$360M Patent Suit Over iPhone Voicemail

Stony Stevenson writes "Klausner Technologies said on Monday the company had filed a $360 million suit against Apple and AT&T over voicemail patents that Klausner claims the Apple iPhone infringes. New York-based Klausner said the lawsuit also names Comcast, Cablevision, and eBay's Skype as infringing its patent for 'visual voicemail.' The plaintiff seeks an additional $300 million from the three." Klausner has won on two previous occasions with this patent. The new suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, of course.

Comments

Because all innovation must be punished...

[KingSkippus]

I'm so tired of reading stories like this. The guy who is suing actually thinks he's not a patent troll. I read an article about this guy where he denies he's a patent troll. Here's an excerpt:

This sounds suspiciously like a patent troll treading down the litigation track. Yet, Klausner says: "I'd be as happy as a pig in mud if I never have to go to court again." That would be pretty tough to achieve in an increasingly litigious sector. Klausner puts some of the blame for this trend on the defendants. "The infringers are becoming more litigious. There are lots of theories as to why. On the whole everyone is becoming more litigious."

Riiiight, it's Apple's fault he has to sue them. He had an idea, and as far as I can tell, never saw, met, or discussed it with anyone at Apple. They happened to have a similar idea and acted on it, and now they have to pay. Dearly. Some more wisdom from him:

Klausner denies that his company is a patent troll, as he defines the term: "Just change the 'n' in inventor to 's'. These investors start up a fund and put patents in a portfolio. They see them as oil wells. I am an inventor. The value I bring to the universe is my ideas. I'm not a marketer or a manufacturer or a distributor. We are a company that invents and receives patents - my own - and licenses them."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see having an idea as meriting hundreds of millions of dollars. Acting on an idea, now that's worth something.

I have lots of ideas, too. I don't patent most of them, because I don't plan on acting on them, and I don't feel like I deserve hundreds of millions of dollars if someone else does. Even if there were something I feel like would make the world a better place, it's likely I wouldn't pursue it because I know I'd get sued into oblivion for just about anything I might do.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how patents spur innovation. Every time I read articles like this, patents are being used to hinder it.

Re:Still Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

This -- along with other posters' comments, to be fair -- goes to a common misconception about patents.

They aren't patenting the idea of doing X. The idea of doing X doesn't have to be new or non-obvious. They're patenting a method of doing X, or a device that does X, etc.

Yes, science fiction and spy movies have depicted technologies well in advance of anything "real" that would let you do what your favorite action hero can do. But when they wrote the movie -- get this -- they faked it. They didn't have a method or a device to do it, they just made it look like someone was doing it.

So years later someone comes up with a method or device. Sure, it's obvious that someone would want to do X -- they've been drooling over it in the movies forever, man -- but the question is, was the method or device obvious?

Also note that if someone else comes up with a different method of doing X, that would fall outside the scope of the first patent. This goes to inventors' efforts to make their patent as broad as possible (while still keeping them valid), but the point is, the capability the invention makes possible isn't what's covered by the patent.