Slashdot Mirror
Companies Claim iTMS, iPod Patent Infringement
ryan_fung writes "A Hong Kong based company, Pat-rights, is claiming that Apple's iTunes Music Store is infringing their patent on 'Internet User Identity Verification' and is demanding Apple pay 'a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods.'" (They also claim infringement by eBay, porn sites, and others.) Reader bblazer links to a Register article which mentions both the Pat-Rights claim and another suit entirely. From the article: "Apple has found itself facing a pair of intellectual property challenges that separately claim its FairPlay DRM system and its iPod music player contain technologies to which the Mac maker does not have a right. First up, Lake Forest, Illinois-based Advanced Audio Devices (AAD) alleges its patent, number 6,587,403, for a 'music jukebox,' filed in August 2000 but granted in July 2003, covers the kind of thing Apple has brought to market as the iPod."
I already had my rio.
which still works,btw..
(does the patent say something about hd then or something? seems like you can patent just about anything)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I'm so sick of this shit.
Why not fork?
So they can't come up with their own products, they just decided to sue Apple?
Ohh and a patent for a digital jukebox? Hello ever hard of the Nomad Jukebox?!?
Ohh and then, umm 12% of sales form iPods? Holy shit thats a lot of fricking money...
Verbatim, the second line of the article is: "Pat-rights named the technology as 'Internet/Remote User Identity Verification', earned a US Patent 6,665,797 therefor, and world-wide patents pending"
now, i'm not a patent lawyer, but since this company is based in hong-kong, and has no worldwide patents, wouldn't that mean that the patent does not apply? or is an overseas company holding a us patent still able to enforce it's us patents from offshore?
Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
I guess the "patent pending" avatar used in the story was a tongue-in-cheek joke when it was created. However, with these kind of stories, I fear that it may someday become a reality.
I hope breathing fresh air is never patented.
from the willie-sutton-working-overtime dept...
Q: Who is Willie Sutton?
A: This is Willie Sutton.
Reading the linked claim made me want to cry. Based on the reasons they say Apple is infringing on their patent, they must have patented password protection. Or at least password protection over the internet. Novel. The article's worth reading though. It made me giggle and tear up at the same time. Not many things do that.
Is it just me, or is it kinda suspicious that these companies are only getting angry now. I mean, iTunes/iPod is new and hip, but it's been around long enough for other companies to notice patent violations earlier. Seems like these companies only decided to file suits once they saw how much money was being made off the idea (whereas their somewhat similar patent was a total waste...). On a first pass, it sounds like silly lawsuits that will go nowhere.
So the company wants "Apple [to] pay 'a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods."
.
Hmm, who wants to bet that their version of reasonable differs from their view? That is an outrageously large amount. Let's examine their claim.. From the blog (complete with poorly written English):
It is related to using a payment account information to verify the identity of a user, the payment account may be a credit account, before providing the user access to computer software/apparatus.
Probably you have use it before
Certainly sounds like their dubious claim is worth 12%, eh? Does anybody think this is legitimate, and shouldn't be laughed out of court ASAP? Basically, they can't even be bothered to formulate their case well - the article is actually worth reading in this case, if only for a chuckle.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Perhaps we will get some action now on dealing with the concept patent issue. Piss off enough of the company's that actually (unfortunalty) run this country and they might have to fix it despite themselves. (IMHO,IANAL)
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
let's see here: infringement by apple (ipods), ebay, and porn sites... some extremely profitable names there, and they all happen to be "infringing" on these guys...
10100111001
Why the hell did the patent office grant such an obvious patant. What kind of crack are they smoking. I mean shit, kerberos is an Identity management system. It's used for Single-Sign-on all over the place for electronic commerce.
ok, so there is obviously prior art for a portable music player.
Does that matter? Prolly not.
Evolution or ID?
I remember using MusicMatch at least as far back as 1999...if not longer. I'm sure there were other jukebox programs that date further back.
The more big companies that get sued for patent infringment, the faster the law will change.
Go scum, inflict some pain!
Beep beep.
Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that a Hong Kong-based company is suddenly concerned about patent and IP rights, when China as a whole often turns a blind eye to the whole matter? Yes, I know Hong Kong is a special case within China, but still...talk about a double standard here...
So much for ssh, telnet, FTP, terminal services, and remote desktop.
These patent lawsuits must stop. They're getting ridiculous.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
From the "press release":
The US Patent 6,665,797 is written in plain English, even a layman can read and understand it.
Too bad the press release isn't in plain English.
This is almost the mother of all bogus patents. They patented the "login" as far as I can tell. Revolutionary. Very Revolutionary. Looks like a patent date of 2003? I bet no one implemented a "login" earlier than that.
Didn't people use these types of varification systems before 1998 (the date of the patent's filing )? I imagine that the pr0n sites would be the most likely candidates....Not that I go to those, or anything.....
The computer registration involves a process of identity verification in which a user is required to key in into the computer the correct Apple ID and password he used to purchase the song. This is certainly a patentable technology.
It shouldn't be.
User names and passwords go back to at least the 60's, if not earlier.
Time for Apple's Ninja Attack Lawyers to do something productive! They've been kinda bored and . . . . suey lately. Now they'll be distracted kicking an ass that deserves it for awhile.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
anyone really read the patent? seems to me (and i'm not patent attorney) that "digital music jukebox" makers could sue anyone they wanted...so why go after Apple? why not go after everyone?
The actual patent is interesting to read. Click here to read it
Evolution or ID?
"I'm so sick of this shit."
I'm sorry. Shit's patented too. Pay up.
1. Take out patent on "FUD".
2. Take out patent on "Prior art".
3. Profit!
I wonder if maybe Apple will be the first big American company to finally break the silence and speak out against software patents. Microsoft had their "see, bad law affects you too" moment with Eolas, but their reaction (quietly settle the matter in court and suddenly start jacking up the size of their patent library) has been so odd it almost seems like "Whoa, you mean patent law can be abused? Cool!"
But now that Apple's finding themselves up against a frivolous patent suit, maybe it will finally occur to them they aren't really getting anything out of patent law but they're having to pay for frivolous patent lawsuits and only have to pay more and more as IP abuse looks more and more like a growth industry...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Apple et. al. can just move to Eur ... Opps. Never mind.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
From their website:
"It is related to using a payment account information to verify the identity of a user, the payment account may be a credit account, before providing the user access to computer software/apparatus."
Apparently, Pat-Rights has a patent which covers ANY logins in which a payment account is used to verify the user. So companies such as shareware companies, online websites that accept subscribers (redvsblue.com, slashdot.org, userfriendly.org, etc.), Amazon, Buy.com...
Who hasn't violated their patent rights?
Fitzghon
I wish this had happened before the EU software patent directive passed. This is a perfect example of the stupidity that is software patenting. Since the directive still has to go through a few more votes, I'd say members of the Parliament should definitely hear about this before voting any more on it.
Got it?
Similarly, if you're going to go litigate against a company for IP damages, you wait for the right moment to strike.
Wait until they've sold many units. This way you can claim the most damages ("By selling xxx units, Apple prevented us from selling xxx units"). And you get the biggest licensing fee since this will be on a per-unit basis.
You also wait until they are vulnerable. When they're trying to roll out a new service that's all hyped up, Apple are more likely to want to settle quickly than have their product stalled by court injunctions etc causing their product to flop.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Coming soon to EU member states, unless *you* write to your MEPs and request that they attend (and vote against) the European Parliament's second reading of the computer-implemented invention laws.
