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.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.
pay the piper later on down the road. Same game plan...
different day! Just as they did with the scroll feature "stolen"
from Creative Technology's Zen MP3 player for use in the
ubiquitous iPod.
Only that time it cost them a cool 100 Million! Guess when the
price gets stiff enough, Apple will finally learn to play "ball" with
regard to patent infringements the right way.... ask and form
agreements before you take!!! Theft is still theft no matter
which way Apple likes to paint it!
Simple patents like this shouldn't be allowed - this isn't innovation, it is just a simple concept.
The patent system is stifling innovation in the US and globally.
to iPod (MS trying to play in another market it shouldn't with the
Zune) and it's the same thing.
You're obviously a MS troll.
And, the other two comments here are right, the patent system
is a joke and it should be redone soon. It hurts more than it
helps and that stupid district in Texas should be banned from
hearing this stuff. The obviously just hand out penalties without
really looking into anything. it's a joke.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Oh, and I will still buy ipods, I do like them and their stolen click wheels).
stupid. After-all, it's a pretty simplistic feature. Well, that's for
the courts to decide. After-all, intellectual property is the
property of the inventor and should not be dismissed just
because the idea is simple.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/001237
E IS mC(Square) writes
"CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative
Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music
player patents for $100 million, the companies announced
Wednesday. The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple
a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface
used in that company's Zen music players. The patent covers an
interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding
options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by
that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed
for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001. Apple can get back some of the
$100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals
with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an
Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been
granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press
release.`"
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.
My bad...
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.
being brought against Comcast, Cablevision (VoIP Phones) and
Ebay's Skype."
Patents should be reserved for legitimate inventions, not minor (and quite obvious) tweaks to existing ideas.
I suspect that this may end up being what obliterates the patent troll industry. AT&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.
/P
betting that everyone in this forum understands the basic
reason why the US government awards
patents...to promote innovation. If an inventor created a new
widget, but anyone else was allowed to copy and steal the idea,
then there would be no real chance for financial gain
or incentive to innovate. That is all well and good for actual
inventions. THe US Patent Office (USPO) has gotten lazy. The
director of the USPO stated: "This isn't a place where we say 'no.'
We are here to give out patents, not to tell people no." The USPO
is now giving patents for ideas, that is, thoughts without proof
of concept (no prototype, no proof the thing works).
If you feel that someone in the future will invent a working
whatsit, then just apply for a patent on the idea of the whatsit
and then take anyone to court that actually invents the thing
(happens every day). Things have gotten so much worse.
Now, companies are patenting gene sequences. No, not drugs or
techniques to work with the gene sequences, but the genes
themselves. I am sorry but that is like patenting the femur; you
didn't invent it, change it, or use it, you just found it. If
companies want to name sequences that they determine are
important, then fine (pretty much always been an explorers
right). No, the companies will find a gene sequence that, if a
patient has it, makes the companies drug treatment for a certain
heart ailment totally ineffective. So, what does the company do?
They patent the sequence then forbid doctors from using it or
testing for it. Why? Because if doctors knew whom had the
sequence, then they wouldn't prescribe the drug as treatment.
The company forces doctors to prescribe a treatment that is
worthless to half of those receiving it just so the company can
sell more drugs. Also, because they "own" the sequence, no one
else can work with it to come up with other treatments. Why
doesn't robitussin patent the common cold, then only they could
sell treatments for its symptoms.
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...
random numbers, you'll have to pay me a hefty sum for each and
every violation you have historically made throughout the universe
in perpetuity.
You can contact my lawyers at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe to
arrange to make payments to my estate.
player patents for $100 million,"
A big time patent lawsuit would cost $1mm to $5mm, maybe more if the issues were complex and there were lots of appeals.
Steve Jobs wouldn't have Apple just pay some company $100mm when he could win the suit and get their legal costs fully reimbursed.
So he weighed $100mm vs $0 (and some management loss of focus). Jobs is no idiot.
One or more of the below must have been true:
a) He believed Apple was violating
b) He felt that the risk of monster jury award was too high
c) iPod profit is so big he just wanted Creative to go away
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.
e) All of the above and more
on the iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and OSX. They invested a TON of
money in the iPhones (and related tech), and worked hard to
integrate OSX.
The obvious point is, it wasn't the time for Apple to be involved
in ANY kind of dispute, that might get deep into the legal
system, because it would cost them a LOT more than 100
million dollars, based upon the past, current, and projected
sales.
You are right, he is no idiot. When your potential upside is
billions, and it would cost your business a lot more to get into a
brand new "Windows" dispute (than 100 million), you have to
decide what is best for business.
Don't forget, they've been down this road before with Microsoft.
Sad thing is, they saw the potential in the Xerox interface,
licensed key features, re-designed it, and hired Microsoft as
contract programmers to help get it out the door on time. The
suit didn't never got settled. In the end, they all just said "screw
it". Why? Because it was costing ALL of them a ton of money.
And only one company had very deep pockets.
Yea, the patent is bogus. Any real programmer could see that.
But that's our system right now. Think about it, you even
have/had people trying to patent XML schemas. What's next,
which colors you can use in order?
Copyrights exist for a reason. Somewhere down the line, people
have confused the differences, and reasons for copyrighting
something, and patenting something. Two very, very, very
different beasts.
phone bill every month. Sarcasm aside, by naming AT&T in the
suit, these opportunistic entities, that try to make a quick buck may
have bitten off a hell of a lot more than they can chew.
What you say is speculation.
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!)
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.
a new get-rich-quick-and-not-actually-do-anything plan.... Maybe the system isn't broken after all!!
lawsuit involving, if I remember it correctly, the extended memory
system that got early Windows versions (or was it MS-DOS?) past
the 640 k address "barrier" back in the 80s some time. Eventually
the suit was won by the plaintiff, I think. Anybody remember the
particulars?
- Software Patents need to be abolished!
-
by chash360
December 4, 2007 1:36 PM PST
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Amen to that.
-
by billmosby
December 4, 2007 4:51 PM PST
- All software patents refer to a "preferred embodiment" to provide a
-
-
(48 Comments)What's next, thought patents?
fig leaf to cover the fact that the software itself is not a material
object. It is, in fact, an idea, an algorithm, and as such is equivalent
to a mathematical formula, which is still not patentable. If I
remember correctly, it was a single court decision which allowed
this camel into the patent tent.