Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patent Describes iTunes Reselling and Loaning System

Posted by timothy on 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.)

17 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. The actual patent. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 BasilBrush · · 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.

  2. Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. finally, some good sense by noh8rz10 · · 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 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.

    2. Re:finally, some good sense by gurps_npc · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Silas+is+back · · 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
    7. Re:finally, some good sense by PoolOfThought · · 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.
    8. Re:finally, some good sense by wvmarle · · 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.

    9. Re:finally, some good sense by serviscope_minor · · 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.
  4. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · 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
  5. Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... by Dins · · 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.

  6. And Apple takes their cut... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.