Anyone else think software patents are a good idea? Anyone? No? Hm.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I for one, welcome our patent hording overlords...
Hopefully this will lead some people with influence into realizing the patent system needs an overhaul. Probably not though... Has anyone patented the binary numbering system yet? Just imagine how many companies could be sued...
1. File intentionally ambiguous patents
2. Have patents approved by horribly inept patent office
3. Make no attempt to utilize idea(s)
4. Wait for hit product and/or industry to embrace new technology
5. ???
6. Sue the crap out of them
7. Profit!
Oh man, someone stole my idea! Oh well, back to the drawing board...
Jesus Christ Almighty!
This is why software should be copyrighted instead of patented. The kinds of things you can get patents on these days are just downright silly. A patent on a music jukebox? A patent on user verification system? Give me a break. These patents are not meant to protect the "inventors" IP, but rather to simply scheme the court system into getting money that they don't deserve. All software patents do is hold back the industry. Think about it, what if someone had patented the idea for a GUI? Where would we all be today?
On the other hand, if software was copyrighted, the inventor's IP would still be protected (his actual code) but the idea would still be useful to other developers.
Just my two cents
-py
-py
If so, what could possible be more obvious than verifying customer info using a credit card account? Seriously, who would not think of that idea?
I don't understand how people can possibly miss the absurdity of software patents with cases like these...
Peace
From their own website:
"Pat" stands for PATENT, "Pat-rights" means patent rights.
Early in 1995, Founder of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. TSE visualised Internet as the most promising environment for digital content distribution and began to develop ideas and technologies essential for these changes.
As a result of his long term efforts, several national patents are being issued. And, some of them are being infringed by Global Industrial giants."
http://www.pat-rights.com/
The company's whole business model is built around going after companies over IP.
Darl, is that you?
Paco23
to all this patent nonsense. The software industry is so stifled by all this crap. And it's almost a necessity now. If a company didn't patent it's technology it's at a disadvantage from those companies that do. It allows competitors to both use their technology freely while at the same time leveraging their own patents to stop the company using the competitors technology. Guess it will take either a law change or some ballsy stance by a big player in the patent game to stop taking out patents...I'd vote the former will happen a long time before the latter.
Do we need any more examples why software patents don't work. It's not surprising that someone would attempt to patent something as obvious as password protection.
"These patent lawsuits must stop. They're getting ridiculous."
Buy an Apple computer. Help support Apple's legal defense.
This ridiculous, inhibitive patent suit should be thrown in the faces of the European Parliament prior to their ratification of software patents in Europe as an example of the damage that patents cause to businesses. If they don't see the problems with software patents now, they never will.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Sun Tzu's manual of patent profiteering clearly describes the tactic of suing smaller defenseless companies for settlements in preparation for suing the larger, better defended corporations. ;-) Someone clearly didn't do their homework. It's like using the weapon of fire without the wind at their back. Stoopid!
The present invention relates to protection of software, and particularly, to protection of software against unauthorised use or copying.
Let's see, iTMS does not use logging in to protect software. It only "protects" files such as the MP3's that you download. iTMS also doesn't care about unauthorised copying of iTMS because you can download it whenever you want, for free, from Apple. Lastly, iTMS doesn't use logins to prevent the unauthorised use of iTMS, but instead, only the unauthorised use of the music. The biggest distinction is that this patent is to protect a software program (from what I can gather). iTMS, and many other website, etc., use login to protect either A) Information or B) Files of some kind. A file is not necessarily a piece of software. Hell, I know that every word document I have ever written is a file, but it is most certainly not a piece of software. Yes, we all know that this is a bogus patent, but this shows that it definitely does not apply.
Everyone knows that iTunes allows a user to play purchased music tracks to up to 5 computers, without repeated payment, under the condition that the computers are registered. The computer registration involves a process of identity verification in which a user is required to key in into the computer the correct Apple ID and password he used to purchase the song.
This is certainly a patentable technology. If iTunes does not patent it, there must be a very good reason for them not to do so- someone else has patented this.
Certainly patentable? Perhaps apple's version is although it's a bit of a stretch. It's a huge assumption to make that because apple didn't patent it then someone else must have. Perhaps apple considered this to be an obvious technology and therefore NOT patentable? Perhaps they didn't patent it because they wanted everyone to be able to use this technology?
Pat-rights named the technology as "Internet/Remote User Identity Verification", earned a US Patent 6,665,797 therefor, and world-wide patents pending. In the end of 2003, Apple indicated in its communication to Pat-rights that Apple had no interested in licensing it and remain silence ever since then.
As far as I can tell it's called "Protection of software again against unauthorized use" who knew we could "again" protect against unauthorized use?
"We have kept a close watch on every development of iTunes. We believe this is willful infringement", said CEO of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. Tse,"We lose face. Apple shows no respect to us and our patent rights!"
The US Patent 6,665,797 is written in plain English, even a layman can read and understand it. "They are playing unfair to their customers, not us." Mr. Tse further commented.
Plain english is debatable, here is the abstract: "A central program comprising a EI sub-program for providing identity information of the rightful user thereof for accessing a network central computer to obtain service(s) or software product(s) or alike, in which a secure operation on an account of the rightful user for payment therefor involved; and a AS sub-program for using the existence of the EI sub-program in a computer as a precondition for authorising use of those software products obtained on that computer. The central program is for managing the use of the individual sub-programs therein so that the AS sub-program can be protected from being copied individually."
That's a whopping TWO sentences! Although I guess it is "plain" english.
To me this seems overly broad and stupidly obvious. Authentication is a security mechanism covered in any undergrad network security course so it seems a bit of a stretch that this isn't obvious to anyone skilled in the arts.. hmmph.. disgusting.
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
When will a company have the balls to respond to such a patent claim by FedExing a piece of paper containing two words: "Fuck off"?
It's about time someone did something like that in response to this sort of BS.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
(Yelling) This is what happens when you liscense stupid patents like one click.
Just wait until someone patents the patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6665797.WKU.&OS=PN/6665797&RS=PN/ 6665797
There's definately some prior art for this one. Amazon is a likely one, they came to exist in 1996, while the patent was filed in 1998. Hmm...
I would say that Jukebox is dead in the water on technical merits. Not just prior art. The patent is for :
"music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library". The device includes a "housing, audio input structure... for receiving audio signals, and a data storage structure... for storing audio signals".
This is the big question in the register story. I would argue that iTunes does not receive audio signals but digital data. iTunes does not have any means to directly record audio signals, only to convert data from one format to another (either from a digital medium known as a CD, or from another file format) , and of course to output audio signals. Same with an iPod. They both do not except input of audio signals only input of digital data. Maybe i'm making too much of a connection between acoustic sounds and audio signals
Anyone with a better background in audio want to weigh in?
Prior art for remote identifying of users
TCP/IP. Packets have a return address so the receaver can respond to the senders request. The ability to respond to requests provides a reasonable method of conferming a users identity.
I don't actually exist.
"But you're right ... something does need to be done about software patents. As in "eliminating them completely." So far as improving the economic health of the nation, or "promoting the useful arts and sciences" goes, or indeed anything other than "enriching the few at the expense of the many" they serve no purpose and should never have been permitted."
The inventer of the "VM" would disagree.
Peace
Having just read the abstract of the patent, it seems like what they are trying to patent is just about every mp3 player on the planet. If you stretch the words far enough, then it could describe any CD player, or maybe even tape player for that matter. How do these patents slip by?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm going to patent subtraction and then sue my bank.
