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."
The actual patent is interesting to read. Click here to read it
Evolution or ID?
Perhaps you should read the writeup, to which he was responding.
"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."
is an overseas company holding a us patent still able to enforce it's us patents from offshore?
About 50% of US patents are granted to foreign companies. However they can't enforce them from offshore, they have to sue in US court.
By world-wide patents they mean patents granted by other countries, say Australia, Japan, Canada etc. There is no one all-encompasing single worldwaide patent.
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
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.
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...
Yeah I had the original Diamond Rio (later named the Rio 300) back in late 98. I was able to store a whopping 32 megs worth of mp3s on that bad boy!
I still have it, and it still works (although the serial cable it came with doesn't work with my Mac and I never use it since I own an iPod).
I dunno who it is
but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
http://www.pat-rights.com/nsD03_01_2005_T1235.htm
Read the part at the bottom that says "demanding Apple a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods". They don't just want ipods - they want itunes because money because of apple's method of verifying user accounts before they purchase a song. Read the linked page.
There is some prior art.
I really wish people would at least read the links...I've seen 10 posts just like yours, and all it does is distract any discussion away from the actual issue being raised. The apparent claim is that using credit card information to verify identity (ie, you tell eBay your address and give them a credit card number, then they run a CC authorization to see that your information was correct). It is at least specific, if inane. This doesn't even seem like a software patent, more like a business process patent.
I'm not trying to say that maybe (Slashdot in general | you in particular) don't really have a clue, but compare your informational content to mine.
MPEP 2106(II)(A) states that, among other things, a software process must produce a "useful, concrete, and tangible result". The definition of "useful" is given a lot of ink, but later in that chapter it is made clear that a "concrete and tangible result" meets the "useful" requirement. Looking at the independent claims of this patent (6665797), I don't see anything that could be reasonably interpreted as a "concrete and tangible" result. While the idea of the claimed methods are useful, the "access" that is provided is by no means concrete or tangible. Therefore, were I defending against an infringement suit, I would attack these claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, not in compliance with 35 USC 101, and hopefully have the suit dropped.
The next thing I see is language like "in such a manner" in the claims. Oh really? Exactly what manner is that? Claim 14 says
Uh, wtf? If my attack on these claims under 35 USC 101 wasn't enough, I would use 35 USC 112. What the hell kind of limitation is that? Exactly WHAT "identity information" is covered by this? That one example is so vague that I couldn't begin to tell you what it covers. A user name? A credit card number? A DNA sequence? Give me a break.The third attack I would make has to do with the disclosure, and falls under 35 USC 112 as well. Just take a quick glance at the supposedly enabling disclosure. It's marginally better than Engrish. I certainly don't see every claimed feature depicted in the drawings. Exactly where in the drawings is "said operation being operation related to making payment from an account of said rightful user(s) and said first information being a password"?
I don't see what the fuss is about. Here's the real story.
"Inventors" hire lawyer to get patent.
Lawyer writes up a crap ass patent application.
Lawyer annoys an examiner, examiner looks at application, examiner smirks. (Issued now with flaws is far, far worse for the "inventor" than issued later after the application has been strengthened (and the opposite is true for humankind, which should make the limp-wristed hippy socialists happy.))
Examiner allows patent - lawyer gets paid - "inventor" gets patent.
Next comes the infringment and some publicity for the litigants. I wish them luck with that USPTO-issued wallpaper. Better hope Apple can't afford decent lawyers... oh wait.
I'd put odds on Apple not paying a cent for infringing this patent. I'd also put odds on never hearing about this patent after Apple's lawyers are done with it.
Seriously, all the alarmist talk around here about "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11one just more evidence that software patents are eilv!" is nothing more than silly if you have half a clue. There are definitely problems with the system, but THIS is not indicative of THAT problem.
Disclaimer: I hold a BSCS, BS Mathematics, and work entirely in IP.
Patent 6,665,797
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
Well, to give an idea, the article claims that the company wants 12% of gross sales. That means 12 cents per 99 cent song, when Apple + Artists only get 17 cents as it is. That would mean increased prices or no iTunes Music Store. On iPods, that is something like 36$ PER UNIT for the 4G 20GB model. I can pretty much be certain that is actually beyond the profit margin of the devices. (Considering most companies push to get 9% margins for a couple of months before competitors get products out the door)
Pat-rights is smoking something if they consider 12% of gross to be reasonable. If I create a card game and have a company produce it, I am lucky to get 5% of gross, let alone 12% of gross, and I did more work!
The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:
They then go and describe variations upon this claim, including players that use flash memory, players that use hard drives, etc.I think that it's pretty obvious the patent doesn't hold water - the first MP3 player sold in the US was the Eiger Labs MPMan, released in the summer of 1998. It was followed by the Rio, released in late 1998. Both players follow the same general form as the device described in the patent - they receive audio data, store it, and play it back out the headphone jack; they both have a screen where you can select a specific track from your library, and both have controls that allow you to do the selecting.
CNET described these early MP3 players, even tracking down a 6 gig USB based MP3 player with a large screen that was released in 1999.
The IL company doesn't have a hope in the world of defending their patent.
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.
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.
Interpreted code runs in an interpreter, sometimes called a virtual machine. Data doesn't run anywhere because it's not software. Music data is music data.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
This company is patenting USER LOGINS OVER THE INTERNET !
Some other facts about this company:
You only think it's legal. That's beside the point though. They aren't being sued for protecting their sources. They are being sued for publishing trade secrets. If you are going to vilify Apple, get the story right.
Trade secrets are protected by the law.
Publishing information you have reason to believe is a trade secret (protected under NDA in this case) is therefore reasonably illegal.
GPL Deconstructed
Actually, if you do read the specific patent, they use the phrase "a computer software product which" in almost every one of their claims. So it's definitely a software patent.
The claim is for a two part process wherein they use some verifiable identity information (such as a credit card) to establish the real identity of the user and then grant the user access to some software or service for purposes of "electronic commerce". One should also note that the original application in this case was filed in 1995. So this leaves us with two questions:
1) Is the idea sufficiently novel and specific to have been granted a patent?
I was argue that it is not. This is an obvious first step in a simple electronic commerce set-up. If they had patented a particular method of establishing identity, then that would be one thing, but they patent the very idea of establishing a user's identity. It's the same as a car dealership asking to see your driver's license before they let you test drive a car, but in software. Not novel and not specific.
2) Is there any prior art which would invalidate this patent?
Yes, there definitely and obviously is. Although in 1995 the internet was not the commercial mecca that it is now, on-line service providers like AOL and Compuserve used credit cards to verify identity before letting you use their electronic systems. Compuserve, in fact, let you just dial into and provide a credit card number. And several of the services offered things you could buy which would be charged to your user account.
So, in conclusion, it's clear that this software patent, like most software patents, is vague, overly broad, and should be completely invalidated by obvious prior art.
Keith