One More Thing Subscribe to One More Thing

December 3, 2007 2:52 PM PST

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

Posted by Tom Krazit

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.

Topics:: iPhone

Tags:: iPhone,; Apple,; patent infringement,; Klausner Technologies

Bookmark:: Digg; Del.icio.us; Reddit

Recent posts from One More Thing: RIM to hold BlackBerry developer conference; Google chooses 50 finalists in Android Developer Challenge; AMD shuffles executives, creates new engineering group; HBO to Apple: Bada Bing?; Today's sign that the 3G iPhone is nigh

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 48 comments (Page 1 of 2)

Apple just won't learn their lesson!!!
by jimmyhoops December 3, 2007 3:32 PM PST: Apple just loves to push their technological gadgets through and 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!; Reply to this comment View all 7 replies
Processing

Here's the skinny over Apple's settlement with Creative...
by jimmyhoops December 3, 2007 4:22 PM PST: Some might say that patenting the scroll feature is equally 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.`"; Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Processing

So why haven't they sued Cisco?
by dargon19888 December 3, 2007 4:45 PM PST: 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. 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.; Reply to this comment View reply
Processing

I sure hope they sue Comcast
by rdean December 3, 2007 5:15 PM PST: 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. Patents should be reserved for legitimate inventions, not minor (and quite obvious) tweaks to existing ideas.; Reply to this comment View reply
Processing

ms exchange
by gggg sssss December 3, 2007 5:36 PM PST: 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.; Reply to this comment View reply
Processing

Patent system broken like Theismann's leg
by chinesejudge December 3, 2007 7:18 PM PST: This is a story that I have followed for the past few months. I am 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.; Reply to this comment

iphone sued is joke on this topic
by brettpweb December 3, 2007 11:15 PM PST: 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. 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...; Reply to this comment

very well said
by mgarc1125 December 4, 2007 7:36 AM PST: That is exactly what I thought when I read the patents in question.; Reply to this comment

random access is now patentable?
by bob1960 December 4, 2007 8:39 AM PST: I read this thread out of order... Did I break the law?; Reply to this comment View reply
Processing

Jobs is no idiot
by regulator1956 December 4, 2007 9:30 AM PST: "Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music 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; Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Processing

1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>

Powered by Jive Software

About One More Thing
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News.com's Tom Krazit will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies strike back against the iPhone, and chipmakers try to figure out how to move past PCs and slip into a little something more comfortable.
Email Tom at Tom.Krazit@cnet.com.

Subscribe to this blog
Click this link to view this blog as XML.

Add this feed to your online news reader

One More Thing topics

Stuff I'm reading:

Latest blog posts from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

Resource center from News.com sponsors

Get More Done with Windows Mobile ®>>

Click Here

CNET.com

Welcome (log out) |View profile

Log in | Sign up Why join?

On TechRepublic: 10 ways users mess up their computers

Start Doing More with Windows Mobile

Copyright ©2008 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy
Terms of use