Looking over the patent process, its a login process. They patented the login process!!!
Once companies start suing the hell out of each other, wasting vaulable resources that could be better spent elsewhere, industry will be begging congress to recind the laws that allow for software patents.
and I quote:
Febraury 28, 2005
Pat-rights demanded 12% from iTunes
March 7, 2005
Apple remains silent
http://www.pat-rights.com/news.html
"Teachers leave us kids alone
So far as improving the economic health of the nation, or "promoting the useful arts and sciences" goes, or indeed anything other than "enriching the few at the expense of the many" they serve no purpose and should never have been permitted.
Somewhere down the line, government stopped being about the people, and became about capital.
The usefull arts and sciences are those that increase profits.
The economic health of the nation obviously is directly linked to the economic health of the owners of the nation's infrastructures.
When people are obsessed over the enemies abroad, they don't notice the enemies within.
You can't take the sky from me...
Specifically, information of a transaction, such as transaction amount, is being supplied from a data input terminal such as internet computer or a POS terminal, to a transaction control centre, then transmitted back to its originating location, to a user through a portable receiver which may be a mobile phone or the like.
And the better part is:
The scope of patent protection may seem to be incredibly broad, but this is what we exactly own
Patents and the patent-system kill all innovation and freedom. The current push for patents (especially as we now see happening in Europe) is designed for one thing and one thing only: KILL LINUX. Apple is right alongside M$, Sun, HP and the other big boys in pushing for it, using any means at hand. Th only "flaw" (for them) is things like this: patent claims by companies that don't produce anything, and consequently can't be counter-sued or crosslicenced with. Still the big boys figure this is a price worth paying for having the whole legal system at their disposal to kill any upstart and/or open-source initiative at will. I seriously want this lawsuit, and many many mote to succeed, because then, and only then will it become apearant to the public at large that the idea of "software and business patents" is really state-sponsored crime and extortion. And then and only then will the big companies start realizing they have entereed into a pact with the devil (so to speak) and they are losing more than they are winning unless they actively lobby for the abolishment of the whole thing. They lobbied and bribed it into existence, and make no mistake, should they want to they can easily lobby and bribe it out of existence again.
the big companies in the US that they should start pushing the govt to get rid of those patents.
For once, I'm glad that Taiwan company decided to go to the extreme. Only that way they can learn how ridiculous their evil ways are...
BTW - I'm putting a patent on the alphabet - and I want $.01 for every letter you guys type - or just send me $5 via pay pal and we are good ;)
A digital audio signal is still an audio signal, honestly. Even if it wasn't, the iPod *does* accept audio signals for recording and storage (the voice recorder add-ons).
However; my statement regarding digital audio signals should be construed to apply solely to real-time digital audio over such mediums as SPDIF (coaxial or optical, either way), ADAT-O, TDIF, AES/EBU, and similar. A audio data file is not a digital audio signal; it is a digital audio signal that has already been received and processed. By patenting the receiving portion, I think AAD has pretty much eliminated applying it to signals that are already received and recorded, limiting themselves solely to real-time recording (streams would seem to be a grey area here).
All that said, I think the patent is bullshit, and next time I'm in Lake Forest I might feel the need to throw something at their offices.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
ABOUT Pat-rights
"Pat" stands for PATENT, "Pat-rights" means patent rights.
Funny... I always thought "Pat" stood for PATRICK or PATRICIA. Then again, I suppose the concept of "Patrick-rights" is a fairly nonsensical one.
Early in 1995, Founder of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. TSE visualised Internet as the most promising environment for digital content distribution and began to develop ideas and technologies essential for these changes.
Midway through the 90s, Phil (which stands for PHILIP) got bored with making an honest living. He devised a cunning scheme to profit from the hard work of others by taking out patents on blatantly obvious concepts. He cleverly noticed that the net (which stands for INTERNET) was become quite a popular emerging technology, and hurried to think of obvious paradigms that would soon be naturally implemented by future net developers. (Remeber, net stands for INTERNET).As a result of his long term efforts, several national patents are being issued. And, some of them are being infringed by Global Industrial giants.
As a result of his long term efforts, several patents on the aforementioned blatantly obvious concepts are being issued, annoying everybody from the hobbyist hack to Global Industrial giants! (Remember, the words "Global" and "Industrial" should always start with a capital, but "giants" should not.)
More like... nerdular nerdence!
Not sure exactly, but what exactly is "audio data"? Is something you need to decode first audio data too or would you actually need a microphone/line-in to receive audio data?
P.O. Box 54670, North Point Post Office, Hong Kong.
AC comments get piped to
Now IANAL, but I believe the US patent law give benefit to the first to file, or the first to invent, which is not always known until litigation.
T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,587,403.WKU.&OS=PN/6,587,403&RS =PN/6,587,403
This http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
patent has benefits reaching back to July of 1997.
Read the Related Application info.
Also, the only things enforceable in a patent are the CLAIMS.
Furthermore, patent publications are of no consequence. I've seen some slashdotters get all riled up about crazily written broad applications, but almost never does a patent make it through the process of becoming a patent without some moddification.
Anyway here's the first independent claim of the jukebox patent
We Claim:
1. A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.
Was this done before July of 97?
I don't know, but I just wanted to help give some understanding of the US patent system... I hope it helps.
Peace (here's $.25)
Hi,
I think that the real solution to patent problems is to forbid licensing of patents. The reasons for the existence of patents is to allow a small company an exclusive right to develop and market a product without having to fear being out competed by a big company, or for a big company which has spent millions on R&D to be allowed to make products without fear of a small company knocking the product off.
Neither of these two requires people to license their patent to a second party, and in fact doing that negates the reason for the government granting them the patent. So I think the solution is to prevent people for licensing a patent, and place the patent into the public domain if they do so. This would not stop them selling the patent, but would prevent them licensing the idea to all their competitors.
This would mean that there would be no way to have patent portfolios which can be used as bargaining chips by big and small companies to push an entire industry around...
Regards
-Jeremy
News Febraury 15, 2005
Pat-rights finished first round of FUND raising
Febraury 28, 2005
Pat-rights demanded 12% from iTunes
March 7, 2005
Apple remains silent
Investment
As it can be expected the license fees collectable from infringers will be staggering, we are willing to offer very generous return for investors, in a short term.
After reading through the patent, the claims are too broad. It seems orignally they were going to protect their own software, but most likely saw the loophole in their own patent and took advantage of it. The patent itself basically says any software written that includes a secure login to access software or services belongs to the patent holder. Each login will authorize and confirm that the user has the right to use the software or services. If anyone does use this technology, which nearly every peice of software that is online capable (including slashdot.org), must suffice to the patent holder and ask permission or pay. If any one can verify or prove me wrong on this, please do so. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong because this would probably be one of the most powerful companies/individual to rule the software industry.
Wait a minute.
Haven't people been authenticating across a network as long as wide area networks have existed, or am I missing something here?
I know WANs predate me (and I'm 27). These guys are on crack.
Wait until I get that patent on binary. I'm going to open it up to free software projects and then sue Microsoft for the back-royalties. To the tune of $40 billion.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
So the patent system is creating an incentive for small companies to concentrate on acting as IP toll collectors on ideas reinvented independently by other companies, rather than actually producing products, or for that matter actively selling their IP to companies to produce new products.
