Meta told to pay $175m to walkie-talkie techies for infringing IP
- Reference: 1663867810
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/09/22/meta_vs_voxer/
- Source link:
Voxer filed the original [1]patent case [PDF] in Austin in 2020, back when the social media giant was still called Facebook.
At issue were two patents developed by the live "push-to-talk" multi-user streaming comms platform that it said had been infringed by Meta's Facebook Live and Instagram Live.
[2]
The company said that Tom Katis, Voxer's co-founder and CEO, first began developing solutions for communication shortcomings he experienced during his overseas military service in 2006.
[3]
[4]
The idea was that, in a manner reminiscent of a walkie-talkie, the recipient could begin listening seconds after an audio or video message begins, while the sender continued to talk (rather than only being heard after it is recorded and sent).
The US case related to technologies that "enabled transmission of voice and video communications with the immediacy of live communication and the reliability and convenience of messaging," culminating in their applications for patents for technologies allowing "transmission and reception under poor and varying network conditions and regardless of a recipient's availability."
[5]
The first, granted in 2012, was US patent [6]8180030 ('030), enabling "users to review the messages of conversations in either a live mode or time-shifted mode." The second, [7]'557 , granted in 2018, covers the delivery of video comms "without first establishing an end-to-end connection over the network between the sender and receiver," among other elements.
During the case, Meta [8]claimed [PDF] that Voxer's delivery method was "an abstract idea comparable to the corporate mailroom" and that both patents were lacking in any inventive concept, attempting to have them declared invalid. Federal judge Lee Yeakel denied the motion in February.
[9]Patent battle over Facebook Live and 'walkie talkie' tech rattles through High Court in London
[10]US state AGs: How can Facebook, Google, Twitter say they tackle misinformation when *gestures wildly at COVID-19 BS everywhere*
[11]Our amazing industry-leading AI was too dumb to detect the New Zealand massacre live vid, Facebook shrugs
[12]Facebook CEO puts picture of himself wearing too much sunscreen on new board
Voxer, for its part, alleged in its original complaint that Facebook had approached it about a potential collaboration soon after Voxer's app was launched in 2011.
According to the complaint:
By February 2012, Voxer had disclosed its patent portfolio and proprietary technology to Facebook. When early meetings did not result in an agreement, Facebook identified Voxer as a competitor although Facebook had no live video or voice product at the time. Facebook revoked Voxer's access to key components of the Facebook platform and launched Facebook Live in 2015 followed by Instagram Live in 2016. Both products incorporate Voxer's technologies and infringe its patents.
Jurors [13]found for Voxer on all claims this week [PDF] and awarded it running royalties of $174,530,785.
The Register spoke to the platform's then-CTO and co-founder, Matt Ranney, about the code development behind Voxer's technology back in 2011, when the platform was first launched. You can read the interview [14]here .
We have asked Voxer's Katis for comment.
[15]
A Meta spokesperson told us: "We believe the evidence at trial demonstrated that Meta did not infringe Voxer's patents. We intend to seek further relief, including filing an appeal."
Voxer launched a similar action against Facebook [16]in the UK and Germany in 2021. In the [17]UK , the high court concluded that Voxer's [18]European Patent (UK) No 2393259 was not infringed by Facebook Live or by live broadcast features on the Instagram apps on iOS. ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/09/22/voxer_complaint_1_july_2020.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yyza@QXtlgD7TZvklq-m4gAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yyza@QXtlgD7TZvklq-m4gAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yyza@QXtlgD7TZvklq-m4gAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yyza@QXtlgD7TZvklq-m4gAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8180030B2/en
[7] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10511557B2/en?oq=10%2c511%2c557
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/09/22/order_denying_fb_motion_feb_22.pdf
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/facebook_voxer_ip_patent_trial/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/24/tech_antivaxx_disinformation/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/22/facebook_ai_rubbish/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/25/facebook_ceo_reveals_new_board/
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/09/22/voxer_sept_21_verdict.pdf
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/01/the_rise_and_rise_of_node_dot_js/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yyza@QXtlgD7TZvklq-m4gAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/facebook_voxer_ip_patent_trial/
[17] https://jakemp.com/en/news/facebook-succeed-in-invalidating-voxers-live-broadcast-patent-in-the-uk/
[18] https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/040160514/publication/EP2393259A2?q=pn%3DEP2393259A2
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
> the recipient could begin listening seconds after an audio or video message begins
Dunno about you, but I wouldn't expect a walkie-talkie to operate over inter-planetary distances. I've never noticed even the slightest fraction of a second's delay here on Earth.
