Apple Patent Describes iTunes Reselling and Loaning System

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patent Describes iTunes Reselling and Loaning System

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 7, 2013 @08:34AM from the on-the-internet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "An Apple patent granted on 7 March details a system allowing customers to resell iTunes and iBooks content to other users at a reduced price, or to loan the content temporarily for free. Such a system could pave the way for second hand content being made available on iTunes for a discounted price." (Note: Beware the auto-playing video ad, with sound.)

97 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Apple is for assholes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:36 · Score: 0, Troll

Don't be an asshole. Don't buy Apple.
1. Re:Apple is for assholes by Kenja · 2013-03-07 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I have a Zune!
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The actual patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Techniques are provided for managing access to a digital content item (such as an ebook, music, movie, software application) to be transferred from one user to another.

This doesn't say for "itunes" or "ibooks" or anything of the sort.
I'd say it's a toss up if they even plan on implementing it, or just using it as ammo when another entity tries to.
1. Re:The actual patent. by earlzdotnet · 2013-03-07 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.
  I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
2. Re:The actual patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
  
  Funny... I'm a happy Apple user. I can't say the same thing when I stuck it out with Linux and Microsoft.
3. Re:The actual patent. by radiumsoup · 2013-03-07 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  if they don't actually implement it, though, then they'll have some serious antitrust questions to answer.
4. Re:The actual patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Techniques are provided for managing access to a digital content item (such as an ebook, music, movie, software application) to be transferred from one user to another.
  This doesn't say for "itunes" or "ibooks" or anything of the sort.
  I'd say it's a toss up if they even plan on implementing it, or just using it as ammo when another entity tries to.
  It must be nice to live in your little fantasy world with its crazy cartoon-grade logic. "Welllllllll, the LAST eighty or ninety times they did something like this with patents, it immediately went into iTunes and the App Store or iTMS, but maybe THIS time they've realized the error of their ways!"
5. Re:The actual patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  "Welllllllll, the LAST eighty or ninety times they did something like this with patents, it immediately went into iTunes and the App Store or iTMS
  Citation needed.
6. Re:The actual patent. by BasilBrush · 2013-03-07 15:01 · Score: 2
  
  I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
  Apple makes it's users very happy. It's Linux users that are perpetually unhappy with Apple.
7. Re:The actual patent. by node+3 · 2013-03-07 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.
  Based on...???
  
  I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
  For Apple, happy customers is one of their primary driving forces. It's why their products are so wildly popular, in spite of what a handful of butthurt Slashdot-types would have you believe.
8. Re:The actual patent. by node+3 · 2013-03-07 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  You could have left off the last two words.
9. Re:The actual patent. by collet · 2013-03-08 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Give OSX snapping windows and we'll talk.
10. Re:The actual patent. by BasilBrush · 2013-03-08 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  You mean this?
  http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/cinch/
11. Re:The actual patent. by RivenAleem · 2013-03-10 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is why you shouldn't be allowed to patent "as system or method" for something that is not fully implemented and available to customers. I read a great article posted here in the last week or 2 that all patent applications should be submitted with the working code. Thus, any other patent applications for a similar process, using different code could be seen as independently discovered.
12. Re:The actual patent. by collet · 2013-03-11 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly like that. Now give OSX snapping windows!
Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought The Pirate Bay and DRM removal tools had already solved this problem. Funny that Apple's getting a patent for this.
i think apple would be all for resales.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:41 · Score: 0

