Apple, eBay And AT&T All Give In On Visual Voicemail Patents

from the sad-to-hear dept

The reason patent hoarding firms are often successful in getting companies to pay up has little to do with the quality of their patents, but the fact that fighting these lawsuits out in court is so very expensive and time consuming. It's often much easier and cheaper to just settle. Klausner Technologies has been very successful in getting companies to pay up for daring to use the concept of "visual voicemail." Klausner for years has basically claimed ownership to any sort of "visual" phone info, such as the time it sued AOL for daring to display caller ID info on your screen -- something that clearly no one would have ever thought of if not for Klausner's patent. AOL just settled rather than deal with the mess of fighting it. Ditto for a similar lawsuit against Vonage. The latest trio to settle up are Apple, eBay and AT&T. With Apple and AT&T the lawsuit was over the visual voicemail feature found on the iPhone -- guess all those patents Steve Jobs hyped up didn't protect it from patent lawsuits.

So now Klausner has even more money to go after others (Comcast and Cablevision are listed as targets) -- and it will use the fact that all these big name companies settled as "evidence" that its patents are valid, even if the only thing it really means is that companies did the math and realized it's cheaper to settle. Even the press is falling for this false claim. notes that Apple, AT&T and eBay probably would have lost because AOL and Vonage licensed the patent. That's not at all true. Both companies settled because it was cheaper and easier, rather than due to any acknowledgment that the patents are valid. The fact that some firms settle have no bearing on whether or not other companies could have won in court.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patents, visual voicemail
Companies: aol, apple, at&t, ebay, klausner, vonage

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Mike, 18 Jun 2008 @ 7:42am

    Re: Re:

    Patents are an integral part of modern high-tech development

    Other than all of the studies that have shown they're not.... and that they actually tend to hold back high-tech development?

    Without patents there would be little invention going on and absolutely no public disclosure

    Again despite tons of evidence to the contrary?

    Plus, companies would impose some draconian non-compete agreements on their scientists and engineers

    Ignoring, of course, the fact that (at least in California) non-competes are unenforceable.

    You'd better read what some serious people like Silicon Valley VCs write, not the shitty blogs like this one

    Such as how much they dislike patents? Let's look and see what people like serious Silicon Valley VCs write: es/20060414/0120234.shtml
    http://avc.blo ups.php

    Oh look, they hate patents.

    And, why not include some actual evidence showing that, contrary to popular opinion, VCs don't focus on patents: ps-don-t-patent

    Angry dude, you have a way with words. Tragically, almost all of them are easily proven wrong. We've gone through this before.

    Can I ask a simple question: given all of the evidence we present that you repeatedly ignore -- often followed by personal insults and outright lies -- what would it take for you to admit that you were wrong? What kind of evidence would it take?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.