That's my explanation for why software patents are bad for people to whom the ideological arguments are lefty blathering.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
So is this thing actually granted or what?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
...and you will. I will. The customers will. Corporations pass these surprises expenses directly to the consumer.
Since you had to pay for a shell account at some places to access usenet/irc. This was definately before 2000. It was a paid account, sometimes you purchased stuff from it again, and it was username/password(and some places made usernames your actual name, email address, etc..)
Just curious.
HAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
HAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA!!!
(etc.)
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
From AAD's patent here Claim 1 (the base for ALL the other claims in the patent) reads:
Now, the thing to remember is that winamp has been around since sometime before 1999, ie more than a year before this patent was filed.
The only SLIGHTLY new thing here would be the "select a group of soundtracks" which sounds like "album shuffle" to me. The rest? Not a single thing MiniDisc didn't do in 1991. It's pretty clear that its not itunes thats infringing, because the only thing it does that napster and/or winamp didn't was download tracks from a main server and take your money.
Lets look at the other claims here:
2) plays a CD (how many years have we had cd players?)
3) edit an audio track
4) seems to mean that even if you have a cd in the drive you can play tracks from memory. Just like winamp.
5) edit an audio track using a "manually operable function controller"... are they calling volume adjustment "editing"?
6) "at least one sound track in the data storage memory is organizable into at least one group of sound tracks." Wow, a playlist editor?
7) "one manually operable function controller" for organizing sound tracks. When I use a mouse to rearrange songs in my winamp playlist using a "manually operable function controller"?
8) Peak level indicator (like winamp).
9) "such that names are assignable to at least one sound track in the data storage memory." OH MY GOD! THEY INVENTED THE ALBUM FIELD OF THE ID3 TAG! BOW TO THEIR INTELLIGENCE! Or you could just mean saving your playlist to a file and giving it a name. Winamp, and this claim is so oldschool its playschool.
10) "manually operable function controller" for assigning names to your winamp playlists. Like a keyboard!
11) Names assignable to at least one group of soundtracks. Could be the directory I store all my playlists in.
12) the obligatory device for naming groups of soundtracks
13) Uses a harddrive@!!%@2!@ wow, thats original!
14) Uses a line-in jack. Just like MD players right after Sony discovered that nobody cared about the optical inputs
15) Line Out Jack. Doesn't de
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
But ... but ... Have you seen their motto? They _must_ be on our side!
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
As big companies and patent lobbies ar just lost their logical sanity and clear mind over imaginary profit and possibilities of use of this 'intelectual nuclear weapon', there is someone who will bring back some shred of reality to them. And when everything will be broken in this system which we somehow still call 'democracy', I hope everyone will get idea how BAD is to allow *only* money run the show, err, world.
But in fact, it IS getting out of hand. Either patent advocats ar totally blinded by their greed and need of power, or somehow cursed. Logical thinking and common sense doesn't apply here.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Let's see... The US was sold out to Corporate greed.
The EU seems determined to be no smarter...
Let the carnage begin!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Eat recycled food. Good for the environment, and okay for you.
OMG! Wau!
The first claims specifically describes most software license servers, at least as long as they can check the identity of the user running the software and grant or deny the right to use that software. This was filed in 1998, but I know that the university I went to used license servers before that time, however they may or may not have done anything beyond counting the number of users.
The remainder of the claims discuss being able to accept payments, which I suspect was not a feature of license servers at the time (most of which were used for corporations or universities or other large bodies that already paid for their software)
I take that alllll back. ANY mainframe user would have done all of the above, PLUS been billed for CPU time. The only thing new in this patent is the automatic credit card billing feature, and I bet you can find a shareware sales site out there that issues usernames and passwords, and generates keys that specifically only work with your username in your application, and that can process your credit card. (I know for a fact that winrar registration does this now, but back in 97 I was too busy ignoring the "buy now!" dialogs in my apps to see how their license key/serial number schemes worked)
Too bad Apple will probably pay these people to go away instead of getting these patents struck down. When stupid patents like these are issued, it does nothing but devalue all the real work done out there by real inventors who created these things (like the DVD-Audio section of the prior patent)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I wasn't copying their copyrighted music your honour, I was only receiving "digital data".
They are obviously talking about the right to be androgynous... how this is related to the iPod, I don't know.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
We got lawyers, yes we do.
We go lawyers, how 'bout you?
This is silly. I don't think the patent for the "juke box" is anywhere near the finished product. The Hong Kong company is just another of the hyenas that come out to pester the larger corporate carnivores for their piece. They have as much claim as SCO has on Linux.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
check out their patent for mobile commerce (PDF).
What amazes me is that anyone can put together a couple of badly drawn diagrams, and not even explain EXACTLY HOW they are going to achieve what they are talking about.
in http://www.pat-rights.com/InternetUserIdentityVeri fication.html, they claim that eBay is an example of an infringing website. eBay has had that system in place since before their patent was applied for. It seems to me like they have just provided everything you need to prove prior art on their page.
dennis
This works for what is known as method patents. And that is what is wrong with them. Thehy are totally worthless.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
idiots...i own the patent to all transactions and communications done over the web. Im gonna sue your ass next...
I think this was a "Dilbert":
Wally: I placed streams of ones and zeros on my hard drive. The fact that you created images of porn out of them is your problem, not mine.
(paraphrased)
Sleep is for the Weak
Check out the "Pat-rights" website -- their slogan: "We innovate, we share and we gain".
From the site:
Early in 1995, Founder of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. Tse visualised Internet as the most promising environment for digital content distribution and began to develop ideas and technologies essential for these changes.
As a result of his long term efforts, several national patents are being issued. And, some of them are being infringed by Global Industrial giants.
Dripping with sincerity, isn't it? Shakespeare was right when he said, "All the world's a stage, it's people only players." If he were alive to watch some of the painfully transparent performances on the patent-piracy stage, I don't know if he would laugh or cry.
I'm sure it's got to be more cost-effective to hire a couple of goons to make these clowns disappear.
Gee, I wonder how they applied for the patent if they had to 'login' via the 'internet' to the patent website to apply for their 'internet login' patent?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
They could pay you twice and still have enough left to buy ze Cleveland Browns.
...there will be no more cases like this, as I have already registered a patent on registering ridiculous, extortionate patents. Pat-Rights is first on my hitlist.
is working at the US Patent Office. I swear I think it is a bunch of freakin chimps and it just takes 4 or 5, or 6 years for them to get through the stacks that they are rubber stamping with approved(Assuming they see big colorfull logos on the paperwork for corporations). This is getting outrageous(sp), the patent system was designed for individuals to use to protect the innovative ideas, not for corporations to use to beat people over the head with. Now I am not defending apple, as they have used patents in the past to beat people over the head with, however, using a Credit Card for verification without charging it has been around long before the patent was filled. And as far as the other patent it describes any jukebox which stores it's music in data format, and specifically points to CD Jukebox's and players. Patent Number 6587403 The worst part of all of this is that now Europe will be under the same obnoxious, idiotic, corporations that want to patent everything. At the rate patents are being allowed on previously existing items, and or ideas, pretty soon someone will patent the biological system of exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide.
Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
...alleges its patent, number 6,587,403, for a 'music jukebox,'...
I thought the Apple vs. Microsoft/HP lawsuit over GUI design lo many moons ago settled this. If I remember correctly the court said you could copyright a specific expression of an idea, but not the idea in a universal way. In that case the outcome was that even though MS and HP made GUIs that were similar to the one in Apple's Mac OS, they hadn't stolen code from Apple and hadn't copied the "features and functions" enough to justify copyright violations.