they'll get their 30% off every transaction regardless.. and 'used' content will attract more users who in turn will buy more 'new' bits, too.
i suspect they saw a fight over digital content resale rights from the start.. and now that court case in europe could change everything.
finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-07 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
1. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.
2. Re:finally, some good sense by gurps_npc · 2013-03-07 08:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes the approach makes a lot of sense.
  Which is why other people have been doing it for years.
  Figuring out a different way to do something that Barnes and Nobles (lending econtent for a short time) or everyone else in the entire world already does (right of resale), is not something worth patenting.
  It isn't even worth praise.
  It's worth a "Finally you idiots figured out what we've been saying!"
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
3. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They're the ones implementing DRM, they're the ones CREATING the artificial barriers. This patent wouldn't even have use if they didn't try to make things that are not normally scarce into things that are scarce.
4. Re:finally, some good sense by theVarangian · 2013-03-07 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.
  Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it. Your are free to patent another method to do this. If Apple had patented the loaning or reselling of objects that patent would be discredited faster than you can say 'conspiracy theory'. Humans have been loaning, renting and selling each other objects since somebody invented the stone hand-axe 1.6 million years ago. It's hard to get more prior art than that.
5. Re:finally, some good sense by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-03-07 09:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
  Actually, it still reminds me of the first cars: They had no horses (there's no paper in your e-books), but still went to great pains to imitate horse carriages in shape (you can lend your bits and bytes for a limited period, but say no-no to reading them yourself during that period). Breaking down artificial barriers my ass.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:finally, some good sense by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-07 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
  Sure it is.
  Of course, that's only if you ignore the fact that Apple is still in charge of what you can sell, who you can sell it too, and how much you can sell it for.
  So really, less a step towards 'breaking down artificial barriers,' and more just a novel approach to erecting them.
  Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:finally, some good sense by Gilmoure · 2013-03-07 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they removed DRM?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
8. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  No, it doesn't make any sense at all. This isn't a physical object. It doesn't degrade with use, it isn't a consumable, it can even be copied ad infinitum.
9. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
  Artificial barriers enforced through law are the core premise behind the protection of Intellectual Property. Why the rush to break them down? People like this poster who think artificial barriers are bad either don't understand IP law or would rather live in a world with fewer content creators who earn much less. At leas that would be an honest position.
  In our non-utopian world, laws are the only way to protect and encourage the profitability of developing easily replicated items. That's why traditional "used car" analogies don't fit when applied to IP. As humans who evolved to think about the physical world, laws that protect ideas can be non-intuitive. This doesn't mean they're bad and need to be broken down.
10. Re:finally, some good sense by PoolOfThought · 2013-03-07 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you weren't an AC I'd mod you up.
  
  --
  My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
11. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
  No, not at all. Consider when apple buys back pre-owned digital goods and sells them at a discount.
12. Re:finally, some good sense by Silas+is+back · 2013-03-07 10:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To be fair, they implement DRM because the content rights holders want them to. Apple fought to be able to remove DRM from the songs they sell, and they convinced the industry to let them remove it some time ago, which is great and hopefully can expand to the other digital content soon.
  
  --
  this sig is useless
13. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for correcting me a bit. I've never used iTunes and I missed that bit. But still, a patent on this does still seem very... silly at best.
14. Re:finally, some good sense by AmiMoJo · 2013-03-07 10:21 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  How fucking generous. I can lend my own virtual property, just like I can lend any physical item I own.
  Shove your DRM up cock.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:finally, some good sense by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-03-07 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
  Given that it apparently has enough detail for a patent application, I'm going with 'step in the direction of adding complexity to artificial barriers'. Back in the old days, we had this 'first sale' stuff, by which people who bought things could just resell them if they felt like it! Totally crazy stuff. You just went out and did it. No patent-pending techniques required.
  Good money says that any system worth patenting will be a crippled, DRM-laden, 'content-provider' approved, closed store where Apple will suffer you to do a limited subset of what we used to think of as "What we have a right to do with what we buy" in exchange for their cut.
16. Re:finally, some good sense by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-03-07 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, they implement DRM because the content rights holders want them to. Apple fought to be able to remove DRM from the songs they sell, and they convinced the industry to let them remove it some time ago, which is great and hopefully can expand to the other digital content soon.
  Yes and no. Specifically, music yes, video generally not(but at least 3rd-party unencrypted video in the correct format will work), ebooks(see video). 'Apps', 100% Apple's show, and locked down harder than anything. At least ipods always played music from 3rd-party sources...
17. Re:finally, some good sense by cbhacking · 2013-03-07 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive). Not on ebooks or on iTunes video. Not sure when you'd have noticed that though, it's only been pointed out on every DRM-related story (and 80% of the Apple-related ones) on Slashdot in the last few years, and Slashdot *never* discusses DRM or Apple...
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
18. Re:finally, some good sense by misanthropic.mofo · 2013-03-07 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  a patent on this does still seem very... silly at best.
  The silliness of a patent doesn't enter into the equation. It's not about silliness, common sense or reality when it comes to the patents most of these companies seem to try and get. It's more along the lines of patent everything in sight, imaginable or possible. Do this as broadly as possible and then sue the shit out of anyone that steps on their toes. You can also be assured that if Apple allows for reselling through iTunes, they'll be taking a slice of every transaction made.
  
