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."

Comments

The actual patent link

[millahtime]

The actual patent is interesting to read. Click here to read it

Re:The actual patent link

[pbranes]

You're looking at the wrong patent. Check out their web site: http://www.pat-rights.com/nsD03_01_2005_T1235.htm

which refers to this patent: Patent 6,665,797

What do you expect from a company called Pat-Right

[Paco23]

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

Reading the patent claim...

[kidgenius]

The Hong Kong patent doesn't apply to Apple according to the "Field of Invention."

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.

The Patent in Question

[hakr89]

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...

Re:This patent crap is getting absolutely absurd.

[lspd]

There is some prior art.

Re:Internet/Remote User Identity Verification

[truesaer]

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.

Some Intersting Information...

[Anonymous Coward]

First Patent: 6,665,797:

- Originally filed on 7/14/1998 as a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/587,448, which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995 (This is the most likely date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The application was rejected 3 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 0 disclose statements citing known prior art.

Second patent: 6,587,403

- Originally filed on 8/17/2000 as a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997 (This is the date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The applicant was rejected 2 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 2 disclose statements citing prior art.

What all this means is left as an exercize to the reader. Posted AC to avoid karma whoring.

Re:Wow

[back_pages]

Ohh and this is just another reason why software patents are completely useless...

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

wherein said identity information existing in such a manner that said identity information being capable of being used in enabling electronic commerce operation(s) for which rightful user(s) of said software desired to be protected has to be responsible;

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.

Re:..in august 2000

[kd5ujz]

Read their patent and you will see why

5. A method for protecting software from unauthorised use, as claimed in claim 4, wherein further comprising the steps of: storing an encrypted identity of a user in said processing apparatus; and if all of said protected programs stored in said processing apparatus has a valid user identity which being consistent with the decryption result of said stored encrypted identity, permitting use of said protected programs and not permitting if otherwise.

Patent 6,665,797

Re:..in august 2000

[LoadStar]

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)

The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:

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.

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.