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.'"
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.
and for Atlanta-based companies that sue Cupertino-based companies in East Texas.
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". FTA: ZapMedia applied for the patents in 1999. One was granted in March 2006, the other on Tuesday. Not that it makes them any less of a patent troll, but it would appear that waited until at least a couple of their patents were actually granted before filing a lawsuit...
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
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
"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!
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.
Please... the diagram and description looked like somebody spent about 30 minutes in Visio. And this "patent" was drawn up during the heyday of Napster, so it wasn't like it was any sort of original idea at the time. Troll.
So then let's assume that Zapmedia are the "good guys" in this dispute. That brings to me this question:
What good is an idea if you can't execute on it? I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't steal the idea from Zapmedia, so really....what is the consideration that Apple is supposed to pay Zapmedia for?
They (Zapmedia) had a headstart but didn't have the business/marketing wherewithal to do anything with it and now they want the US govt to do what their ineffective business could not - make big money.
I hate patents.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
FWIW: You can not enforce a patent until it is actually approved. So other people can go ahead and develop similar things, sell, and market them - and there is nothing you can do besides issuing them a stern letter from a lawyer. Now, once you get the patent it is a different story. You can sue and either get money ("forced" licensing) or get the other guys to stop. Of course the defendants will claim that the patent covers something obvious and try to get the patent overturned. Of course what is obvious now, may not have been so in 1999 or whenever Apple started selling iPods/using iTunes - so it will be fun to see what happens.
...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
Ok then look at it this way, in 2001 when iTunes was launched, tied to an extremely popular mp3 player. Now not having actually been granted a patent they could do nothing. To then sit and write a competeing product (and maybe they had worked on a prototype, I don't know) would be fruitless, as even back then we (ie. the slashdot crowd) saw that iTunes/iPod were going to dominate the market. I just don't think these guys are the usual patent troll scum we have come to know and hate.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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....
Slashdot saw that the iPod was going to dominate?
:)
Wasn't the original Slashdot posting about the iPod (now legendarily) just, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." with a number of followup comments about "Probably just OEM'd." and "Mediocre at best" type summaries?
In fairness, a few did say that the device shouldn't be dismissed, but I call shenanigans that people saw it was going to dominate.
--Rachel
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
Yay America!
You're right. In a really and truly free country, the government should forcefully tell you where you can and can't sue someone.
Sarcasm aside, why is it that when we have freedom and its abused, it's America's fault? You can't have your cake and eat it, too; either you have freedom and people abuse it, or you don't have freedom and people get upset. Utopia really isn't an option with what human nature is....
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.