  --
  --There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
19. Re:finally, some good sense by Silas+is+back · 2013-03-07 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing how many people pirate iOS and -- even more so -- Android apps tells me that DRM will stay in apps for quite some time.
  
  --
  this sig is useless
20. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! .
  Bullshit... it's just another velvetted set of handcuffs.
21. Re:finally, some good sense by tlhIngan · 2013-03-07 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  The silliness of a patent doesn't enter into the equation. It's not about silliness, common sense or reality when it comes to the patents most of these companies seem to try and get. It's more along the lines of patent everything in sight, imaginable or possible. Do this as broadly as possible and then sue the shit out of anyone that steps on their toes. You can also be assured that if Apple allows for reselling through iTunes, they'll be taking a slice of every transaction made.
  Well, there are plenty of DRM'd formats out there that let you resell them. Like say, DVDs and Blu-Ray. They're DRM'ed, but they allow easy reselling through a different method than the patent...
  And really, other than OTA TV, most video IS already DRM'd. Hell, they had analog video DRM as well.
22. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is why the patent system is broke.
  Because people have atrocious reading comprehension skills?
23. Re:finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-07 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive)....
  using itunes-in-the-cloud it will replace your local music files (even old drm'd ones) with drm-free 256kb files. all for free. hope this helps.
24. Re:finally, some good sense by HybridST · 2013-03-07 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not the OP. People like you are why i go with +1 ac in my profile. From somebody with the handle "PoolOfThought" I would have expected a silent mod point applied to the "thought" portrayed rather than bitching about the logged in status of the OP.
  
  --
  Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
25. Re:finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-07 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
  when you buy a song on itunes, you download a 256kb aac file with no drm. you are free to do what you please with it. hope this helps.
26. Re:finally, some good sense by PoolOfThought · 2013-03-07 12:08 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think you're wrong. But I think maybe you misunderstood my position. My intention wasn't to bitch about the choice of the poster to be anonymous. I only get a certain number of modpoints and I choose to mod (both good and bad) non ACs because so many people filter AC out by default.
  
  Not that you have any control over it, but what would neat (perhaps not "useful", but "neat") is if slashdot would let readers obfuscate author names and toggle them visible as desired. Every AC post would get a new obfuscation to keep you from tying them to one another, but every other post would start out (if the reader desired) with obfuscated "by" names. Then you wouldn't know if you were modding an AC or not - or modding one of your mortal virtual enemies. Might remove a little bit of the AC bias. But, otoh, AC bias is there for a reason... and it's because many of them are truly cowards / trolls.
  
  In any case, your point is taken. I don't know if it will affect my behavior, but I'll definitely take it into consideration as this author really did have a good point. And for the record, that's why I responded... to draw attention - to make it a discussion - rather than one ACs random "rant".
  
  --
  My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
27. Re:finally, some good sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly don't understand how patents work, then.
  People were traveling around for thousands of years. Somebody was still able to patent the inventions that went into building a modern car.
  You see, a patent covers a process AND a method for accomplishing that process.
  If you come up with a novel way of accomplishing the task of "reselling things," then yes, you can patent it. You can't just patent... "RESELLING MY SHIT."
28. Re:finally, some good sense by Americano · 2013-03-07 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, iTunes Match (the part that does that) will run you $25 per year, but once a track is upgraded, you can download & store it and continue using it even if you never re-up your iTunes Match subscription.
29. Re:finally, some good sense by sosume · 2013-03-07 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because there is no prior art in second-hand sales (even using a computer, internet, mobile device, whatever)
30. Re:finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-07 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  double-technically, the itunes match service is free for all of your songs purchased from itunes. for $25/yr you can extend it to your entire collection. So for the GP's specific point, dealing with old drm'd tracks from itunes stor, using the free itunes match service you can download new unlocked high bitrate versions of songs you purchased from itunes store earlier.
31. Re:finally, some good sense by wvmarle · 2013-03-07 19:13 · Score: 2
  
