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.

40 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Well, really... by Icarus1919 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore. I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.

    1. Re:Well, really... by swabeui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Injustice is always newsworthy.

    2. Re:Well, really... by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms

      It only happens so often because the first time no one cared.

    3. Re:Well, really... by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well patents are pretty damn public knowledge, so I don't see how an open-source project that does the same thing can be infringing on a patent. Now, the people who use the source code might infringe on it, but drawing a schematic of a door latch doesn't infringe on the door latch, but building one does. It might not work this way at all, but the above is why I think its fairly unfair to ask someone to remove a post about how to do it.

      --
      Momento Mori
    4. Re:Well, really... by spazdor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And there are no slow news days.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:Well, really... by ZosX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, that is unfair. I didn't realize all he did was post some code. That should certainly fall under free speech. I don't think their lawyers have anything to stand on here. If I were him I'd let them try to take him to court and then turn around and sue for harassment. I was wondering how he was getting matches for his song. He doesn't mention what database he is querying for a match.

      --
      zosxavius photography
    6. Re:Well, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is far more scary is that using a sliding window to calculate DFTs and then hashing these values, and storing there offsets is somehow patented. To say that this is "obvious" to someone with any understanding of waves and Fourier transforms is an understatement.

    7. Re:Well, really... by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...they have no case against his blog.

      That doesn't matter if he have no way of defending himself, and the call for reform, or better, abolishment, is virtually absent.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:Well, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What is far more scary..."

      Yes. As others said, unjustice must always be news, no matter how (sadly) common it becomes.

      1) It's an obvious application of a Fourier transform so it shouldn't have been accepted for patent on first place.
      2) Even if it wasn't obvious, this guy did not have access to the original code so chances are by big margin that this a different method to achive the same result so even after the patent is granted is very dificult to believe he could violate it.
      3) Even if it wasn't obvious and it was the very same patented method, patents are, well, patent, so it's ludicrous to say "you shouldn't make public this" when the very patent system is built around the fact that the patented method is meant to be made public.

      All in all this is a news about a disfunctional and criminally stupid patent system abused by a disfunctional and criminally stupid company.

      Yes: this needs to be aired.

    9. Re:Well, really... by Blackbrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore.

      The only reason that these things happen is that every time these things happen everybody looks around and says "Well, these things happen..." and THAT'S why they happen!

      If you see something, say something...peace out.

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    10. Re:Well, really... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Congress of 1994 actually was quite good, and they repealed a lot of idiotic laws from the books, plus cutting taxes. I credit them more than Clinton for the economic boom that came shortly afterward. They were also responsible for the Telecommunications Act that freed-up TV channels 52 to 83 for cellular and internet expansion.

      Unfortunately that Congress evolved into the 2000 Congress which thought it was okay to forget their principles and pass draconian legislation like the Patriot Act. Power corrupts.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Well, really... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      everything I've seen so far tells me that Shazam has all the right in the world to at least make the claim.

      The claim being that in software, once you do something, nobody else can do anything similar, even if it doesn't use any of their code or procedures. If the end result is the same, then whoever the most money to spend on legal fees is the winner. It's a fucked up way to run a railroad.

      So, once someone made a word processor, nobody else should be able to make a word processor. And once somebody made a program that can play music files, nobody else should be able to write a program that can play music files.

      "Innovative" has become such a cheap word. It really doesn't mean anything any more. When a word like "innovative" becomes a legal term of art, innovation ceases.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Well, really... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      before unscrupulous scum litigated our society from one built on morality into one built on greed.

      Not just any scum, but unscrupulous corporate scum, which means that it's not even a person making the decision, but legally fictive golem that exists only to reward those that have bought shares, even at the expense of society as a whole. If it was a person, at least a case could be made for going up to him and calling him a piece of shit who should be ashamed of himself, to tell his neighbors that he's a piece of shit, and to remind his wife and kids that they're related to a piece of shit.

      But what is a "Shazam"? It has no neighbors, no family, no community, no responsibility to do anything but eat and shit money in the pockets of its shareholders. It doesn't respond to shame, to peer pressure, to moral outrage. It doesn't even respond to the "marketplace" because they assert another legal fiction (patent) in order to pervert the marketplace, to ensure that it is immune to market forces.

      And that is ultimately what this "Intellectual Property" baloney is all about: making sure that the marketplace can not work.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Well, really... by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a sane world making such an admission in a legal filing would be grounds for voiding the patent since patent law requires dislosure of everything a person skilled in that field would need to know to implement the patented tech.

