Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Fundamental iTunes Model
tuxgeek writes "A suit was filed Wednesday against Apple over the possibility that the iTunes music store and iPod are 'illegally using a patented method for distributing digital media over the Internet.' ZapMedia Services filed the suit, accusing the well-known OS and computer manufacturer of violating patents obtained just recently. 'The patents in question cover a way of sending music and other digital content from servers to multiple media players, a broad description that could also apply to a wide swath of other companies selling digital media and the devices to play it. ZapMedia said it met with Apple to discuss licensing, but Apple rebuffed the offer.'"
... that there's a special place in hell for patent trolls.
You really would have though they would notice sooner.
iTunes has been out for yonks now and people have been raving for years about it and not one person at this patent troll office thought "hmmm, we have a patent on that".
dickhead trolls.
liqbase
I wonder how many more ridiculous lawsuits like this need to be brought before the government finally wakes up and realizes software patents are a bad idea.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Distributing media files over the Internet to devices in your home. Wow, I never would've thought of it!
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=nauYAAAAEBAJ&dq=zapmedia
What are they thinking?
From the article: "When someone takes our vision and our intellectual property without a license after several attempts, we have no option but to protect it through every means available to us," Robert Frohwein, ZapMedia's general counsel, said in a statement.
Apple took their vision? iTunes has been out since January 2001 -- and based on 1999 software released by a third-party that Apple acquired -- and NOW somebody says it was theirs? Please. The only reason ZapMedia lacks vision is because they've got their heads up their sunless parts.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Have a look at:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/12/apple_sued_over_foundation_to_ipod_itunes_franchise.html
ZapMedia claims in its suit that after filing for the patent, they went around to various tech companies - Apple included - and pitched the idea in great detail. This was before the launch of the iPod or iTunes.
I still think this shouldn't be a patentable thing, but the suit is less wildly without merit than the article linked in this story would suggest.
In order to be awarded a patent, a company must demonstrate that they will actually USE the patent for something other than litigation. I looked around and I didn't see a damn thing that ZapMedia has EVER done with any such patent (which was filed in 2000?) for even such a common sense application of content distribution. Its like patenting how to use a blender! "If you press liquify and then chop, Blendable's Inc. will sue the pants off of you!"
They don't even have a WEBSITE (besides this lovely info-less drivel) and they are awarded a patent for media distribution?!
"ZapMedia applied for the patents in 1999. One was granted in March 2006, the other on Tuesday."
... Tuesday?!!
They filed for these patents 9 years ago, and one of them was just granted
I know we are all against software patents... but these guys have been waiting for 9 years to be able to use this patent by the rules that everyone is supposed to play by. calling them Patent Trolls for standing by and watching while Apple used thier technology to make billions, is not quite accurate.
What would have happened if this patent was issued 9 years ago? or even just the year before the iPod came out? Would it be the ZapMediaPod that everyone was playing thier music on?
Patent laws were originally designed so that the little guys can get thier inventions out without being clobbered by the big guys. Granted they don't work that way in practice.
However - if you read the article's related to this issue, (and I don't mean the trashy yahoo article) try this one:
http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?cat=PRRELEASE&src=102&feed=cmt§ion=news&news_id=cmt-072b4826&date=20080312&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw
You will see that these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop, EXACTLY what patent law was originally designed to prevent.
Patents shouldn't apply to software... maybe. How do you protect the small time coder from the big business that takes thier ideas, makes billions, and then doesn't return a dime, without patents?
I'll accept any answer that doesn't end with
3: ????
4: PROFIT!
Zappa came up with the idea of centralized digital distribution of music back in 1983. He wins: http://blog.boondoggle.eu/2007/02/frank_zappa_pro.html
It's called venue or forum shopping, looking for a place to file suit where you're more likely to get a favorable result:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum-shopping
East Texas is apparently well known as a venue for patent suits, as the judges there tend to find in favor of the plaintiff more than the national average.
Yay America!
So... by setting up an online store, allowing users download songs for a nominal fee to multiple players is a patentable method?? Seriously the patent office here in the US is really messed up. In this case, Steve Jobs would be better off "buying them out" a la Bill Gates on The Simpsons than any sort of settlement. I can't stand Mr. Jobs & I'll take his side on this even.
Hmmm. Without reading the patent
What about 'media players' and 'music' differentiates this from, oh, 'files' and 'NFS' for instance? "A method of allowing multiple clients to remotely access a networked resource".
Man, patents can seem so stupid.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Okay so you had this patent for how long? And iTunes has been around for how long? And now that Apple is making lots of money on it you decide to sue? Greedy f*cker.
Maybe it's time to counter-file that the claims they have fall under the RICO act since it may be considered either Extortion, Larceny or Fraud?
But this in turn shows that the patent system is flawed. And possibly also the legal system that even accepts cases like these in the first case.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
...have any products? Do they compete in consumer space? Was there an existing product that Apple stole ideas from and subsequently rendered ZapMedia's product unsaleable? Maybe people need to watch "Connections" more often, but this idea that "ideas" are like rare diamonds and only one of a kind seems to permeate patent trollery. There are thousands if not millions of intelligent people forging ahead with technology and ideas and innovation. Apple's iTunes has many imitators and many predecessors, and none of them needed Apple to steal from, nor did Apple need to steal ideas. If you have the right people on a problem the solutions are obvious, and will be replicated across several companies several times. Now, when ZapMedia can show that there is code in iTunes that was written by ZapMedia, they will have something. Otherwise, the idea that an idea or concept can be patented without ever creating a product design to sell or implement boggles me.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
When is some idiot going to realize that downloading anything as a "package" is the same action. A jpg, an mp3, or an html document, it's all JUST BITS encapsulated in a file. Streaming is downloading bits in real time without the package. Encoding is converting something into bits that can be downloaded. Can we get past the idiocy of granting a different patent for downloading a jpg than downloading an mp3? Really, networks have been doing this for nigh on 4 decades. Sure the encoding changes, the size of the object downloaded changes, and how much you can charge for said object does, but nothing "technological" has changed.
