Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SightSound Patent Case to Move Forward

Posted by timothy on from the patent-absurdia dept.

Masem writes: "CNet reports that a preliminary hearing has allowed the case that SightSound Technologies brought against CDNow over patent infringements to proceed forward, indicating that the judge believes that SightSound has a chance of defending it's case. Sightsound claims that patents it filed in the late 80s covering the "electronic sale" of music and video over a "telecommunications line" cover most of the methods used today on the Internet to peddle music or vidoes, whether by CD/DVD or by MP3/mpeg tracks. Not mentioned in the article, but there are notable parallels between this and BT's patent claim on hyperlinks, in that both patents have an overly broad language, and were filed before the Internet became what it is today, and in both cases the defendants are arguing that the non-specificness of the patents to the Internet make them unapplicable to the specific case."

4 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Found a link by wirefarm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try here for one version of this story.
    Gotta love Google.

    Cheers,
    Jim in Tokyo

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  2. Markman Hearing by ajakk · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who don't know much about patent litigation (ie almost all of /.), this hearing had NOTHING to do with the validity of the patent. In all patent suits these days, there is a preliminary hearing called a Markman hearing where the judge determines what the scope is of the claims(the important part) of the patent. If the judge decides them to be overly broad, it can hurt the patentee because it will make them easier to invalidate with prior art. As of this point, the judge (and/or jury) have not looked at the prior art at all.

    --
    Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
  3. Prior art? MUZAK! by rakeswell · · Score: 2, Informative
    From Muzak Corporation's website:
    When Gen. George Squier patented the transmission of background music in the 1920s, that is music from phonograph records delivered over electrical lines...
    I recall reading a long time ago that telephone lines were actually used for the transmissions. Companies paid a subscription for this service. So how is SightSound's claim in any way novel or innovative over what Muzak corp. did in the 20s?
    --
    All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
  4. Re:go directly to jail, do not collect �200 by DrSpin · · Score: 2, Informative
    You do not understand how patents work ...

    The patent office grants you a patent, but its validity is only determined when it is challenged in court.

    Filing the patent with the patent office ONLY establishes the date at which you claim to have invented it, so that you can show you were first. It does not mean that the claims are meaningfull, let alone valid.