      We do live in a sane world (well at least in this regard).. if Shazaam admits it did not disclose the "best mode" for practicing its invention, or that it did not disclose enough information in its patents to "enable" the "person having ordinary skill in the art" to practice the invention, then the patent(s) become invalid and are thrown out.

      As for trade secrets, assuming this guy didn't actually steal the information from Shazaam or is in cahoots with someone who did steal it, he can't have misappropriated any trade secrets since he did the work all on his own.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    14. Re:Well, really... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well patents are pretty damn public knowledge, so I don't see how an open-source project that does the same thing can be infringing on a patent.

      Distributing source code isn't just discussing or summarizing the patent, it's implementing and distributing the invention.

    15. Re:Well, really... by smallfries · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are quite right that you are not qualified. But on the subject tof US patents being enforced abroad you are also quite wrong.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    16. Re:Well, really... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So is posting a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, but you don't see Betty Crocker suing every mother in the world who makes the same cookies for their kids.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  2. What the? by Barrinmw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patents are open for viewing aren't they (with the exception of the NSA)? So if they have a patent for something, then how can they order someone to take down information that a supposed patent covers?

    1. Re:What the? by NNKK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By that logic you could freely distribute an infringing program as long as you don't run it.

      Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?

    2. Re:What the? by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you are saying, that if I ask the US patent office for a copy of a patent to make sure that my own program does not infringe upon it, the US Patent Office just committed patent infringement?

    3. Re:What the? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?

      This case outlines one of the many major problems with software patents, one being that a split between implementation and description does not exist. The source code -- or even the object code -- to a program implementing a patented method is a description of that method.

  3. I call bullshit. by seeker_1us · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One: you cannot patent code. Period. There's plenty of cases where people have written (and released) code that some patent covered (ffmpeg anyone). The code itself is free speech.

    Two: you cannot use a patent as a method to censor free speech.

    Three: any US patent can be viewed internationally. A patent is by definition NOT a trade secret. Even if this guy's software DID use a patent-encumbered algorithm, his post cannot "contribute to someone infringing ... patents in any part of the world."

    Four: a patent is not valid for the entire world.

  4. Re:Patent and disclosure... by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep - I bet he's hit on a Trade Secret of theirs in his blog post and/or development work, and they're just trying to scare him away from posting the details. Trade Secrets are only secrets as long as nobody else knows about them - there's no protection on them other than that.

    The patent holds NO ability to stop him from disclosing ANYTHING - anything covered by the patent is by definition publicly disclosed in the patent itself. If it's not there, it's not covered. Period. The "international viewing" holds no water either - there's nothing preventing someone from viewing the patent from another country.

    He can go tell them to fuck off. He can probably sue for SLAPP or something like that too. I would!

    In addition, my understanding is that this goes even further - there's nothing preventing him from developing his own implementation of their patent. The only issue arises when he distributes it beyond himself. IANAL, so this part I'm only 99.9% sure on. :)

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  5. Re:Shazam... by e4g4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A story submitter, on Slashdot, humbly and openly admitting a mistake. My hat is off to you, sir. Here's hoping some of the people responsible for the more absurdly sensationalist summaries (your submission is certainly _not_ one of those, just to be clear) that creep onto the front page take your precedent as an example. I won't be holding my breath, though.

    --
    The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  6. I think someone fails to comprehend... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ,,,the fundamental nature of patents. Patents are published, by the PTO. This means that anyone, "international" or otherwise, can already view them. Furthermore, it is settled law that discussion of a patented invention, including detailed explanation of how to implement it, is not infringement.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Re:Patent and disclosure... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least in the US you have absolutely no recourse against someone who independently (not an employee, etc) develops one of your trade secrets. They can even patent it themselves and force you to pay a license fee!

    That's the trade off between patents and trade secrets.

  8. Re:Patent and disclosure... by Nushio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His implementation was different than their's, and if that's the case, they've got bigger issues, as one of their developers wrote a PDF on how Shazam Works..

    And this guy certainly wasn't the first to write an article about How Shazam Works either.

    They're afraid of the code.

    --
    Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  9. Re:android hate by Nushio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I am. As a non-native english writer, who has difficulties dealing with grammar nazism, I find commas useful to explain stuff. =P

    --
    Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  10. Re:android hate by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it was an iphone app long before it was an android app

    What does it matter that it was on the iPhone before Android? It's hardly surprising, considering the iPhone was released years before the Droid. I admit there hasn't been the usual heavy complement of Apple stories today, but that doesn't mean you have to start looking for ways to create them from unrelated articles. In any case, this has almost nothing to do with any platform, except that the author wrote the code in Java so as to run it on Android.

