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 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.
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
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.
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...
Have a look at their patent "Vehicle Smart Window Safety Control".
They actually admit they don't know how to do this, but they have taken out a patent so that when someone does do it, they can claim royalties.
There is something seriously wrong here.
I don't know. There are cases where software patents are valid. For example, a new, intuitive interface that cost a great deal of money develop. But there definitely needs to be a better standard for patents in general. Perhaps, a company should be fined for bringing a patent infringement case with no merit? I think that could go a long way to prevent patent abuses. Just develop a standard for which cases have no merit (like patenting interfaces and internal workings that are already in common use), and you should be able to some up with something.
Well ... first they have to care. I don't think they do.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Yes. But it would not prevent him from selling it to that firm. Or if it is a good idea, in a competitive market, auctioning it to the highest bidder. So the small time inventor can still get what his idea is worth.
It also doesn't stop him from getting someone to make his product under license, and then marketing it himself.
What it really stops is people developing a set of patents and cross licensing between a group of firms so that there is an effective monopoly, which is where the computer industry stands at the moment.
Regards,
-Jeremy
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
Somewhere down the line, government stopped being about the people, and became about capital.
Somewhere down the line? Governement has ALWAYS been about capital. Governments have always been of the few by the few and for the few. Any benefits the small guys may have expierienced at any time were likely unintended side effects.
Most modern free market theories hold that the purpose of government is to facilitate commerce and NOTHING else. They hold that taxation is theft, social programs are criminal, and governments supporting trade unions amounts to treason.
To quote Gekko:
Greed works, greed is right. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
May the Maths Be with you!