-A.
So many crap patents
The US will frequently grant these howlers, and with the promise of that 175m on the table, you can bet they are going to churning out demand letters.
We need laws to stop the USPTO from EVER granting these "We do exactly what you do with X that has existed for 50 years, BUT WITH SOFTWARE" patents. There needs to be a relatively high bar, or we get idiots patenting basic logical operators (lookin at you M$, you know what you did).
I'm all for letting people patent things that take real R&D and add new functionality. Encoding, encryption, advanced models, and compression algos are all great examples. But implementations of trivial systems shouldn't meet that bar, and you can't have dozens of lazy creeps shaking down every company with their hands out if you want to have a healthy technology sector.
Re: So many crap patents
Rounded corners on anything, which have been around since the first caveman stubbed his finger on something. Magnetic power leads, which Apple 100% copied from Japanese kettles. Etc.
Re: So many crap patents
"...stop the USPTO"
No!!! At this point you just pour on it like gravy and patent anything!!! Why should MegaCorps be the only ones granted these patents... pour it on.
Meta rogered by walkie-talkie techies for infringing IP
C'mon ElReg, you're slipping with the punchy headlines.
Over and Out.
I'm no fan of Meta
But this 'patent' is a travesty. Yet another of the "X but on a computer" or "Y but on the internet" or "Z but on a smartphone" type of patents.
What's worse is that this technology already existed on phones - the primary claim to claim for Nextel in the US was phones with "push to talk" technology, which was all the rage with the sort of people who were on the phones all the time like realtors and general contractors. For a few years you couldn't be in a public place like a bar or sporting event without hearing that annoying Nextel squawk every minute or two. Not sure if it ever caught on outside the US to such an extent. Thank god Apple and Android chose not to build in this "feature"!
Other than "Q but in an app" it is ridiculous they can patent this when it was actively used on (not so smart) phones 20 years ago.
Re: I'm no fan of Meta
The article claims* that the plaintiff shared details of the tech with Farcebook, and then they copied it.
While not surprising, such alleged behaviour on the part of the rapacious parasite would definitely be evil.
As for "push to talk" over cellular networks, this is something that I read about in el reg back in the day, but I'm not aware that we ever had it in Europe. Thank Bob.
-A.
* More or less.
video?
"in a manner reminiscent of a walkie-talkie, the recipient could begin listening seconds after an audio or video message begins"
I dare say that they exist, but I've never seen one of these video walkie-talkies thingies. Hypothetically, they are poorly named. I suggest walkie-webcams.
-A.
Dubious at first blush, but...
It's far from clear to me that this is a "just like we've been doing, but with software" patent. Take the phone system. Originally, you DID have to wait for the other party to stop talking. Then, they create the four-wire system, so you got full duplex. In analogue. Those analogue signals got stacked into a T1, and those T1s into a T3. It was a COMPLETELY different network than the Internet, and, "hey, why don't we do here what they do there" was not something that could be whipped up over a weekend. If it could, believe me, it would have been done.
It really depends on what the details of the claim boil down to. If its, "Hey lets put some control software across, not a TCP connection, but a PAIR of UDPs", then yes. This fails "obviousness", and should never have been granted. But there is a reason that the original systems did not support full duplex, and whatever it was, that implies that there was real IP involved in implementing it. It may well be that this one is legit.
Re: Dubious at first blush, but...
@Claptrap314 "It really depends on what the details of the claim boil down to."
There is a link to the outcome of a similar patent action in the UK where Facebook were found to have not infringed Voxer's patent. https://jakemp.com/en/news/facebook-succeed-in-invalidating-voxers-live-broadcast-patent-in-the-uk/
But the court went further they judged the details of the claim to be obvious and therefore invalid.
"After consideration of the claims and potential equivalents, the court concluded that the patent was not infringed by any of these live broadcast features. Regardless of this, after considering the available prior art, the court further concluded that the claims were obvious and therefore invalid."
But it seems in the Texas court did not see the same claims as obvious.
Re: Dubious at first blush, but...
The regular POTS telephone lines do full duplex over a single copper pair. I don't remember ever seeing a system that required four wires (two pairs) for full duplex. Granted, I only know telephone technology back to the early 70's.
"The idea was that, in a manner reminiscent of a walkie-talkie, the recipient could begin listening seconds after an audio or video message begins, while the sender continued to talk (rather than only being heard after it is recorded and sent)."
If only we had some means to talk to each in real time other over long distances before this innovative new patent was issued. We could have called it something like a tele-phone...