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'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.
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...
This company is patenting USER LOGINS OVER THE INTERNET ! This is a basic, fundamental technology of today's Internet. Obviously they are full of crap, but how do we stop patent-whoring companies who can steamroller anyone using the US Court system?
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.
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
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?
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...
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...
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?)
I really wish people would at least read the links...I've seen 10 posts just like yours, and all it does is distract any discussion away from the actual issue being raised. The apparent claim is that using credit card information to verify identity (ie, you tell eBay your address and give them a credit card number, then they run a CC authorization to see that your information was correct). It is at least specific, if inane. This doesn't even seem like a software patent, more like a business process patent.
Reminds me of that movie Mars Attacks (1996) Just after the aliens destroy congress, the President says
"I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:
They then go and describe variations upon this claim, including players that use flash memory, players that use hard drives, etc.I think that it's pretty obvious the patent doesn't hold water - the first MP3 player sold in the US was the Eiger Labs MPMan, released in the summer of 1998. It was followed by the Rio, released in late 1998. Both players follow the same general form as the device described in the patent - they receive audio data, store it, and play it back out the headphone jack; they both have a screen where you can select a specific track from your library, and both have controls that allow you to do the selecting.
CNET described these early MP3 players, even tracking down a 6 gig USB based MP3 player with a large screen that was released in 1999.
The IL company doesn't have a hope in the world of defending their patent.
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.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
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.