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.
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.
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?
Distributing media files over the Internet to devices in your home. Wow, I never would've thought of it!
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?
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.
"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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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?