Roger Fingas
Patent holder VoIP-Pal on Tuesday announced that it has formally served Apple in an infringement lawsuit, claiming over $2.8 billion in damages from concepts used in services like Wi-Fi Calling and iMessage.
The lawsuit was originally launched on Feb. 9, but VoIP-Pal said it waited until May as it was trying — and is still trying — to reach a settlement through talks. The company is also pursuing actions against AT&T and Verizon, in total seeking some $7 billion if it can't negotiate out of court. The tally against Apple was calculated assuming a 1.25 percent royalty rate based on iPhone, iPad, and Mac profits.
The company is specifically accused of exploiting patents related to VoIP-Pal's "caller attribute classification and routing product design." In the case of iMessage, for instance, this involves the automatic switching system that will direct messages through Apple networks if both people are on Apple devices, or SMS if one person is not.
That system has previously proven controversial, and was in fact the subject of a failed lawsuit over problems switching from an iPhone to Android. iMessage links a person's Apple ID with their phone number, and people who switch away from iPhones can find that texts from iPhone-owning friends will go missing.
Although that case ended up dismissed, Apple was long barraged by public complaints about the underlying problem, and ultimately had to create Web tool to let people delink their phone numbers.
VoIP-Pal's case is likely to be settled out of court, presumably through patent licenses or a special agreement. Most such patent disputes don't go to trial, given the expenses involved and the potential penalties for losing.
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Andrew Orr
15 Comments
And let me guess. VoIP-Pal makes.... nothing? And the patent in question essentially just describes an idea of "hey, if its supposed to go there send it there and if not, carry on."
The patent system needs an overhaul, especially in regard to "non-manufacturing entities" who exist only to scam and extort money from those that actually produce valuable goods and services.
I haven't seen the patents but, from this story and its links, there is surely prior art that invalidates the patent claims. Routing according to the caller's attributes could also be considered as "obvious", for example routing over heterogeneous systems always needs criteria for 'which way to go'. Call centres use the location "attribute" to route via Internet to the callee's country before popping out into the local telco at the last minute so saving money. PABXs and related systems will often route according to a subscriber's 'importance', dumping other calls in the process to pre-empt network resources. I struggle with the sense of the ability to patent concepts that naturally emerge as technology evolves.
Stop softening the terms, AI. It's a patent troll.
a healthy system would make it illegal to conduct "business" with patents when that "business" was the holding of patents for licensing and infringement lawsuits.
Just do away with software/procedural patents.
This type of news makes me ILLLLLLLLLLLLL