Slashdot Mirror
Audiohighway awarded patent on digital audio players
Jelloman wrote to us to say that Audohighway, Cupertine-based company, has said that they have been awarded the patent for "any type of digital audio player used to store and play back downloaded content regardless of the electronic format in which the content is saved." They applied for the patent in 1995, and are saying that with all the players built, they believe they eligible for "compensation agreement". Excuse me while I go smash my head against a wall in frustration.
Well I was downloading and playing audio before 1995 on my PC
How much more of this nonsense are we going to be forced to put up with. How many more stupid wide-ranging patents are going to be allowed.
Excuse me, I've just patented the concept of sucking air into a container. So if you want to breath you'd better be prepared to pay me 1 cent per breath you take!
Are there any patents that cover 'any type of video player used to store and play back downloaded content regardless of the electronic format in which the content is saved'? If one isn't pattentable, the other shouldn't be either.
0) Prior art: surely there was a laptop with a sound card and a wav file on it prior to 1995?
...) with a strong vested interest in seeing this not happen.
1) Logic: the claim is just far too broad. If I put freeamp and a bunch of mp3's on a laptop, are they going to claim patent infringement?
2) Reality: there's just too many people (Rio, Sony, every laptop maker in the world,
I'm not a patent lawyer, but the impression I had is that a patent had to be specific. I don't understand how they could get a patent this general in the first place.
Further I don't understand how this could hold up in court.
Anyone know any better than I the legaleeze of patents....
These ridiculous patents have been going on for a while. Then when the company that got the patent tries to sue someone, they lose. Why not have an open court to prove that this was your invention and deserves a patent, while applying for a patent? The whole idea of the patent office was to protect inventors' intellectual property rights, but what good does that do if the patent office is used to abuse others rights?
If they're public, then now would be the best time to buy, oh, 10,000 shares
The entire software patent system will collapse?
No it won't.
Maybe I could patent "The idea of Pantenting something you shouldn't be able to." That way I could make money off of people who try to steal patents, or who get patents for things they don't deserve.
First, this patent, like most others, consists of certain excessive generalities that are "fine-tuned" later on. We all seem to have missed the part about ordering, retrieving, and acknowledging the audio data through a streamlined (whatever that means) interface. Or the requirement for a keyboard.
It was no doubt generated by some frivolous little startup in an attempt to provide some sort of tangible assets to their otherwise clueless investors.
Second, our patent process is fucked up because there is not a lot of prior PATENTED art for our patent office to draw upon. The same thing happened around the turn of the last century with automobile patents. It will almost certainly happen again. Deal with it. Things will get better in a few years.
Third, I believe that a NeXT cube, dating back from the late 1980's, combined with ftp and anonymous ftp servers will serve successfully as prior art.
It matters not that there is prior art, or that the technology is obvious.
The fact that patents are obsolete is obvious; the fact that the Rio player exists, that other companies are readying to ship their competing players shows that a monopoly is not required for inventors. The goals of the patent system are to encourage the progress of science. In this case, science has progressed (to some extent) without the monopoly, and is actually now threatened by the patent system.
This is a very dangerous patent- since the holders can totally control the use of the described invention, they could make it illegal to continue to use the Rio player you already bought. If they are so inclined, they can deny licensing to any player that does not implement the sodomy protocols. If the RIAA and their ilk get hold of this, the market will be theirs, and I wouldn't expect the new players to play mp3 files.
This is a very very bad patent. It must fall.
Chris Rohlfs
Chris@toybag.com
laptops....
The device herein disclosed is similar to a dedicated personal computer, complete with a hard drive, modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, keyboard, video display, and audio system. However, the device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of:
Selecting audio program material;
Ordering the program material from a service;
Receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive;
Playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and
Control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation.
**************************
Soooo, this is a PC that does the above list really well? What the hell?
(1) I could write software that matches their description exactly. Does that violate the patent?
(2) Since when does the Rio include a keyboard, modem, and display device? How in the world does it violate the patent?
I hardly see anything unique about this patent. I surely hope this doesn't stand up in court.
Looks like their stock is up about a dollar and a half since yesterday.
If you read: .ibm.com/details?pn=US05914941__&s_clms=1#clms
http://www.patents
Which most of you obviously didn't, you'll see that this patent is a lot more specific than you are all assuming.
Just a thought, but (taken from www.patents.ibm.com):
...can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format...
The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system.
I don't know about you guys, but any Rio I've ever seen doesn't come with a modem for connection to a database via an on-line service. In fact, the only device this patent even comes close to describing would be a laptop.
Also interesting about the wording of said device:
I'm not sure, but is accepting input from a serial port the equivilant of recording. Is it even possible to record in faster than real time?
