Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Music Fingerprinter Gets Patent Nastygram

Posted by timothy on from the their-patent-gives-away-the-secret dept.

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.

5 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Shazam... by Nushio · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  2. Re:android hate by Nushio · · Score: 5, Informative

    And there's a Windows Mobile, Nokia / Symbian, Blackberry app too. It's my fault for not Googling them up before hand..

    --
    Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  3. Re:Well, really... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  4. Re:Why take down his blog? by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Similarity application by electrostatic · · Score: 5, Informative
    There's a free app that recognizes similar content in MP3 and other audio files.

    Similarity is a useful program that helps you to find and remove similar, duplicate musical files (MP3, WMA, OGG, WAV, FLAC, APE, WV, MPC) with the same or similar sound content, music tags (ID3,WMF,Vorbis). This is the best program where similarity of a sound part is checked, not just music tags or file content (byte to byte comparision). In addition the program analyzes the artist, title, album information from the music tags contained in the audio files and compare these with the appropriate entries in other files.

    You can adjust sensivity of searching criteria to find exact or similar files. In this way it is possible to identify similarly titles with smaller differences. Duplicate files can be deleted or browsed. The list of duplicate files can be sorted, exported to playlist, and acted upon.

    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.