  Music DRM was mainly removed because the DRM gave Apple full pricing power over the sales of the songs. As long as the labels wanted DRM they were limited to Apple (with their ~80% or more market share). The only way to tap into the iPod market without being limited to a fixed $0.99 price tag per song as Apple demanded, was to sell DRM free.
  It's simply self-defeating.
  Apple fighting for DRM free music is either keeping up appearances, or Apple not understanding (in the beginning at least) the huge market power their DRM gave them over the publishers.
32. Re:finally, some good sense by node+3 · 2013-03-07 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  iOS application DRM is the least of them all. You can run your iOS apps on all devices that run iOS, unlike books or movies, etc., which cannot be used on all devices that can play MP4 video or ePub books.
33. Re:finally, some good sense by tehcyder · 2013-03-07 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's why traditional "used car" analogies don't fit
  Blasphemy! Burn the witch!
  You can pry my ridiculously inapposite slashdot car analogies from my cold dead fingers.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
34. Re:finally, some good sense by serviscope_minor · 2013-03-08 00:16 · Score: 2
  
  Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it.
  I'm losing patience. On threads like these you always get idiots like you who are nay sayers and go about "oh they only patented a method of doing it".
  Have you actually read the patent. It's very short (which should be an indication of quality) and very copy/pasted (another indication).
  Basically they've patented a method for transferring DRM ownership, where the "method" if you can call something so excrable a method involves tracking the user, providing renumeration (or deciding to), stating that tracking includes tracking how long the usre has had the item (no shit!) and a bunch of other really trivial stuff, then all of the above ON A COMPUTER which has a PROCESSOR and a STORAGE DEVICE!!!
  That's it.
  So yes, they have basically patented the idea of transferring DRM to other people ON A COMPUTER with a STORAGE DEVICE.
  The claims are vague, broad and general. Nothing new like an algorithm is patented and this adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.
  If Apple had patented the loaning or reselling of objects that patent would be discredited faster than you can say 'conspiracy theory'.
  You need to pull your head out of your ass and actually read one of these patents that you are so blindly supporting.
  Without exception, every stupid patent that has come up on slashdot that I've taken the time to read has been an utter waste of time except to confirm quite how bad the patent system really is.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
35. Re:finally, some good sense by misanthropic.mofo · 2013-03-08 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, Macro Vision was a bitch, but luckily easy to get around with an extra little box plugged in.
  
  --
  --There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
36. Re:finally, some good sense by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-08 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the case, why would Apple have to be involved in order for you to transfer ownership of that file to someone else, and why would they have any control over the price?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
37. Re:finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-08 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.
38. Re:finally, some good sense by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-08 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.
  Here's an excerpt from TFA:
  
  The patent explains: "Techniques are provided for managing access to digital content items. In particular, various techniques are described herein to enable an authorised transfer of a digital content item from a current owner of a digital content item (the 'transferor') to a new owner of the digital content item (the 'transferee')...a 'digital content item' is any item that can be stored in a digital format, including but not limited to an ebook, music, movie, game, software application, ringtone, TV show, or audio book."
  Every digital download sold by Apple through its iTunes, App and iBooks stores would keep a record of who owns it, giving them the sole right to consume the file. Selling the download to another user would make a change to this embedded information, transferring rights to the second user and preventing the original buyer from accessing the file.
  
  Sounds like the "No-DRM" version of iTunes is about to go the way of the dodo...
  Shame, that.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
39. Re:finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · 2013-03-08 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  choose one: 1) situation as it is now or 2) situtation as it may be some point in the future if particulars of a patent are implimented. hmm?
  
  i'm telling you that as the sitation is right now, dispite your insistace to the contrary and your refusal to see what's plainly visible, there are no barriers to sharing or reselling purchases from the itunes music store. the greatest challenge is finding a marketplace and payment mechanism, which is the exact solution that the patent proposes.
Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:48 · Score: 0

