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'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
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.
The more big companies that get sued for patent infringment, the faster the law will change.
Go scum, inflict some pain!
Beep beep.
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.
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.
This company is patenting USER LOGINS OVER THE INTERNET ! This is a basic, fundamental technology of today's Internet. Obviously they are full of crap, but how do we stop patent-whoring companies who can steamroller anyone using the US Court system?
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?
Linux is not Windows
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
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
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.
Read the summary, dude. The parent was referring to a different patent suit, the one over portable jukeboxes.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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...
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
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.
Because they got paid.
This introduces a nice catch 22 situation.
- Patent office is so overloaded they rubber stamp most applications without due research.
- Companies realize this and flood patent office with useless patents that will get rubber stamped because of so many applications to process.
- Rince, repeat.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the conditions
> for a patent being valid that there must be no
> prior art and that the invention must not be
> obvious for those versed in the art?
Ah, clearly you missed the all-important qualification "...on the Internet", which instantly created a whole new area of patentable IP.
"Sir, we're suing you for patent infringement"
"On what grounds?"
"Not sure yet, but since you've done things on the Internet we're pretty sure you'll have infringed a patent somewhere. If not one of ours, then we'll track down one owned by someone else and collect a spotter's fee. So, do you want to confess now, or take us on in court?"
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?
If they really want to get busy, they should line up every elected representative that voted in favor of the law(s) that allow for software patents, and kick THEIR asses. It is an ass-kicking that is well-deserved.
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...
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.)
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?)
Doing so would also prevent a small-time firm which has the patent from licensing it to a big-time firm which may have far better production, distributing and marketing arms.
If some inventor develops an interesting idea but doesn't have the production facilities or the investment capital and other prerequisites to build them, he's basically screwed.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Music is not software. You can't take a patent that protects software and say oh well it applies to music as well. Their patent is spelled out in plain english which is easy to see according to the company. Yes it plainly applies to software....
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.
Considering that the Rio performs more than half the claims in that patent, yes, it does.
The remainder of the claims could be performed on any PC with a cdrom drive and winamp before 2000 as well, leaving a patent good for a voice-controlled media player with the ability to record voice and attach those voice files to tracks and to rip DVD-Audio, and which has separate physical gain controls for left and right channels, as well as a physical gain control for line in.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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".
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.