Company Claims Patent on CD Writing
rborek writes "According to CNet News.com, Roxio is being sued by Optima Technology over Patent 5,666,531 which covers 'Recordable CDROM accessing system'. It looks as though the patent describes DirectCD and its packet writing technique. Many different programs and operating systems use this - including Linux, which opens the door for widespread patent licensing issues if the suit is valid and the patent upheld."
It would seem, that in light of recent IT events, a business model build around patent litigation isn't as stupid as it sounds....
I would have run out of lightning bolts to throw by now...
Filed : April 7, 1995
Granted : September 9, 1997
This might be hard to beat. Anyone using a cd burner 8 years ago?
And in related news, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is being sued by SCO due to their patent on the process of reviewing and approving patents ;-)
That's old news. The lawsuit was dismissed, on the basis that the patent covers "reviewing and approving" patents, and USPTO doesn't do any reviewing of patents prior to issuing them.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Just look at their home page:
Their "accomplishments" consist mainly of suing the pants off everyone they meet!Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In looking over the patent, it does seem to describe exactly what DirectCD does - allows the disc to be continually written upon and accessed by other computers with a DirectCD-like reader on it. So it looks like Roxio might be screwed.
But does this affect the general user? I've personally never used DirectCD for anything; around our office we just burn a CD once, close the disc, and ship it out wherever it needs to go. Is there really a need for a continually writable procedure on a CD when there are so many other mediums more suitable and with more capacity than a CD?
Roxio Response: /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Roxio
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 16
(Nasdaq: ROXI), The Digital Media Company(R), today responded to Optima
Technology's allegations of patent infringement.
We are aware of the Optima '531 patent and the claims within and believe
that any claim of infringement by Roxio's software products is utterly without
merit. At Roxio, we respect the legitimate intellectual property rights of
others but in this instance there is no colorable argument that the claims set
forth in the patent read on any Roxio products. We intend to aggressively
defend ourselves in this litigation.
It took Optima 5+ years to figure out that all CDR Software/Hardware infringed upon their patent?
Just another happy case of
1) Patent some tech
2) Wait for tech to become standard
3) Collect the underware
4) Sue for profit!
Apple free since 1990!
please let me know when we can begin the DOS attack on their web site, mail server, etc.
thank you.
Method of stylus-induced pits into clay, one tablet at a time.
If, as it initially appears (I'm no expert in this area), this patent represented a useful step forward in CDROM technology at the time, and the technology was picked up and used by Roxio and others without license, then why shouldn't Optima get due credit and compensation?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Patents aren't stupid -- the patent office is. It seems to me that they're taking the approach that if the applicant can hold a reasonable argument for a process they don't understand, they issue the patent under the assumption that the courts will sort out the garbage fromt the useful patents.
I say that it's time for an examination of the whole patent application/approval process.
I cringe everytime I check Slashdot. The world is getting downright surreal. Above this posting is a story about a broad patent on packet writing, and above that an ad for Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX, and to my left the Slashdot logo.
... hell?
Am I dead?
Did I blow it and not believe in Jesus the right way and now I'm in some sort of
It seems to me that copmanyies very often sit on a patent until their 'invention' becomes very popular before enforcing the patent. Perhaps patents should be more trademarks, either enforece it, or lose it. As it stands, each copmany that wants to bring a product to market would have to do a thorough (and costly) patent search to avoid litigation. This seems counter-intuitive for ideas that have established themselves, or even become standards, such a packet writing. After all, if countless other companies are producing it, why should I expect to have any trouble myself? But then, boom, the company holding the obscure patent comes out of nowhere.
It's unfair of a company to keep quiet about patent infringement until their invention has become a standard, and then try to leverage their way into a monopoly with patent litigation. If they had been forthcoming about their patent in the first place, perhaps other (better?) standards would be invented. Or, if the idea behind the patent really is that good, the original copmany would en up with most of the market share, and come by it honestly.
In conclusion, patents should be more like trademarks. Use 'em or lose 'em.
Stupid like a fox!
Actually, I live in the DC area I know someone who works at the patent office and what you describe is actually pretty close to how it happens. Although, they do actually have people help them understand the processes described, they do no research on prior art what so ever. Apparrently there is not time. The validity of a patent is for the courts and ultimately the tax payers to figure out.
No, if you're dumb you'll short it. For that to work effectively, you not only have to know that it will go down, but when. And you don't.
And the amount of money you could lose is limited only by your imagination.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
WORM file systems using such techniques have been around since at least the 1980's.
Logically, it would even be the other way - once you find one existing patent or example of prior art, you could stop looking, which would usually be before you exhausted the entire database. To grant one, you would have to search the entire database, which would take longer.
But hey, it means nothing anyway - the courts decide everything.
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.