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'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
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.
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.
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
The more big companies that get sued for patent infringment, the faster the law will change.
Go scum, inflict some pain!
Beep beep.
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...
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.
Time for Apple's Ninja Attack Lawyers to do something productive! They've been kinda bored and . . . . suey lately. Now they'll be distracted kicking an ass that deserves it for awhile.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
The actual patent is interesting to read. Click here to read it
Evolution or ID?
1. Take out patent on "FUD".
2. Take out patent on "Prior art".
3. Profit!
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.
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...
From their own website:
"Pat" stands for PATENT, "Pat-rights" means patent rights.
Early in 1995, Founder of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. TSE visualised Internet as the most promising environment for digital content distribution and began to develop ideas and technologies essential for these changes.
As a result of his long term efforts, several national patents are being issued. And, some of them are being infringed by Global Industrial giants."
http://www.pat-rights.com/
The company's whole business model is built around going after companies over IP.
Darl, is that you?
Paco23
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
The present invention relates to protection of software, and particularly, to protection of software against unauthorised use or copying.
Let's see, iTMS does not use logging in to protect software. It only "protects" files such as the MP3's that you download. iTMS also doesn't care about unauthorised copying of iTMS because you can download it whenever you want, for free, from Apple. Lastly, iTMS doesn't use logins to prevent the unauthorised use of iTMS, but instead, only the unauthorised use of the music. The biggest distinction is that this patent is to protect a software program (from what I can gather). iTMS, and many other website, etc., use login to protect either A) Information or B) Files of some kind. A file is not necessarily a piece of software. Hell, I know that every word document I have ever written is a file, but it is most certainly not a piece of software. Yes, we all know that this is a bogus patent, but this shows that it definitely does not apply.
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.
When will a company have the balls to respond to such a patent claim by FedExing a piece of paper containing two words: "Fuck off"?
It's about time someone did something like that in response to this sort of BS.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
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?"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6665797.WKU.&OS=PN/6665797&RS=PN/ 6665797
There's definately some prior art for this one. Amazon is a likely one, they came to exist in 1996, while the patent was filed in 1998. Hmm...
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?
I'm going to patent subtraction and then sue my bank.
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...
BTW - I'm putting a patent on the alphabet - and I want $.01 for every letter you guys type - or just send me $5 via pay pal and we are good ;)
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.)
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.
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.
I wasn't copying their copyrighted music your honour, I was only receiving "digital data".
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
Darl, is that you?
I'm sorry, but Darl(tm) is a registered trademark of SCO. In addition, the phrase "is that you" is under copyright. If you wish, you may license it for $699 per instance.
Finally, we are seeking a patent on "A symbolic method of indicating a desire for more information," so you should also refrain from using the question mark on the at of the sentence. Without such protection, our ability to innovate will be seriously compromised.
They say they are entitled to trebledamages. Next thing they'll be asking for bass damages.
In a nutshell, the PatRights patent covers nearly any method used by a website to verify a user's identity. It is not specific to credit card verification - even the /. login system could fall under this patent.
IANAL, but this seems to be another case of something being patented in the electronic world that would be laughed at if it were tried in the physical world.
My car, like yours, has doors. Like you, I need a key (or code) to unlock the door and gain access to the interior of the vehicle. I need to use a key (or code) to actually start the vehicle. Why the hell hasn't that been patented?! It is a secure (mostly) method of accessing a product or service (my vehicle) utilizing a transaction apparatus (the lock). The terms of use are a little different, sure (I'm allowed to distribute my login information - a key - to anyone I choose, without worrying that GM will find out and change my locks), but in practice it seems to be the exact same thing. Why are these guys going after iTunes and AVS? Why not hit Ford, GM and Toyota??
Again, IANAL, but the wording of the patent is pretty broad to me.
Dammit, I meant to post that anonymously!
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
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.
And in the end, most of them are sent packing for the jokes that they are.
Easy with the drama, people.
I would never consider myself elderly, but I'm pretty sure ATM's existed before 1998. You can verify through an ATM without getting charged.
It might be interesting if, by some incredible twist of fate, Prior Art doesn't take these guys down instantly. They will get rich off of the entire United States economy, without products or services.
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.
It is both interesting and unnerving that they speak better legalese than English.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
The software patent proposal hurts closed and open source developers. That much is in the news every day. Software patents would also hurt any business wishing to use computers to make money.
Sure it may only cost between $50 USD and $50 000 USD per year per patent license, plus attorney's fees, but your company's web site probably violates over 50 by now, all of them either obvious or prior art. Some are even ripped right out of old RFCs.
Or you can fight them in court. It costs only about and average of $4 000 000 USD per patent to get them overturned.
So your choice is pay them and go bankrupt or fight them in court and go bankrupt. The non-producing patent portfolio companies come out ahead on average and only the attorneys win flat out.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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.
So some company pops up waving a spurious patent and demanding a "reasonable" fee of 12% of gross iPod and iTunes sales.
Forget the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA. This is the real piracy that's going on in the world today.