Who knows....it's pretty obvious you haven't got a clue. Just speculating. What kind of publication uses thinly veiled accusations to write a informational piece? What if Klausner is just patent trolling trying to get an out of court settlement just for the sake of puting some cash in their pocket? Who runs their business like that...well, plenty of parasites. I see nothing here about that speculation. There is a reality check for you.

Why only ask this of AT&T and Apple? Aren't AOL, Vonage, Comcast, and Cablevision Systems equally guilty of this monstrous act? Only one thing is obvious here - your bias.

Why do you give Klausner a pass on its patent? Did you even read the patents? Were you able to deduce any particular method that was used to carry out the concept of visual voicemail? Supposedly you can't patent concepts or ideas, only particular methods of carrying out those concepts or ideas. The patents read more like concepts than methods, but I'll allow that not everything may be explicit in the patent. So why can't AT&T and Apple take their chances that their implementation does not use the methods specified in those patents? Only one thing is obvious here - not once did you mention exactly what is covered by those patents.

Finally, did Apple screw Burst in the same way? Well, why not if they thought Burst's patents wouldn't hold up in court? $10M, half of which went to cover court costs to date. Only one thing is obvious here - you are really clueless about patents and companies. So why not just start the article by asking for a lawyer to consult with you first.

You might say I have an attitude - but I've come across too many of your articles, which have resulted in me wondering what your expertise is, and why an otherwise fine magazine like InfoWorld pays you to write such garbage.

I'd like more information on Klausner's patents. I'm convinced a lot of patents were granted in the 90s almost fraudulently. Use of a visual display to retrieve voice mails is patentable? I can certainly understand a strategy that would press forward with delivering value to the customer on the premise that the concept in question shouldn't be patentable but is a natural outgrowth of common applications.

You'd have to convince me it was more akin to the way Microsoft implemented Stacker's software in MS-DOS without any license agreement or payment to Stacker.

How about an in-depth report on Klausner's patents? At first blush, this could well be another predatory company making its dough through patents and lawsuits rather than actually inventing technology.

You know, I can't even remember the last time I read an article by Ephraim Schwartz that wasn't totally flamed in the comments.

It's a column, people, which means it's an opinion piece. He may say things you don't like and not back them up, but nowhere does he say that any of it is fact or that everybody needs to believe it. Granted, it's ill-advised to have an opinion you can't back up, but it's not against the rules either. In fact, I'm willing to believe that the Reality Check writing is deliberately done this way in order to generate conversation and bring up alternate opinions. Controversy is one thing, but mindless and usually ad-hominem flaming is something else.

I'm inclined to agree that it's more likely that Klausner is out cruising for cash than anything else, but, you know, what if this is another example of the big guys squashing the little ones? Has anyone heard of Klausner before these patent suits? Maybe there's a reason for that. Who knows. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Shame on any system that would encourage, aid and abet scumbag law firms such as the one above. These bottom feeders thrive on extorting funds from companies who actually produce something (other than lawsuits).

A pox on a system (this court in Texas) that seems to reward this behaviour. It seems there are many other bottom-feeding outfits who use this court for the same purpose. There was one (thankfully I can not remember, nor do I want to) that successfully extorted large sums from RIM. The latter firm actually produced something, unlike the outfit that managed to obtain some dubious patents and use it to extort money from succesful firms.

It is crap like this that make me eternally grateful I am not a citizen of the country that encourages this.

If you want to build a successful society, do you want companies that actually produce products, or do you want a nation dependent on suing others to make a living? I know which I would choose.