SightSound Patent Case to Move Forward

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."

Comments

Re:Markman Hearing

[raresilk]

Well, I guess your own ignorant bleating makes you 13 years old, then. Lawyers such as myself who take time away from their revenue-producing work to discuss legal issues FOR FREE (as in beer) to /. readers, are not attempting to be "witty" when we post disclaimers. The disclaimers are required by law, for several reasons:

At least in the US, attorneys are restricted to practicing law in states where they are admitted to the bar. For example, I am admitted only to the California bar, and cannot practice in any other US jurisdiction without a court's express permission. If I were to post a legal opinion on /., and someone in Montana followed my advice in a personal matter without consulting a Montana lawyer, I might be exposed to the accusation of practicing law without a license.

Nor is the risk only to myself. Although it is appropriate for purposes of the discussions we have on /. to articulate legal principles in general terms, I would never dream of making a recommendation in a particular case without an in-depth interview with the client, an analysis of the facts and circumstances presented, and legal research focused on that specific scenario. Without knowledge of the nuances, laypersons would be susceptible to misapplication of the general principles articulated in my posts, and might be tempted to charge forward into a touchy legal situation without proper counsel because "I already know the answer from a lawyer on Slashdot." Thus, it is appropriate for me to caution readers that my posts are not legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, discouraging them from such inappropriate individual reliance.

I have posted to a number of /. legal issue threads. I do not do this to get people to "Put Me On Retainer" - if you'll notice, I don't even publish my email address here, so how would anyone do that? Instead, my usual purpose is to dispel misconceptions about the law that circulate so widely on /. as to acquire the status of "urban legend" -- something everyone believes because it happened to their sister's husband's friend's employee, but doesn't actually have a grain of truth. I do so despite the virulent anti-lawyer atmosphere that prevails here - that attitude in itself shows the need for my continued contributions.

And I bet I will last longer on /. than you . . .