So now these companies should have no right to complain since at most they might own the rights to their own methods of password verification over the Internet and of designing/buiding their "music jukebox". But Apple and the other companies came up with their own implementations, and unless proven to be copies/stolen reproductions of the copyrighted works, I see no merit to the case.
Of course, IANAL.
Darl, is that you?
I'm sorry, but Darl(tm) is a registered trademark of SCO. In addition, the phrase "is that you" is under copyright. If you wish, you may license it for $699 per instance.
Finally, we are seeking a patent on "A symbolic method of indicating a desire for more information," so you should also refrain from using the question mark on the at of the sentence. Without such protection, our ability to innovate will be seriously compromised.
Based upon what the U.S. Patent Office has done with This patent, any patent that infringes on human rights (I.E. Liberty) will be denied. So, nah, breathing air, won't be allowed to be patented.
Everyone email them and let them have it!
info@Pat-rights.com
Anytime anyone does something clever, they need to pay me $0.05.
Contact me for payment options. Thank you.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
They say they are entitled to trebledamages. Next thing they'll be asking for bass damages.
In a nutshell, the PatRights patent covers nearly any method used by a website to verify a user's identity. It is not specific to credit card verification - even the /. login system could fall under this patent.
IANAL, but this seems to be another case of something being patented in the electronic world that would be laughed at if it were tried in the physical world.
My car, like yours, has doors. Like you, I need a key (or code) to unlock the door and gain access to the interior of the vehicle. I need to use a key (or code) to actually start the vehicle. Why the hell hasn't that been patented?! It is a secure (mostly) method of accessing a product or service (my vehicle) utilizing a transaction apparatus (the lock). The terms of use are a little different, sure (I'm allowed to distribute my login information - a key - to anyone I choose, without worrying that GM will find out and change my locks), but in practice it seems to be the exact same thing. Why are these guys going after iTunes and AVS? Why not hit Ford, GM and Toyota??
Again, IANAL, but the wording of the patent is pretty broad to me.
Dammit, I meant to post that anonymously!
Just wait.
I'll bet in a few years we have even more absurd things, like laws that prevent you from doing perfectly reasonable things with stuff that you've paid for.
Imagine for example, a day when music comes encrypted so you can only play it on the music vendor's equipment. Imagine furthermore if it were a criminal offense to decipher music you've paid for, even for your own use. Oh wait...
Right... that's the DMCA and Apple's been thumping it left and right lately. It's hard to feel sorry for them getting corned on this patent nonsense then.
Any way this works out, several lawyers will be the ones taking this patent fight to the bank.
which is where your tax $$$ go! :)
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Anti competitive BS is all patents are. Patents are basically a pissing contest. I thought of it first so you owe me money.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
It was only a matter of time before a patent holding company case came to the attention of Slashdot.
Patent holding companies are a relatively new phenomenon. The main complaint about them by traditional companies is that they are immune to cross-license agreements. This tends to make "defensive portfolios" useless for negotiation, since there's nothing that the holding company wants, except to extort money.
The only good news is that *usually* a patent holding company - one that exists solely to hold patents, and does not produce products of its own - will not actually try to charge more for their patent royalties than some amount smaller than what it would cost to litigate the patent. That prevents them from having to defend and potentially lose a shaky or questionable patent.
The bad news is that they can't be scared off by claims that the patents are invalid, either through obviousness, prior art, or that their patent is, in fact, not being infringed. Admitting that would be admitting that their business model is fundamentally unsound.
The other bad news is that if a patent is valid, they can "camp" on an idea, and prevent anyone else from bringing a product to market, at least for the term of the patent.
You could argue that they permit small inventors to band together, and allow them to press suits against giant corporations that they would otherwise have no hope of winning. This is true, but this is not the way these companies are typically being used, at least in the software industry.
If used correctly, a patent holding compnay would permit a small inventor to not be squeezed out of markets by large companies who cross-license defensive portfolios amount themselves, effectively stifiling their competition.
IMO, the one good thing that will come out of cases like this, particularly when their opening royalty request is unrealistically high - enough that surely it'll be worth litigating, rather than simply rolling over - is that there will likely be enough cause here for companies like IBM, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, and others who depend on their defensive portfolios to encourage real reform of the patent system.
-- Terry
If the suing company is willing to settle for an amount that costs Apple less than the cost of going to court to fight them, then Apple would save money by settling with them. That could be what this is all about.
Its about time Apple has a taste of their own medacine... Maybe one of these days they will realize that harm done against legitimate rights will bring ten fold the harm into their own house.
I would like to take this moment to say a big Thank You to the companies who are standing up against Apple's blatant abuse of their IP rights. I guess we should have seen this coming. It was only a matter of time before the Karma came back to bite them in the ass. Not to steal a quote from George Bush but I can't resist: Bring it on!
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Not only do they have to sue the people whom made ssh, telnet, FTP, etc. for that identifcation patent....
They also have to sue Diamond Multimedia for introducing the Rio PMP300 in September 1998 or they gotta sue Sensory Science or Creative Labs!
Sorry, this case is going to sink.
There's a sound legal reason for calling them all IP, however it would be a waste of everyone's time to explain it. I'll post it. No one will read it. And next time we have a YRO. Everyone will simply copy and paste what they said already. So what would be the point?
I'll bet that system I put together and have running down in the basement that's serving up MP3 and Ogg music files to the home[1] network is infringing as well. Gosh... I feel like such an outlaw now! (And it's so-o-o exciting!)
[1] Note to the RIAA: These are on our home network and cannot venture outside the firewall so don't bother sending your legal thugs.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The Nomad wasn't around before August 17, 2000, was it?
I had a minidisc player which was, though, and it had a display, and seems to meet the criteria of the patent.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
That Apple already caved in when they licensed 1-Click shopping.
That was only the begining. They caved in once, now they are a target. It is their own fault...look at them going crazy sueing journalists because they are (LEGALLY I might add) protecting their sources. There is no end to apple's foolishness. Maybe this will be the nail in their coffin. (I wish)
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
While I think this is patent is [insert explicit word], reading further in it:
1) a sub-program for providing an Encrypted Identity (herein below referred to as EI sub-program), (Your login)
3) a sub-program for authenticating user computer (herein below referred to as AC sub-program)(ID of your Computer 1/5)
Otherwise I agree, the purpose of the patent is to protect public available software from being run by authenticating both a user, and a PC. Apple's software doesn't seem to fall under this as authentication is not for 'software product' use, but for access to user specific data.
So Apple creates the iPod and everyone thinks their "cool"....
. pdf/
Well they were supporting the EU council proposals that have just progressed today:
http://www.patents4innovation.org/docs/pr070305tc
I say that they deserve everything they get.
And in the end, most of them are sent packing for the jokes that they are.
Easy with the drama, people.
er, i claim patent infringement
This is my United States of whatever.
as if copyright wasn't crazy enough with software look at what Patents do to it, its insane.
Funny thing is, that Apple makes zero profit off of iTunes, they actually lose money from it -- but they make shit loads off selling iPods. Apple has stated publicly that of the 99 cents for a song something like 45 cents goes to the music companies and the rest go to the credit card companies. I'd love for Apple to contact pat-right and say "here's 12% of nothing -- bitches".
Ironic indeed that many patent-infringing companies in China are able to twist the laws to their advantage.
