Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Companies Claim iTMS, iPod Patent Infringement

Posted by timothy on from the willie-sutton-working-overtime dept.

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."

5 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Not a laughing matter anymore. by sanityspeech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Suspicious by kebes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. How ironic by offensiveweapon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:How ironic by eraserewind · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US is the one insisting they take IP rights seriously. So some company takes it seriously, and suddenly everyone is up in arms. Rather than "double standard", I'd call it "deliciously ironic".

      Just wait until China starts enforcing patents it decides to grant to it's own companies on any foreign company that wants to operate there. The fun'll really start then.

  4. Re:..in august 2000 by Ath · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You are right. I will not even address the fact that the patent is bogus and there is so much prior art that it should be pretty easy to defend against it (so long as you have the money to actually afford the legal defense).

    There are two defenses:

    1) The definition in the patent is "A method for protecting publicly distributed software from unauthorised use". This is not publicly distributed software. It is privately distributed.

    2) Software, in the definition of this patent, is executing code. The patent is for an authorization system to enable the execution of specific software. With iTunes and every other DRM, the authorization is to access the content, not execute software code. There is quite a difference. Not all bits are the same. Different bits do different things.

    Yes, you have to execute code to access the content but that is not the information in the patent. In fact, this particular patent seems more focused on authorization to access and use software program updates. I think Microsoft's update service is closer to this patent, as Microsoft checks your product ID before allowing you to obtain things like Service Pack 2 for XP. However, MS doesn't do any user specific authorization so that would exclude it anyway.