"second hand content" ...as in second hand DIGITAL content?
Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...
1. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-03-07 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "second hand content" ...as in second hand DIGITAL content?
  Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...
  It's actually the license contract and viewing rights that are second-hand. The bits of the "content" just come with it.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
2. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Dins · 2013-03-07 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...
  They get worn a bit at the edges. So instead of 0s and 1s, they turn into 0.0000000001s and 0.9999999999s.
3. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by DriveDog · 2013-03-07 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  They won't be marketed as "Used" but as "Pre-Owned".
4. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  because you know, if you don't give back the bits itunes will run out and won't have any to sell to the next guy
5. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by RivenAleem · 2013-03-10 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Relevant
Not actually granted, just published by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:10 · Score: 0

Apple now has a published Patent Application as of March 7, 2013. Could be a few years until it's granted, but that's only an estimate.
Commission by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:13 · Score: 0

do they take another 30% of the sale price or do they tell you how much you can sell it for and take their 30%
And Apple takes their cut... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple will naturally take a percentage of every "used book" sale. It is of course the same in the existing market, where a second hand book shop will typically buy a book for about 1/4 cover price and then turn around and sell it at 1/2 cover price. All fine and good, it's a service and you pay for it.
The difference is that Apple will provide the ONLY method through which the used goods can be sold. There is no way to cut out the middle man or even choose a different middle man.
1. Re:And Apple takes their cut... by TrancePhreak · 2013-03-07 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  eBay takes 2 cuts if you use PayPal. They bought them so that they could control all the money.
  
  --
  
  -]Phreak Out[-
2. Re:And Apple takes their cut... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing as we are talking about digital goods, it's a lot more like the Gamestop business model (and they buy at 7% and sell it at 95%).
3. Re:And Apple takes their cut... by wvmarle · 2013-03-07 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  And the tricky part is that you're not (re)selling a book or a music album, you're instead (re)selling a copyright license to that content. And that makes the whole thing much less transparent. After all there is no physical object involved as in traditional sales.
They Patented that? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-03-07 09:14 · Score: 1

Let's see if I have this straight:
Apple just got a patent on allowing people to resell or loan digital "content" when it's hosted on a server and managed by client software? Is that really the meaning of the claims, not something narrower?
Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:They Patented that? by drinkypoo · 2013-03-07 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?
  As long as they get paid for granting patents, this trend will only worsen.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:They Patented that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that really is the totality of the claims. Slashdot is sometimes overly shrill, but not this time. This is the narrowest claim, and it does nothing more than describe the minimal database you'd need for something like this:
  21. A system comprising: one or more processors; one or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause: storing, at a particular entity, first ownership data that authorizes a user to access a digital content item; storing, in association with the digital content item, track usage data that indicates how much the user used or could have used the digital content item; receiving, at the particular entity, from a device operated by the user, relinquish request data that indicates that the user wishes to relinquish authorized access to the digital content item; in response to receiving the relinquish request data, the particular entity identifying one or more conditions associated with the digital content item; based on the one or more conditions and the track usage data, determining whether to provide remuneration to the user; in response to determining to provide remuneration to the user, storing second ownership data that revokes authorization of the user to access the digital content item; and based on the second ownership data, the particular entity preventing the user from further accessing the digital content item.
  The further claims are not substantially narrower; they are just special cases and obvious tweaks of this one, like allowing time limits and pro-rated refunds.
3. Re:They Patented that? by serviscope_minor · 2013-03-08 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  on the Internet using a database
  I think you mean "IN THE CLOUD".
  So of course it's new. Because noone else has thought of doing anything obvious like that IN THE CLOUD.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Now how the f*ck could this be granted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:15 · Score: 0

Second hand markets are fundamental to our economies. I give up.
Don't forget the slice for Apple by DriveDog · 2013-03-07 09:17 · Score: 1

Obviously such a scheme would involve trading through Apple's sites, where Apple gets a cut of the sale.
1. Re:Don't forget the slice for Apple by Jeremi · 2013-03-07 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apple's slice is clearly a core feature, as it allows them to stem losses caused by seedy individuals who would otherwise peel away their profit.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Sell it... flac them by mynameiskhan · 2013-03-07 09:18 · Score: 1