However, in the HK-itunes case being discussed in the main thread, I'm more inclined to think that it's just a blatant grab for money.
Did anyone notice the "investors" link that was on the pat-rights site? Seems a little strange that they are so willing to collect investors' money and offer "staggaring" returns.
My guess is that someone in HK has been watching the legal circus surrounding software patents and finally found something that has half a chance of standing up in court and now can market it as an investment vehicle.
I, like a number of /.ers, am reminded of that guy who ran SCO.
On the bright side, it appears that the Pat-Rights guy has patented the entire structure of modern networked software DRM. You'd think the Cory Doctorow fans would be rejoicing. But it looks like the Lessig and Apple fans are being more fully represented at the moment.
How about Apple keeps their money and Pat-Rights goes and fucks themselves.
IANAL and this may not be sound legal advice.
Work Safe Porn
Not that this case warrents it, but here is why the parasites live on the host. A small inventor holds a core patent. To enforce against a mid-size corp, the inventor needs some US$1+ Million available. Typically, they don't have it and instead turn to patent licensing agents who provide 35-->60% royalty back to inventor. The licensing agent does not want the inventor distributing a product. Why? Because they are financing the litigation and they do not want to deal with cross patent licesning issues (that does not put money in their pocket).
How long before large companies start using covert means to remove "problems" from the world of making money?
Sure, it seems like a ridiculous idea to think of a CEO on the phone saying something like,
`Is this Mr Pin? Yeah, S.G. here. I got a little problem with a fellow down in Tokyo... You'll take care of it? Wonderful. Payment in the usual way.'
Somewhere in the world a hitman with an imagination is buying himself some nice suits and ties in order to present himself with a better, more "friendly", corporate image.
I expect he'll probably start wearing them in five to ten years when business gets more, interesting.
His name is Robert Paulsen...
Every asshole has one.
This will be a lesson in the difference between getting a patent issued, and having an enforceable patent.
The validity of a patent is not decided by the USPTO, it's decided by a federal court.
I would never consider myself elderly, but I'm pretty sure ATM's existed before 1998. You can verify through an ATM without getting charged.
It might be interesting if, by some incredible twist of fate, Prior Art doesn't take these guys down instantly. They will get rich off of the entire United States economy, without products or services.
However, since the US is so insistent on telling other countries to respect their IP, maybe it would be instructive to the world how these patents should be properly "respected"?
Oliver.
Every time I see a corp get attacked by another corp over patent crap, I say hallelujah. If it happens enough some of these corps will start pushing to get the law changed. God knows it takes a corp to do that.
I wait patiently for the day that intellectual property law is reined in.
Cheers.
All this Patenting going on is just crazy, so I recently patented the process of human defecation.
Getting it past the Patent Office was easy, I just used diagrams, and obtuse language to describe the whole technical process.
And the best part is...
My new patent is open source for everyone except, anyone who works for, or has stock in, a multinational corporation, and all state and federal polititions.
They all have to pay me a "license fee", every time they want to take a shi... uh, I mean... defecate.
I'm donating 10% of my net profits to open source software development.
Look it up yourself, it's U.S. Patent #0987654321
People who deal in the industry call it IP. It's only a stupid Slashdot meme that "IP is meaningless".
It may be pedantic, bad politics, or (frequently, here) misinformed, but distinguishing between different types of rights bundles granted by the state is not "onlya stupid Slashdot meme". The state granting those rights does the same, and one way to oppose those who wish ideas to become perpetual cash fountains is to point out the concepts, law and history that underpins the reasons why the state grants those rights in the first place. Of course, to do so, one must explain the difference between different types of things that fall under the umbrella term "IP".
Um, would you care to explain what exactly is wrong with the construction "it is [adj] to [verb]I forget what 8 was for.
First of all, the patent is too old to be patentable in the EU.
2nd, according to what the danish government says, you can not patent software ideas, it has to be a real invention - i.e. not some small thing - buit something that can stand on its own. So this is way too simple to ever be patented.
The problem is US patent laws that allows anybody who wants a patent to get it. I think there are current US patents on both the wheel and on fire. In the US patent office is a registration only office. In Europe, you need to convince them you have a real invention.
Which is the use of eyeballs to view a visual medium, please don't look....
Which is trying to make a living off of other peoples ideas.... US Patent #420, other worldwide patents are pending...
From one of their news releases.
In their plan, Pat-rights' first step in business will be selling PC games thru' Internet.
Patent this idea before they do! You'll make millions!
I think these patent claim jumping hill-billies need to wake up. I also think the US Patent office should adopt some new policies where the item/process being patented should be in existance. It is not fair for people to create patents on items/technologies that are not even developed yet at the time the patent was submitted. If so, watch out US Patent office as I wish to patent the transporter system which breaks down solid matter and transport them to another location. Or maybe a patent for the creation a Hyper-Drive which allows a spaceship to travel long distances in a short amount of time. Again patents do not make sense unless the item/process is in existance.
I've been tracking Audible.com for years. They have the first portable digital audio device in the Smithsonian. One of their first patents, filed in 1996, seems to cover the authentication/authorization of digital devices connected to computers. I realize that the patent doesn't prevent infringement on this inane patent, but can it be used as prior art if Apple wants to follow the Audible method to the letter? Apple already has the Audible DRM built into all its iPod, I think, but all of its music uses the Apple DRM.
Seems like the only thing this company adds is the credit card transaction, but patent claims, if they are to survive litigation, must be non-obvious. If prior art had every step except the customer setting up an account on the server-side, it would appear to be obvious to ask for payment. This patent is also a continuation, so I wonder if that early file date is good.
Damm it... Just one more eksample why a patent system on software stinks. Come on 'Internet User Identity Verification'... As I remember the first thing they tryed when connecting the first 2 computers, was to login on the other computer. So there has been patent infringement from day 1. http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/LK/Inet/birth.html
It is both interesting and unnerving that they speak better legalese than English.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
"The problem is US patent laws that allows anybody who wants a patent to get it. I think there are current US patents on both the wheel and on fire. In the US patent office is a registration only office. In Europe, you need to convince them you have a real invention."
Really, you obviously haven't seen some of the trivial software patents that already exist in the EU (even though they are in principle not allowed). You can take a look here for some examples:
http://ole.tange.dk/swpat/
So the EU patent office both allows software patents (against the law) and does allow trivial patents. I don't think we have anything to teach the Americans.
v, the process of applying for or buying up patents with the intention of blackmailing others rather than protecting your own development.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The software patent proposal hurts closed and open source developers. That much is in the news every day. Software patents would also hurt any business wishing to use computers to make money.
Sure it may only cost between $50 USD and $50 000 USD per year per patent license, plus attorney's fees, but your company's web site probably violates over 50 by now, all of them either obvious or prior art. Some are even ripped right out of old RFCs.
Or you can fight them in court. It costs only about and average of $4 000 000 USD per patent to get them overturned.
So your choice is pay them and go bankrupt or fight them in court and go bankrupt. The non-producing patent portfolio companies come out ahead on average and only the attorneys win flat out.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The whole thing is crazy. All Software Patents should be banned.
Java code is not a program, is it "input provided to the JRE which the JRE then acts upon".
Think of the consequences of applying this consistently. Is your CPU microcoded? Then even machine language is merely data for the microcode. Even on a non-microcode-driven processor, any interpreted or semi-interpreted language (BASH, Python, Ruby, Java, TCL) is just data for the interpreter, as is anything run in an emulator.
