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."

9 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Arg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Me too.

    Shout-outs to Professor Ward "Nigger Cunt" Churchill.

  2. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Large ball of flaming light appears in eastern sky

    Object thrown into air eventually comes back down

    Longhorn delayed

  3. Okay! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone else think software patents are a good idea? Anyone? No? Hm.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. FrISt psot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    GAY NI)GGERS FROM

  5. Re:Wow by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1, Troll

    Maybe they should pull an SCO and start suing iPod owners and people who buy music from iTMS.

  6. WHO THE FUCK IS MODDING THIS UP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    This guy is fucking clueless AND redundant.

  7. BRING APPLE DOWN by stratjakt · · Score: -1, Troll

    They should not be above the law just because their products fit snugly in your ass, even without lube.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  8. Its about time.... by mp3phish · · Score: 0, Troll

    Its about time Apple has a taste of their own medacine... Maybe one of these days they will realize that harm done against legitimate rights will bring ten fold the harm into their own house.

    I would like to take this moment to say a big Thank You to the companies who are standing up against Apple's blatant abuse of their IP rights. I guess we should have seen this coming. It was only a matter of time before the Karma came back to bite them in the ass. Not to steal a quote from George Bush but I can't resist: Bring it on!

    --
    Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  9. Re:is this applicable? by nathanh · · Score: -1, Troll
    Actually, there's nothing to IP whatsoever; IP is a meaningless concept. Trademark, copyright, and patent law are distinct entities with different rules and purposes. It's fallacious to lump them together under "IP". Your statement about trademark law is almost entirely irrelevant when we're talking about patents.

    It is not a meaningless concept. Intellectual property is an umbrella term for patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, trade secrets, and a few other things. It's as if you'd said:

    "Pets is a meaningless concept. Dogs, cats, and goldfish are distinct entities with different rules and purposes. It's fallacious to lump them together under "pets".

    People who deal in the industry call it IP. It's only a stupid Slashdot meme that "IP is meaningless". It is MEANINGFUL. You have to look no further than the full expansion of WIPO to realise that IP has meaning.

    Oh, and here's another rant.

    It's fallacious to lump them together under "IP".

    The word "fallacious" is an adjective. If you don't know what a word means, try not using it.