Just yesterday, I was wondering how much I cold have saved by not buying music from itunes store. Do drug and cigarette addicts say the same too?
1. Re:Sell it... flac them by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-07 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Only when they're considering quitting.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Sell it... flac them by HornWumpus · 2013-03-07 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  At $10 per CD I've saved about $280,000 by not paying for music. Woot! I'm rich!
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Sell it... flac them by HornWumpus · 2013-03-07 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Check that. Forgot the new collection I haven't yet merged.
  Closer to $350,000
  I've gotta finish my media librarian application.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They patented it that means others services... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:29 · Score: 0

They patented it that means other services wont be able to do the same for reselling contents or Apple will sue them for using their patent.
1. Re:They patented it that means others services... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  They wish to patent a technique. If others try and copy the exact technique then yes, if they do it a different way they won't have much chance.
bitbay.com by futhermocker · 2013-03-07 09:34 · Score: 1

For the best deals on used bitstreams. Special offer, today only: 50% discount on all PDFs. Get them now before they are gone!

--
KERNEL PANIC -SIGFAULT AT ADDRESS #51A54D07
Reduced price? by DickBreath · 2013-03-07 09:38 · Score: 1

What about increased price? Suppose I buy an ebook. It becomes valuable due to the limited number of copies that were originally made. The original DRM key was lost so no more copies of these bits can be made. Now I go to sell my book for one hundred times what I paid for it. Is that covered by the patent?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
1. Re:Reduced price? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, just suppose...
2. Re:Reduced price? by wvmarle · 2013-03-07 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't read the patent (no intention to) but I bet they will have that covered.
3. Re:Reduced price? by pantaril · 2013-03-08 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose I buy an ebook. It becomes valuable due to the limited number of copies that were originally made.
  This is one of the reasons i'll never suppoort copyright. Artificial scarity and greed. Supporting creators is good think bud limiting distribution to achieve it is nonsense and causes much more harm then good.
You need to stop using your Pentium 90 machine by Overzeetop · 2013-03-07 09:56 · Score: 1

That will fix those pesky ragged bit edges.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:You need to stop using your Pentium 90 machine by Dins · 2013-03-07 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had a Pentium 90, if only for nostalgic reasons. At the time, I was a mac guy and I had one of those pizza box PowerPC 601/66s.
User-to-user by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:58 · Score: 0

From the application:

As part of the change in access rights, the transferee may pay to obtain access to the digital content item. A portion of the proceeds of the "resale" may be paid to the creator or publisher of the digital content item and/or the entity that originally sold the digital content item to the original owner.
Yup.
They wont do it. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:13 · Score: 0

They just get the patent to prevent others from using it and set a presidence for themselves. But if you actually think they are going to do this then youre a moron or just an apple fanboy looking for an excuse to wave your apple flag.
Patenting idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:37 · Score: 0

Patenting libraries and second hand shops...
How innovative!
But by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 10:50 · Score: 0

What if I just copied the file and gave it to a friend? Why bother loaning? Or what if I bought a song for $1, copied the file to a different directory/location, and then sold my "second hand" rights for $0.75? I would essentially be paying only $0.25 per song, and then making it available at a cheaper price so that the artist/label gets payed less. Two people would have the song, but only one payed. I don't see how this would work, and I doubt that Apple would implement it.
Another thought just crossed my mind: How come all the music on the radio is aimed at 13-16 year olds? Because 13-16 year olds are the only ones that buy music. Which logically means that they are the largest demographic of iTunes users. Why bother making this system if the only ones who *might* use it are a minority group of adults that read ebooks, especially when they are probably smart enough to figure out how to copy a file and attach it to an email?
Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 18:35 · Score: 0

A digital copy is not second hand it is just like first hand and should sell for the same price. The only thing worse than suggestion something like a second hand digital copy, is to get a patent on it.
Isn't a patent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-08 07:05 · Score: 0

This isn't a granted patent, it's a published application. In fact, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) hasn't yet examined the application, so Apple might not even get a granted patent from this application. Given the art unit that the PTO has placed this application in, it might not get examined for some time.
Additionally, since a patent right is not defined by what the application describes, but by the claims that PTO ultimately allows, it's worth noting that the claims Apple is looking to get (you can see them here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130060616.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130060616&RS=DN/20130060616) here are fairly narrow; a competitor would probably be able to "work around" them fairly easily to accomplish the same ends.
I do like the concept of being able to re-sell digital books, etc.