Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Music Fingerprinter Gets Patent Nastygram
Nushio writes "The code wasn't even released, and yet Roy van Rijn, a Music & Free Software enthusiast received a C&D from Landmark Digital Services, owners of Shazam, a music service that allows you to find a song, by listening to a part of it. And if that wasn't enough, they want him to take down his blog post (Google Cache) explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world.'"
Update: 07/09 00:31 GMT by T :Story updated to reflect that Shazam is multiplatform, not Android-only, as implied by the original phrasing.
it was an iphone app long before it was an android app
Because I didn't Google it up properly. And Slashdot doesn't let me edit the story submission after I hit send. Its my fault.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
Bizarrely, the USPTO doesn't require code for software patents; I assume other patent offices worldwide, in those countries which allow software patents, follow the same practice. You can't patent a mechanical device without schematics (I think) but for software, a vague description of the algorithm -- too vague to be of any use in implementation -- is enough. This is yet another example of why the idea of patenting things that aren't physical objects is fundamentally broken, but don't expect the situation to change any time soon.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
In the US at least a patent application is public record, and is intended to explain to the world how the object functions. This is not just to enforce the patent, but also to reward spreading the knowlege about how a patent works.
Asking someone to take down a blog post that describes the workings of a patented process is foolish. If the patent is written like it is supposed to be, anyone should be able to understand the patented process. You are no longer protected under trade secrets if you patent (which is why some choose not to). It is by definition at that point public knowledge.
Whether or not they have a patent case against him, they have no case against his blog.
The ______ Agenda
I RTFA, and he posts pretty much the entire source code of his implementation in the original blog post. That is what they were upset about: implementing the patent *and* distributing it. Had he merely discussed the methods Shazam used, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. However, I can go to his blog, cut-and-paste the code into a text editor, and have a working clone of Shazam. That is fairly cut-and-dry patent infringement, minus commercial gain and sidestepping the issue of software patents.
It's not like he was just talking about the process.
they have to defend their patent or risk losing it.
That's trademarks.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Don't even have to RTFA, or even the summary.. Just the tagline says specifically that its a patent claim. Whether or not the claim would actually stand up in court is up to a judge should it get that far (never mind international concerns), but everything I've seen so far tells me that Shazam has all the right in the world to at least make the claim.
As far as I know, neither "easy after someone else has thought of it" nor "it didn't take me very long" are terribly good defenses in a patent case. The one you're looking for is "figured it out before someone else has thought of it", which this guy obviously didn't do given that he specifically set out to duplicate the abilities of an existing product. At this point his only defense is to show that his algorithm is sufficiently improved over (or at least different from) Shazam's that it would warrant being called 'innovative' (at least in the US.. I don't know about the EU's rules). Also, being his own code isn't a defense in a patent case (whereas it would be a defense in a copyright case if it could be proven).
More at http://www.music-similarity.com/ I wonder if it uses the purported patented technology.
BTW, the assertion of a potential harm being caused by "...explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world'" is certified bullshit.
All patents are public documents -- they must be public in order to inform the world just exactly what it is that the patent owner actually owns. It's detailed in the Claims section. "If you don't claim it, you don't own it."
Furthermore, a patent must "teach the invention," meaning that anyone "familiar with the art" shall be able to implement the invention with only the descriptions provided. If there actually is a patent for this technology, the cat is out of the bag.
Patent courts in the US are very favorably disposed to inventors -- assuming the technology is actually protected. It sounds like maybe not, and so the bluster and shrill threats.