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.'"
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
I don't want to come off as supporting patent trolls, but I read the article and this is an honest question. You say that iTunes came about in 2001, but this was before the iTunes Music Store which seems to be the issue. Furthermore, does the fact that ZapMedia apparently applied for the patents as early as 1999 mean that patent protection covers since the applications date? If so (although I believe the patent(s) themselves are bogus), it seems they might have a case in our messed-up system. But I don't really know anything about patents, so whatever.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Yes Itunes was based on SoundJam MP released in 1999 but that was just an MP player that Apple re-tagged as Itunes 1.0 in 2001
It was not until Version 4 that the Itunes store was added allowing distribution of music in 2003.
This patent is all about distribution and was filed in 2000.
So apple might have a real issue here.. I hope not..
Information gathered from the ever reliable Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Ok, I'll bite... these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop what does this mean? Did they have a contract? If so I guess there's no problem otherwise I won't really take their word for it because as I understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes#History Apple bought Itunes predecessor from some guys back 2000
Patent 7,020,704 is unbelievably stupid. I can't believe anyone got that one.
Patent 7,313,414 is just a continuation of same.
Check out the whole filing here.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I am sure that people came up with ideas like this in the BBS days. Hell, there might even be
something from Compuserve that consistutes prior art. It's just not a particularly original
idea.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The problem is that the idea is so feckin' obvious. It's a music shop, except the music is sent down a wire rather than etched into unreliable, breakable plastic. You might as well patent record shops as well. Oh, and music sent down a wire. Oh, and the wire at the same time.
If I'm correct, Apple had their sights on turning the computer into a 'digital media hub' around the time they released the iMac (1998). Also, the idea that a 'centralized system for digital media distribution over the Internet'. Isn't that what we call, um... the Internet? Seeing as it's pretty much centralised around Google, I think so.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
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).
You clipped from the article but you didn't read it, did you.
They were just granted the patent on Tuesday. Would you have rather they filed suit before the USPTO finished the paperwork? The patent was applied for years ago. Yes, it takes years to get a patent.
Website Hosting
It will be hard to find. The patent was filed on Oct 5th 1999. I can't find exactly when Napster started, but it was first sued in Dec 1999 - so shortly before that. The problem is that Napster is not prior art for this patent. The service described is basically iTunes. It uses a central server with a library of music, and client devices use licenses to download the tracks that they can prove they are entitled to.
I suspect that this patent will be very hard to fight in the US courts because the defense relies on how obvious the invention is. There may be prior art for music distribution, and for downloading licensed content from a central server, but the issue is whether or not there is prior art for the combination. I can't think of any iTunes-like servers back before Napster. Although there were plenty of illegal ftp/web sites they didn't use licenses for obvious reasons.
Looks like these guys saw Napster, guessed which way the wind was going to blow and rushed to file a patent before the music industry organised themselves. I bet that they never implemented / released a product before iTunes. So Apple may have some scope in that it is an obvious combination of well-known pieces, and that ZapMedia didn't even have to invent the product (at least build a prototype) to file the patent.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
I agree that the term "obvious to a practitioner in the art" needs to be more narrowly defined, but the problem with basing obviousness on what seems obvious later is that a lot of things seem obvious after-the-fact that were in fact fairly innovative. In addition, once a patent is published it's very hard to prove independent invention, since the knowledge is now "out there". The whole point of patents is to make openly publishing more attractive than keeping trade secrets so the industry can move forward faster.
I think the biggest problem with software patents is that the software industry is too new. Everything seems patentable. In a decade or so all the low hanging fruit will be gone and everything will have prior art published in the patent database. Things should settle down.
My personal solution is some combination of making "obvious" a little stricter and requiring a patent holder to monetize the patent themselves, sell it at an independently appraised value, or lose it.
E pluribus unum