Slashdot Mirror
CDDB Joins The Bad Patent Club
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Today I received a very ominous package from GraceNote, owners of CDDB. Already infamous for turning a wonderful open project into a quagmire of heavy contracts, licensing fees, forced user registration and anti-competition clauses, the package from GraceNote contained one thing: copies of their patents, freshly awarded. "Don't even think about using FreeDB", the packaged seemed to silently imply, "because we own the patents, period." That patent? "Method and system for finding approximate matches in a database." Ouch. Thanks, USPTO." Scary: I use freedb constantly. I'd hate to lose it.
CDDB was originally GPL right? And FreeDB still uses the original GPL code before CDDB changed their licence. The GPL states that if patents are granted they must be freely licenced. It would be interesting to see a court test this one out.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
What you describe is certainly what the American patent system has come to, but it was not the intention. The patent office, until recently, researched the claims in a patent with considerable care and accuracy. In principle they still have duty to do so, and frequently reject the initial patent application with examples of possible prior art, usually from other patents. Whats changed is that patent exmaminers are now encouraged, by the way they are payed to pass everything, and the patent office has poor records of the existing prior art for many fields in which they are issuing patents, especially softwate and business models.
I'd tend to agree that civil servants are not the appropriate people to determine obiousness or novelty, but, due to the great expense of challenging a patent, nor are the courts. The existing system allows patent holders to exploit their competitors for licensing fees as long as these remain below the expenditure needed to challenge the patent.
If you're going to have a patent system, and especially if you're going to allow patents in so many fields, wouldn't the appropriate thing to do be to allow challenges by interested parties during the examination process, as most European patent offices do ?
That has nothing to do with every other database on the planet...that would be ludicrous. This is actually something that they more or less "invented" and can patent it. As for the prior license stuff, I dont pretend to know squat about that. But have no fear that this patent is trying to stop all database searches or anything like that. That would just be obnoxious and overturned in two seconds...But then again I may just be talking out of my ass. I have a habit of that.
//FIXME: Bad
Don't worry -- I patented that.
Got friends?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think you may be confusing copyright and patent law. Or you may be raising a very interesting question regarding the operaton of the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and/or an implied in fact or implied in law patent license.
Assume you invent something. The invention is embodied in software. First, you have a copyright on the writing -- i.e., the code. You then -- as and only as a matter of copyright law -- grant a license to others to copy and modify the code. It could be the GPL, BDS license, whatever.
Further assume that -- perhaps unknown to everyone -- you apply for a patent on your invention. The patent is awarded. Does the fact that -- again as and only as a matter of copyright law -- you licnesed others to copy and modify your code effect the validity of your patent? No.
However, the fact you licensed others to copy and use your code may effect the enforceability of your patent -- at least against your copright licensees. A court may say that you have waived any right to obtain damages against such copyright licensee. A court may find you are estopped from obtaining any damges from them for past use. (I would certainly hope, and expect so.) Whether it would prevent you from obtaining injuctive relief regarding future use is an interesting question. A court may find that you have waived such relief, are estopped from seeking such relief, and/or that you granted an implied in law or implied in fact patent license when you granted the copyright license. Again, an interesting issue.
They don't claim to own the information. They don't claim to have a copyright on the information. They don't, as far as I know, even claim to have a copyright on any particular database. They are claiming a patent on a method of operating, utilizing or making a database. Again, it is important not to confuse patent law with copyrhight law.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Sorry, that's ridiculous. How can you raise ire about a patent title when the abstract describes what's actually in the patent? There is nothing in the actual patent text which has anything to do with SQL LIKE queries, which is what RDBMS vendors would be "in an uproar about." You didn't read the patent, you rushed to post something that you thought was pithy, and now you're trying to defend your uninformed posting with an unbelievably spurious argument. I didn't have to "read into" anything; I merely "read" what you posted.
The title and abstract describe what you perceive to be "two utterly different things" because you are coming after this from a semi-technical perspective. To the patent lawyers, "approximate match" may mean "related match" (i.e. a music video of a given CD, as described in the abstract), or any number of other things which do not necessarily coincide with what "approximate database match" means to you.
Language exists to provide a conduit for sharing ideas between people who have a shared world of discourse. The patent was written for patent lawyers (who have their own world of discourse unrelated to yours), not for you. That's why you seem to think that the patent title and abstract are describing different things.
~wog
Couple of problems. Since the original developers licensed the program that had cddb code in it under a fairly free license, doesn't that mean, that they can't later revert it?
Second, the actual database itself is composed of submissions. Unless, I explicitly disclaim ownership of the submitted data, how can cddb claim to own it? As far as I know, you need to explicitly give away rights, they cannot be taken. Also, none of the CDDB programs have any sort of EULA about this?
I don't claim to be a lawyer (sorry, IANAL sounds weird) but this doesn't seem like it holds a lot of water.
p.s. don't bother making (Funny +5) comments like "I'm going to patent breathing or whatever" We've heard it before.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
This insanity has got to stop, and it falls on us geeks to do something.
Your average citizen doesn't realize how software patents affect them (and will affect them). All they see is higher prices and less innovation, but they don't know why.
Write to your elected representatives, to industry leaders, and to news organizations. We need to make people aware of how patents are stifling innovation instead of rewarding it. If you're too lazy to do any of that, please please please at least join EFF. They even have student rates.
like it or not, patents have evolved into a corporate weapon, under the current model, how can anyone fault cddb, or amazon for patenting anything they can.
If you are sick of this model, then why not send your congressmen a letter (a *real* letter, one you wrote on paper!). Until the laws regarding copyright are changed, we are just going to see more of these patents rewarded.
Could you pay the legal fees to stop them?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Haven't seen links posted yet, so here they are
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05987525__
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06154773__
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06061680__
The patent description is actually more specific than some of the drivel the USPTO has granted (like one-click shopping). It clearly applies to multimedia content (e.g., music), and linking "complementary entertainment content" (e.g., most anything including ads, metadata, external links, etc.).
Yes, boys and girls: they've applied for international patents as well under the EU and WIPO. So, don't plan on getting relief from moving offshore. Although a naive (aka reasonable) point of view would think it's more expensive to pursue non-US infringers by US patent owners, in fact WIPO makes it (a) cheap; (b) biased; and (c) fast.