    Back on-topic, the author has posted an update which talks about the alleged patent infringment and includes the notices sent by the company. Classically, they hesitate to give actual patent numbers, but what it really comes down to is this: As the author says,

    I've written some code (100% my own) and implemented my own methods for matching music. [...] I'm just a programmer who likes to work on technical, mathematical algorithms in his spare time. And if enough people ask for the source code, I'd be happy to give it to them. Who would have thought that creating something at home in a weekend could result in a possible patent infringement!?

    But oh, no! Landmark claims

    Landmark Digital Services owns the patents that cover the algorithm used as the basis for your recently posted "Creating Shazam In Java".

    Well butter my biscuit and call me Daisy! Case closed! After all, they have a patent on "the algorithm". To be fair, the biggest instigator of this entire fiasco is probably his choice of using the commercial software's name in the article title. Going just by "Creating Shazam In Java", you might at first think he's attempting to completely re-create the software (for who knows what purpose). Of course, if you bother to read even the first few paragraphs it painfully clear that it's nothing of the sort. But because of this,

    The code isn't published yet, but I was planning on releasing it under Apache License to the open source community soon. [...] Since I don't want to end up like Dmitry Sklyarov, with the possibility of a lawsuit, I'm not going to publish the code anymore...

    If crap like this continues, independent software development in general (including a large chunk of FOSS) is doomed.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  11. Just deleted Shazam and installed SoundHound... by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are several services doing this same general thing, might as well support the ones that aren't a-holes!

    1. Re:Just deleted Shazam and installed SoundHound... by Reapman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for the tip, gonna be removing Shazam myself and trying out this new one.

  12. Re:Why take down his blog? by nameer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patents are selectably enforceable. I can choose to never sue you for infringing. What laches is supposed to prevent is me waiting until you are very profitable before suing you. However, even if I choose to never sue you, I can still sue Joe once I find out he is infringing.

    --
    "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
  13. Re:Patent and disclosure... by kanto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point of software patent wording has become to ensure maximum ambiguity; the more ground you cover the less there is room for your competition to lay it's own claims or to avoid patent extortion. Who you gonna call when an industry monster sends it's goons around? Probably some nonprofit organization that'll tell you to cave cause it might get rough out there.

  14. Re:android hate by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    independent software development in general (including a large chunk of FOSS) is doomed.

    Only in countries silly enough to allow software patents. The rest of the world will laugh quietly to themselves as some countries bring themselves to a creative and technological standstill.

  15. Re:android hate by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah and you're supposed to put a comma in front of conjunctive words like "and, or, but, because" especially if they join two sentences.
    <snip>
    I rocked my English SATs (99th percentile) so I'm fairly certain I'm right.

    Shouldn't you have put a comma before "so" if you are going by that rule?

    - I rocked my English SATs (99th percentile). I'm fairly certain I'm right.
    - I rocked my English SATs (99th percentile), so I'm fairly certain I'm right.

  16. Re:They're actually being fairly reasonable by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This fellow is in the Netherlands, where non-commercial use of patents is entirely legal. Any threats of legal action are uncalled for, and suggesting he take down his blog post when Shazam has published an even more detailed white paper is simply beyond the pale.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. Now hold on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you understand the basic concept of a patent? To earn the monopoly you have to publish your idea. The idea becomes part of the public domain. If someone else republishes your idea the the system works as intended. A patent is not a copyright. This sounds to me like the patent holder really doesn't want to honor the bargain he agreed to. The monopoly is on implementation. We can publish code examples to our hearts content as long as we don't run them.

  18. Re:android hate by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    independent software development in general (including a large chunk of FOSS) is doomed.

    Only in countries silly enough to allow software patents...

    And the ones stupid enough to accept the crap ACTA will feed on their throat... actually, for those will be even worse: no allowing their software developers to patent but preventing them to use methods already patented in US.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  19. Re:android hate by chaboud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is such a beautiful example of Muphry's law.

    Though your post could have benefitted from a gaffe or two.

  20. STOP CUSSING - ACT! by RichiH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I uninstalled the app immediately and left them with a one-star rating plus a link to explain the background. Also, I uninstalled them as malicious. Feel free to link http://tinyurl.com/3a93ed8 in your one-star ratings.

    Get SoundHound instead. It's better anyway. Now that I have SoundHound, I am actually glad that Shazam made me look for alternatives.

    Again:
    http://tinyurl.com/3a93ed8
    http://www.soundhound.com/

    PS: It would be evil to install them just to uninstall them with one-star ratings. I could not condone that.