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."
This is why software should be copyrighted instead of patented. The kinds of things you can get patents on these days are just downright silly. A patent on a music jukebox? A patent on user verification system? Give me a break. These patents are not meant to protect the "inventors" IP, but rather to simply scheme the court system into getting money that they don't deserve. All software patents do is hold back the industry. Think about it, what if someone had patented the idea for a GUI? Where would we all be today?
On the other hand, if software was copyrighted, the inventor's IP would still be protected (his actual code) but the idea would still be useful to other developers.
Just my two cents
-py
-py
Wait a minute.
Haven't people been authenticating across a network as long as wide area networks have existed, or am I missing something here?
I know WANs predate me (and I'm 27). These guys are on crack.