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.'"
One of the two patents wasn't granted until Tuesday (although the application was made in 1999). Presumably they didn't think "hmmm, we have a patent on that" because they didn't. The other patent is a bit older, but not that much. Still, reading the RA makes it so much harder to think up sarcastic comments, which is probably why it's so unpopular here.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
Good for Apple for rebuffing. They know that this patent applies to other companies, and it's obvious ZapMedia knows nothing about the patents they hold. At least some trolls know enough to sue all the "correct" companies. Of course a technoweenie judge is going to rule in favor of ZapMedia, though, because he doesn't even know what an MP3 is, much less a digital distribution model.
Your ad here.
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!
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Ahhh... They almost did and you want to know what your knights in shining armor did? They exempted themselves from having to abide by the patent (effectively telling RIM that they could continue to service the US Govt) and basically told the rest of us we could go screw. A few weeks later RIM settled for $385 million or so. So what was that idea again?
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
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"
I was talking about Apple's one "innovation" -- the one new thing that set Apple apart from all the others who came before them. And that "innovation" was the product tying. You're worse off that the files you bought are only playable on one manufacturer's players.
Because 9 or 10 years ago, before there was an iPod or iTunes, you could already do everything you just described, thanks to mp3.com and a host of other companies like them. We're talking about patents and inventions, and the thing that Apple invented (selling music that required you to use their player) is a worse situation for you, than what you had before.
And yes, I realize that Apple's business deals with the music publishers, in contrast to mp3.com's absolutely braindead and suicidal my.mp3.com service, makes Apple's store more appealing. From the non-technical (i.e. outside the scope of patents) how-much-music-you-can-get perspective, you may be better off with Apple's store. I will concede that point. But from a technical (i.e within the context of patents) perspective, your situation is unambiguously inferior: a decade ago, compared to Apple's offering, you could do everything and more. Buy and immediately download: check. Copy to a CD: check. Play on any player on the market (with the exact same filesize and amount of artifacting -- no degradation from transcoding) including the iPod which came out a few years later: checkmate (don't try this with a iTMS purchase).
While I recognize the situation is complex and some aspects are subjective, that actually is my opinion (well, I'd use a less harsh word than "idiots"). Why buy proprietary media when you can buy interoperable media instead? Even if I thought the iPod were a good music player (I don't) today, I wouldn't buy DRMed music files from Apple that only work with iPods, because someone else might come out with a better player later. It's a nothing-for-something deal.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Audible.com was using the this model in November 1997. They had a web site you browsed, purchased content, and then downloaded it to a player that played the licensed content in a controlled format. No Sharing! So this patent was filed 1-2 years after that?? What's unique about the patent and the idea?
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.
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.