Is this a good idea? Maybe. But we should reason it out, first!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They've just described any PC with an embedded or semi-embedded display and audio I/O. This includes every laptop I've ever seen, and some PCs from the early '80s. Even a PDP-11/23 system from 1970-something with a DAC/ADC board in it. Good luck enforcing that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Apple was not the first company to have online user identification... or the first company to have a hard drive mp3 player... or the first company to have an online music store... and others are well known... it's just that Apple right now is the biggest and most successful.
I thought part of the thing about having a patent is that you have to actively enforce it. If you know someone is infringing your patent and you take no action, then you lose rights to enforce your patent later... (IANAL, IRECTAL, etc...)
Or: "we found some traction amongst geeks against this company or product, so we're going to approve any barely relevant story in a bid to foster a community for return hits".
Well all those smart US mega companies now can only blame themselves. What most of these large software companies fail to understand is a legal weapon in your hands can also be a legal weapon in someone elses hands. Can't wait till the USA is paying billions in patent licensing fee's to off shore companies and the whole US software industry is stagnating in its own crap. I saw this comming years ago suprised it took so long.
So if one idea has been patented by 2 different corporations in 2 different countries. Each one slightly different worded, but covering the same idea. You can that get screwed like 2 times, in the manufacturing country you have to pay license fee for manufacturing, and in another country you have to pay the license fee for distributing/selling the product.
Not to mention a product can be covered by lots of different patents. And any of those patent-holders has the right to DENY you anything if they chose (ie. your money is not important to them).
So you can get screwed over royally, if you're unlucky.
PS. I'm using the word idea deliberately, because that is what software patents are really covering. Copyrights cover the code.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Just wondered if anyone else wanted some refreshments before we all sit back and enjoy all the nice big legal fights that are about to begin...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It seems the flood has started. Hopefully in time to scare the EU away from software patents. One hopes American legislators will respond responsibly, but I doubt it.
Their website is horrible! Just looking at their slogan, "We innovate, we share, we gain". They even are so cheap , that they still use a FREE web counter!
Or how about when you click from Patents to News to Investments, the menu positioning isn't the same!
As a media designer and fellow computer guru, I barf on their image and kick them in the nuts for being so sleezy.
End Rant.
Having read the title I thought you were going say "... and you have to log in over the internet using a username and password to read it"
OK, that's enough. This is getting silly. We're going to rewind the world back 20 years and try to do things right this time. Are you all ready? Good.
And NO MISTAKES this time!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
This is so full of bullshit!!!!
Have we nothing more to do with our misserable lives than sue each others pants of?
Suposedly consumers against big corporations whom all want to make the big bucks. This is so ridiculous. All these patent-wars... Aren't there any more urgent matters to persue than this kind of bullshit? Like how we might predict tsunami's to save thousands of lives? How to stop all these wars raging all over the globe without hurting any more common ppl.
The same ppl that these big corporations need to feed of them (but somehow they seems to forget that)
This is pure decadence. And Decadence is the beginning of the end!
It's nice to watch when the industry have to swallow it's own shit.
They already are.
Congress isn't doing squat.
And if he did indeed come up with these ideas in 1995, erm, buddy it's now 2005. What have you been doing since then?
Surely the way it works is that you come up with a new idea, patent it, market it and license it.
You don't "come up with an idea", watch as the rest of the world has the same idea, and then sue!
Heck, I first thought of First Person Shooters back when the Sinclair Spectrum first was born, but I can't patent it now and make money. How can I prove it?
This is utter bullshit - as you say what else can you expect from a company called Pat-Right.
This patent was filed in 2000. Here's prior art from 1998.
Once again a riduculous patent that has slipped through the net. It's a bit broader than iTunes and iPods - in fact any service that uses the method of using a credit card details as a valid method of identification is encompassed. This includes all sorts of things like online shop's , porn sites and so forth.
If you are a web developer and are asked by your PHB or a client to develop a website that uses this kind of login/validation remember to point out that it is patented and license fees should be paid. Developers can play a role in pointing out the problems with the system.
I think the whole patent fiasco is abhorrent. As much as we "knock" companies like pat-rights the more they continue to expose the farcical system the more likely it will loose its validity and hence be fixed.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I think i have heard of these 'music jukebox,' dealys. Weren't the around in the 50s. Prior Art?
The Good Life
Aren't software patents allowed in the individual member states? In the UK software has been patentable since the mid 90s.
Die DRM!!! Die! DIE!! DIE!!!
1) You can't patent an arrangments of icons on screen. At best you could get a copyright.
2) Big companies will ignore your patent anyway.
Software patents never. NEVER. help small inventors. They're designed to protect large companies against small companies or single programmers.
Why?
Because the cost of software innovation is low, and the barrier to entry is non-existant. The point of the software patents are to raise the barrier to entry for small players.
Since Apple Computer is so compelled to take people to court - it's only fair play that others take Apple Computers into court when laws/regulations are broken (what's good for the goose is good for the gander). Naturally there are a number of possible scenarios here: a) Apple Computer knowingly used the property of others - and knew that forcing a "little guy" into the court system would soften them because of the pressure. The 'little guy" would be more willing to settle now than in 3 or 4 or 5 years from now. Microsoft and other billionaires typically drags a court case out to 3 or 4 years - so can Apple. b) Apple Computer knew nothing about the property of others because they have no money to hire a patent lawyer to check out patents when designing a new product or process. c) Other scenarios?
After recently wathcing A&E's Biogrpahy series about Colonel Sanders, Dave Thomas, and Glenn Bell (of Taco Bell). It's pretty clear that the fast-food industry has no patent protection... invent the americanized taco (very different from the original taco, btw) and everyone copies it, invent drive thru windows and everyoine copies it. The only way to protect a recipe is to keep it secret (11 herbs and spices).
This is the normal way that restaurants operate... and I see no reason why software should be treated any different to recipes. The innovators do well, because they're innovative and keep a step ahead of everyone else.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
...pay 'a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods.'
" said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing,"
They have NO RIGHT to 12% gross fees of iPod shuffles!
---
It's a load of bullshit - like so many things today. The turnaround on technologies is too short, by the time a patent is granted, the technology is already widespread and on its FOURTH incarnation. Oh, I don't mean the original patent filers. They don't have an implementation - they don't need one to sue the pants off of Apple - who, incidentally, never heard of this company nor ANYONE at Apple ever saw anything related to them until this lawsuit. Because there's no actual grounds to their claim, there was no influence or super secret corporate espionage.
Oh hell, all posts are like mine no doubt. Just mod it funny or overrated for the top bit and get on with it.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
I wonder, if the big companies are harassed by some upstart regarding infringement of ridiculous patents, will these big companies then finally get it? Or will they keep lobby for software patents?
Patent Infringement coming from China?
They only started to notice Patents. Even then they only enforce Patents when it suits them.
Ask China about the reported 98% rate of pirated software.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
"What is needed is some recognition that IP does have meaning"
You can't do that until you define IP.
Go ahead define it, and it will have meaning.
Go ahead. Define it. I dare you.
"complaining about the name is about as silly as the "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" nonsense"
Calling copyrights/patents "property" is like calilng a janitor a "sanitation engineer". How impressive! He must be a genius!
Oh, you mean janitor. That's no big deal. Oh, he's an engineer. I'll pay attention to him now!
