considered, and should lean more on the hardware based device's patentable aspects. The whole idea of software patents, is a lawyers wet dream of endless, big money battles where, regardless of the outcome they (the lawyers) win.<br />What's next, thought patents?

[billmosby]

Amen to that.

All software patents refer to a "preferred embodiment" to provide a <br />fig leaf to cover the fact that the software itself is not a material <br />object. It is, in fact, an idea, an algorithm, and as such is equivalent <br />to a mathematical formula, which is still not patentable. If I <br />remember correctly, it was a single court decision which allowed <br />this camel into the patent tent.