Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Troll With Good Record in Past Sues Netflix, SoundCloud, Vimeo, Others Over Offline Downloads (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the patent-trolling dept.

Netflix added the ability to download movies and TV episodes for offline viewing in November last year. Music streaming service SoundCloud, and video hosting service Vimeo have had this feature for quite some time, too. But they are all being sued now by a patent troll. From an ArsTechnica report: The plaintiff is a company few have heard of: Blackbird Technologies, a company with no products or assets other than patents. Blackbird's business is to buy up patent rights and file lawsuits over them, a business known colloquially as "patent trolling." Last week, Blackbird (who tells potential clients about being "able to litigate at reduced costs and achieve results") filed lawsuits against Netflix, SoundCloud, Vimeo, Starz, Mubi, and Studio 3 Partners, which owns the Epix TV channel. [...] The patent-holding company, which filed the lawsuits in Delaware federal court, has good reason to hope for success. The '362 patent already has a track record of squeezing settlement cash out of big companies.

20 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ah yes, the store file locally patent! by hattig · · Score: 2

    When was this patented?

    Ancient browsers have web page caching in the mid 90s, for example.

    And lets not mention dial-up services in the 80s.

  2. IMO by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blackbird Technologies = Rancid bird shit IMO

  3. This is why companies patent stupid things by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why you see big companies constantly patenting little things that are seemingly obvious or otherwise inane. If you have a patent of your own, it becomes much easier to refute the claim of some other company that you're infringing on their patent. Then they would have to spend time trying to invalidate your patent, which might make it easier to invalidate their own. It probably doesn't even make it to court though as the legal team would just send them a nice "fuck off" letter in reply and the legal hyenas for the patent troll will just look for somewhere else to do their bottom feeding.

  4. Automated CD-R Duplication patent? by Whatanut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems odd skimming the patent to apply this to offline video caching. It seems fairly specific to a method of automating the process of ordering, duplicating and shipping CD media. There is some ambiguous text in there about "digital media". But it also has claims such as:

    4. The method of claim 1, wherein said first module is configured to send at least one signal to at least one printing device to create mailing address labels for each of said requests.

    Which, I'm sure netflix is not doing. Seems like an attempt to broadly use a patent that's not really related to the actual process being used.

    Shocking...

    --

    yvan eht nioj
    1. Re:Automated CD-R Duplication patent? by Luthair · · Score: 3, Informative

      The patent sounds like it would cover how the internet generally works for transferring files from servers.

    2. Re:Automated CD-R Duplication patent? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      A dependent claim like claim 4 is by definition narrower than its parent claim -- a dependent claim must add at least one additional limitation. And someone can infringe one claim of a patent even if it doesn't infringe others. So whether Netflix does what claim 4 says is immaterial to whether it does what claim 1 says.

      It may well be that some of the broader claims are more generic than the specific process described in the patent -- it's not unusual for a patent to have higher-level claims. (That said, if they're too high-level and/or the patentholder tries to stretch the claims to cover something too different than the original idea, they run the risk of being held invalid. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the outcome here.)

    3. Re:Automated CD-R Duplication patent? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The patent sounds like it would cover how the internet generally works for transferring files from servers.

      You have to meet all the major claims of the patent to be infringing, though, right? There can be lists of lesser things or optional things, but if it doesn't say that it's optional then it has to be involved to be infringement? Or at least, that's my IANAL understanding.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Automated CD-R Duplication patent? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Seems odd skimming the patent to apply this to offline video caching. It seems fairly specific to a method of automating the process of ordering, duplicating and shipping CD media. There is some ambiguous text in there about "digital media". But it also has claims such as:

      4. The method of claim 1, wherein said first module is configured to send at least one signal to at least one printing device to create mailing address labels for each of said requests.

      Which, I'm sure netflix is not doing. Seems like an attempt to broadly use a patent that's not really related to the actual process being used.

      Shocking...

      That's a dependent claim (you can tell because it refers to another claim). It's like an include statement, so the invention recited in claim 4 is everything that's in claim 1, plus the added limitation about the first module. Even if Netflix isn't doing that added step, they could be doing everything that's in claim 1 and infringe the patent.

  5. Re:We don't care by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nor should we.

    We should always care about Patent Trolling. Patent Trolling is a parasitic problem within our economy. Patent Trolling suppresses innovation, both economic and intellectual. Patent Trolling Negatively impacts people's standard of living, if in a non-direct manner.

    If you don't care about this specific instance of patent trolling, you should care about it as an anti-industry that no doubt has and does impact you, even if you're not aware of it.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Re:Ah yes, the store file locally patent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This really should NOT be patentable

    FTFY

    it's simple common sense that one leads logically to the other.

    Sorry, that does not apply at the patent office. I'm wonder if they even have computers in their workplace, because everything with 'on the computer' seems to be getting rubber stamp auto-approved. Or maybe they've outsourced the workforce - and patents are now being approved by AI instead.

  7. Re:Ah yes, the store file locally patent! by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    Back around 2000, a company called Wavexpress patented a secure video download and encryption technology. They had a service for a while where you could pay for some videos, store them locally and watch as you pleased (TVTonic). It was more an effort to execute pay per view over what was slow internet service at the time. It was poorly executed and owned by Wave Systems, which was run by and incompetent CEO (Steven Sprague) who some feel was a crook that bled the stock value dry. He made so many unfulfilled promises its unreal he lasted for so many years.

    I would not be surprised if those patents were involved.

  8. Re:We don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patents are written in extremely vague terms. It's done on purpose by the original patent writer so that the can capitalize on everything and every innovation that may do the same thing - see Xerox's original patents. They tied up photo copying for decades.

    It's just karma.

    If you don't like this then have patent laws reformed so that they have to be specific to the invention.

    And eliminate software patents.

  9. Re:We don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I get it--a patent troll troll.

  10. Usenet by BinBoy · · Score: 2

    > Filed in 2000

    Web browsers did it before then and Usenet newsreaders did it before browsers.

  11. WTH is a Pattent Troll with a Good Record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    gtfo of here with that

    1. Re:WTH is a Pattent Troll with a Good Record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm guessing it means they are good at winning cases/getting good settlements.

  12. Re:We don't care- don't blame flies for a fly prob by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 2

    What is the core problem? Lawyers are always hungry, like flies - you don't blame flies for a fly problem do you? What is the big warm pile of smelly?

  13. Re:this patent requires "write to BLANK media" by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    But a folder is not "blank media", it's "an empty area of an already-formatted and currently-in-use media".

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  14. More people to sue! by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Since they made the wording so broad, it sounds like a download manager.

    They should sue Headlight Software for making GetRight, in 1997....

  15. Re:We don't care by gnick · · Score: 2

    So when did you last acknowledge your black overlord?

    Orange is the new black.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.