Now, coming up with an insanely cool new encoding technology? Designing a new network transport system that passes information in a new and highly efficient way? Those should be patentable. But pushing a file in that encoding over the new network, please, somebody get a clue. If not, I'm planning on patenting a system to transport iPods across country using Hybrid vehicles....
Here is the link to the actual patent. It seems to be filed in 2000. I don't have time to analyze it, but can someone analyze it and comment on its merits.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I am the holder of patent #734-0467128475987897, method and apparatus for delivery of feces into toilets (a.k.a., taking a dump). Since everyone on the planet is violating my patent, I am going to sue everyone. First, of course, I'll warn them by sending "cease and desist" letters to everyone (meaning that you can't use the bathroom anymore but must hold it in forever). Of course, you can't patent taking a dump, but I'm going to start by suing those who can't afford a lengthy legal process, so they'll settle with me with whatever money they have, and I'll make a killing until someone invalidates my patent. By the time that happens, I'll have made a fortune and bought myself an island.
Now, I don't want to sound cynical, but that seems less an 'article', more a 'press release reprinted verbatim'...
/ (Wow, a "a unique platform and vision for the enjoyment of digital media assets"? Sign me up..!)
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Replying to cancel out an erroneous mod point
Steve Jobs sees this as a personal insult and decides to sue ZapMedia into oblivion rather than settle.
What kind of special way does ZapMedia have of sending music across the Internet... TCP?
since any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, it must be so, and magic is NOT patentable.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"The software that was the basis for iTunes was developed by Jeff Robbin and Bill Kincaid as a media player called SoundJam MP, and released by Casady & Greene in 1999" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes. Enough Said.
insert inflammatory comment here!
With some luck, this will stop apple from using iTunes but not from selling the iPod.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The patent is not about the iPod or iTunes. It is about distributing "media" via a "network", tracking permissions who can or cannot use that "media", and being able to use the "media" on various players. The iPod came out in 2000, and the iTunes software came out in 1998, but this isn't talking about the integration between the iPod and iTunes because there is no centralized distribution database.
In 2003, Apple came out with the iTunes store, and this is where the patent infringement is claimed. There's a centralized database of media (music files, video, etc.), and that is distributed to local media players. There is something that verifies that the player has permission to play that media.
Notice there is nothing in the patent that says downloading! If I had a streaming service, and you connected to the streaming service via WiFi or some other mechanism, if you selected some media to play, and the server verifies you have permission to play that, and then it streams the media to your local player, that would be covered under the patent.
To me, the patent is overly broad. There is no method specified, only the results (local player plays media from a central server it has permission to play). In fact, because it is so overly broad, it is easily possible to find local prior art. For example, cable TV might qualify (central database of TV shows, and these are played via a local player (called a TV set), but only by the people who have permission).
Decendents of Uugg the caveman filed a lawsuit against anyone profiting from music. They say his patents on striking two rocks together and pounding on a hollow log form the basis of all music. Representatives for the music industry made an out of court offer of two goats and a stone ax to settle the matter but the offer was rejected.
It's funny. Really. But I can't imagine they will learn anything from it if they don't loose half of their money...
It looks like this is the same Zap Media that decided that charging for tv listings wasn't a viable business model... so I guess they decided to put their efforts into becoming patent trolls.
What? Zap2It was a service of Tribune Media Services. I don't think the two have anything at all in common.
Doh, i jumped the gun, I saw this article:
http://www.stockhouse.ca/news/news.asp?tick=AAPL&newsid=6399660
which at the bottom of the page had a reference to an email contact at:
rfrohwein@zapmediaservices.com
So I went to http://www.zapmediaservices.com/ saw a link to Tribune which is at which point I assumed they were the same company... only to realized I got suckered into a stupid domain park page. Argh... totally pwned.
Took them long enough to figure out Apple's business model. This is more like a submarine torpedo than an aboveboard action.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Seriously weak. I don't see anything in these patent claims that wasn't in Xerox DPRL in the late 1990s.
Where in the hell is the prior art? How can there be any, if the patent was just issued? Why was the patent approved?
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
Must be frustrating trying to innovate in the US right now.
That patent is no more ridiculous than some of Apple's own patents. Maybe if Apple gets sued like this, they will also work for patent reform.
I would think that they'd be sitting their cackling madly, "We will soon have a patent on that..."
Thankfully there are now higher uids, like mine, buoying slashdot. We wouldn't be so brazen to knock an Apple product.
.
Old paradigm: Microsoft waits for Apple to make a feature then copies it. New paradigm: Apple makes a new feature then waits for Company X to file a copyright claim.
Is there a public patent database that one can search?
That may be a bad idea come to think of it. Like that domain search site that 'reserved' the website you wanted and forced you to get it through them. A company offering patent searches could do the same thing. Search for idea, none found auto fill patent paperwork and send in before person searching does.
Was nomad some sorta MP3 player? Drawing a blank.
Well, the patent was granted on Tuesday and they filed on Wednesday -- something tells me that they had the papers already prepared.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'd be interested to know a rough figure on how much money has changed hands in the IT industry as a result of software patent lawsuits in the past 3 decades, and whether that money stayed IN the IT industry (ie. winning company went on to make XYZ). Without any idea I am sure it would be in the TRILLIONS of dollars. Surely this is as good an indication as any of how damaging software patents are to the industry.
If this goes to court it is going to get ugly. kelly fausek
What happened to the previous iTunes patent suit, anyway?