I'd think that any computer with a CD-recorder that could rip and record audio tracks and had an audio-input (e.g. microphone jack) and audio-output (sound card and headphone jack) would be prior art for virtually all of these claims. A few others (e.g. "balanced and unbalanced" connectors) are obvious (plenty of prior art for ANY audio equipment to have both, for example, so adding them to a computer being used as a piece of audio equipment would not be novel), even if you can't find a direct example (but I'd bet you could even find that, plenty of people were using computers in professional recording studios early on - as soon as you connect up a good quality audio board to the sound input and output jack of the computer, you've probably wiped everything else out). The claim regarding DVD would also be blown away on obviousness - there's plenty of literature showing that a DVD is the same thing as a CD as far as data storage is concerned.
This patent shows a common pattern with a lot of bogus patents - set up a strawman problem, then claim your "invention" solves the invented problem. For example, this invention "solves" the problem of having to use expensive CDs used by "ordinary" CD recorders, allowing you to use the less expensive data CDs that are readily available for computers - ignoring that the "music" recordable CDs aren't a technical issue, but a legal/political issue.
A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.
This patent does not appear to cover just user logins. It is the entire music jukebox structure, which might be the exact way an iPod is structured. If you look at the priority date, they can claim priority all the way back to July 9, 1997. Their patent protection is actually very specific, and they have to prove that all of the elements of the claim are contained within the iPod. The real question is: does anyone know of a digital music jukebox described just like this from before July 9, 1997? I don't think they can go after web sites who simply do user logins, but then in America, anyone can sue anybody no matter how baseless the charge is.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
What I find interesting is that Pat-Rights is seeking 12% of Gross iTunes and iPod sales.
12% of Gross sales - wow, that seems a bit, um, high.
But 12% of iPod sales? Their "patent" covers software. The iPod doesn't have any "login" going on. As best i can tell, when you sync to an iPod, iTunes converts the file (MP3, AAC, FairPlay AAC, etc, AppleLossless, etc) to some other audio format - which is why you can't just copy a cong off an iPod - and the iPod plays it. The iPod isn't doing the "decryption" of the fairplay - to the iPod, a song is a song.
Maybe I am understanding wrong - any one else have concrete understanding to share?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Good thing Europe finally came around and realized that they were missing out on all the fun that can be had from greedy litigation!
Sooner or later someone's going to patent 'screw the system and do your own thing'. Then things are really going to be fun..
So some company pops up waving a spurious patent and demanding a "reasonable" fee of 12% of gross iPod and iTunes sales.
Forget the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA. This is the real piracy that's going on in the world today.
Ha!
Unfortunately, I missed the irony there until you pointed it out.
Does this mean I'm subconciously funny?
Too bad i didnt patent the idea when i had it, 20 years ago..
Though with the technology of the day, couldnt even record one full song, but it was the same concept.
Doh..!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not under US law. Trademarks have to be enforced to be kept; patents, no.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
They should make a rule that says something like: If you patent an idea you have 5 years to make it work or its given to the one who does make it work. Why have all these ideas laying around that no one else can use? Lets reward the people who can actually make these things work to the betterment of society. So if you patent something you better get moving on it and not just sit on your ass waiting to collect from the guy who finally creates something useful out of the idea. I think it would stop frivilous patenting and the lawsuits that ensue.
Distinguishing between different types of rights is not the stupid meme. The stupid meme is that "IP is a meaningless concept". Anybody who even dares to write "IP" on Slashdot gets a predictable lecture. However IP is not a meaningless concept. At the very worst it is ambiguous.
... all of it nonsensical and contrary to reality and the intent of patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets law and designed to confuse and befuddle, but quite meaningful nevertheless.
... especially if you got all of the media outlets on board (as the proponents of intellectual-theft-from-the-public-commons-as-prop erty) crowd has done), but you'd hardly be justified in using the term in any rational, semanticly logical sense. Ditto for "intellectual property."
I'm forced to agree, alas. Dissmissing this toxic term as meaningless is counter-productive.
IP is not a meaningless term. If it were, it would not be so effective as a propoganda tool for befuddling the people of the world to give up basic rights to access to information, expression, and knowledge. "IP" is loaded with meaning
It is an attempt to attach "property rights" to areas of law that have nothing whatsoever to do with property, to propogate the toxic meme that one can "own" ideas, one can "own" expression, and one can "own" secrets, and that anyone else using an idea "owned" by another (even if they came up with it all on their own) is "stealing" "property" from the idea's "owner" (the patent holder), or if one uses an expression (e.g. "fair use" of a video clip, quotation, or tune sampling), one is "stealing" that "property" from the expression's owner (the copyright holder), or if one discovers and publishes Coke's secret recipe, one is "stealing" the "property" of Coca Cola (the "trade secret" holder).
None of these are in fact true, but the perversion of the language is such that many now believe it to be true. Many believe that patent violation is theft, no matter how obvious the idea or how innovative the inventor who lost the footrace to the patent office is, many believe that copyright infringement is theft, no matter the semantic nonsense of such a stance, nor the mountain of evidence that shows filesharers to be more likely to buy more music than those who are not, and many believe outing a secret to be theft, despite a very long history, going back many many centuries, that reverse engineering and discovering and publishing (or making profitable use of) a secret is a perfectly legitimate enterprise, with many positive social and economic consiquences.
But you're right. IP is far from meaningless. It is loaded with meaning, indeed dripping with it. It just so happens that said meaning is deceptive, confusing, and antithetical to thinking clearly and understanding the disparate legal regimes it glosses together into one big whole.
It's more akin to grouping cats, dogs, fish, etc. under the heading of 'disease' rather than pets. You could probably befuddle the masses into calling for their extinction by persisting in using that terminology long enough
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You agree to pay the world's most dangerous and inarticulate "leader" the sum of
U.S. $4,000,000,000,000 to help spread war around the world.
Patriotically as always,
K. Trout, CEO
The dissent in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) made reference to arguments against software patents, including the fact that it would be very difficult for the patent office to handle the load and process the patent applications properly. If your analysis of this patent is correct, it only lends credibility to that argument against software patents.
As for Apple winning this case so long as they have decent lawyers: Many people think that Microsoft was not infringing the Stac patent. Do you attribute Microsoft's loss in that case to lack of decent lawyers?
Congress has never legislated specifically about software patents. The Supreme Court has always ruled that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. No "rethinking" is necessary at those levels for software patents to be illegal. It's lower courts and/or the patent office that need to stop thumbing their nose at the law of the land by granting patents on software, or on software plus insignificant post-solution activity.
There are no elected representatives, and no law allowing for software patents. Lower courts (not the Supreme Court) and/or the USPTO are to blame. Technically, "the law" in the U.S. does not allow software patents. Practically, however, the law is what happens to you in court. Don't take what I'm saying as legal advice.
That only means one thing...the bri^H^H^H contributions haven't gotten big enough. Blow enough of the green stuff up congress' collective ass, and you'll see mountains moving.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
One could argue about windows being real code anyway ;)
Patents are about preventing others making, using, selling, or importing that which is patented. Closed source can just as easily infringe as open source. Since it affects using or selling, this means that consultants, resellers, and even end-user businesses have to cough up.
It's not over, unless you choose to give up now. The European Parliament can still send the CIID back to the sewers it came from, but that means input from you to your MEP.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Soon every patent case will have an immediate defence from the Slashdot community. Some small company is going to get sued for putting a button on their interface by We-Screw-U-Patents and 8,000 replies to their "ask slashdot?" post will be exhibit A from the defence and it will be thrown out.
Doku
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)