Anyhow, this thread is probably long dead by the time I post this, however I thought it was better than the 40 iterations of yelling 'prior art'.
I suggest that we patent first "any use of a disc shaped object" and the concept of rotation, furthermore the use of a pole, and axle. Otherwise the patent office might find the concept of the wheel too complicated compared to those which were previously granted...
P.S.: 99% of the Ph.D. thesises contain now new ideas. These same people file and grant patents
too.
It's only the last two years that have seen activity in this area. It is unlikely that anyone has prior art, unless the work in the receive-and-store radio on demand has been going on for longer than I believe.
Do not expect any company producing devices to fight the patent. It would cost much much more to overturn the patent that just to pay up. Do you think that Audiohighway would give up this patent without a fight?
For those argueing companies should make a point and fight he patent, well, an industry group could make a point, but companies have to worry more about making a profit. If they don't the lawyers have made it much easier for shareholders to sue then.
What a wonderfull world.
Thanks for labelling your message 'stupidity' and saving us the effort.
See ya later. Say hi to the Central Committee for me.
Sorry. Trivial to prove prior art on that one.
Well, since it wasn't an expensive way, you're right in part.
I dunno about the 'just' part though...
So tell us. Were these portable Sun workstations? Did you transmit to them over a wireless IP linkup?
Is "portable" mentioned in any of those documents?
My father brought home an IBM 5100 machine a few times on the weekend back in 1976. It had a program on it that played the William Tell Overture using the noise the line printer made.
Of course, this had been done for years previous to the existence of the IBM 5100 (a very cool machine for it's day)
It sounds like they had a prototype ready before applying for the patent. That is necessary. It prevents people with only an idea from patenting something they're not capable of implementing.
Was that one of those cool self-igniting Powerbooks? (the Mac that was literally a bomb)
There's a program on the IBM PC DOS 1.0 diskette that plays a melody (piano.bas). That came out in 1982.
My faith in the US Patent office, already quite low, is now unrecoverable.
Still, you better cover it up. Looks like rain!
I'm gonna patent child birth...I'll bet noone else has and I'll be rich!!
The military has been doing this since the early 90's in military simulation. Besides, this patent is _so_ specific that it is easy to defeat it by making a similar device that does not include all of its capabilites. For instance this patent specifies the device contains a modem--RIO's don't have modems or any "seamless" connection to an "online service". Last time I used a RIO it was anything but seamless. I recall downloading a file, loading a RIO front end program, dragging the file into a list then downloading it.
My dat deck downloads information all the time and stores it in a digital format. And DAT decks have been around long before 1995 - I think the first crop was in the late 80's.
...
:)
How is this different from this company's bull**** scam to make some bucks?
To see some DAT decks (not Tape back-up drives - Digital Auddio decks) go to www.am-dig.com
This is stupid.
See ya in the tapers section
Not to start off a "I hate Apple" war, and I don't use them anymore, but I do remember owning an SE/30 and downloading gobs of digital sounds/songs from buliten boards and playing them as startup sounds.
So I doubt this patent can hold up in court.
You are mistaken. The GUS can't interpret .MOD files directly. All it can do is store and playback samples, with various effects such as tremolo and portamento. Of course, it was far superior to any creative product right until just last year(when the SBLive was released)!
Greetings,
Do a patent search and see if you can find one. Sort of a cross between the portable DVD movie player and a ReplayTV device. Hey, if you build it before anyone else reading this does, you can patent it. In fact, I'd highly recommend you do that, if it doesn't show up in the patent database already. I'm not even joking...
Here's something that's kind of important, by the way, you have to be able to demonstrate a working prototype.
If you can't do that, then the patent won't be granted. (This is the 'perpetual motion machine on paper' problem.)
That's one of two reasons I believe that they DID produce this hardware, just not in the exact form that we now know as 'Rio'. The second is that they have a press release on their site where they talked about showing one at a electronics conference a long time ago.
If you can build the portable direct brain stimulator, patent it! If you can't, and you think you can get it patented anyway, you'd better hope that it appears in the next 17 years, or your patent will be worthless.
The hardware patent system really isn't all that broken.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
The abstract does not have legal weight, the claims do.
Read the claims, and then read the details, including their description of prior art. It might help explain how they got the patent and how they plan to defend it.
Cyberfox!
> This is a very dangerous patent- since the holders can totally control the use of the described invention, they could make it
> illegal to continue to use the Rio player you already bought.
I'd like to see them try to enforce that.
PS. must be a problem logging in.. I even had my passwd mailed to me to make sure I was typing it right and I still can't login.
do something about other than whine. Visit http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/ and nicely write your congressmen about what's wrong with software patents and why they would be smart to change the law. Complaining on slashdot isn't going automagically change the world. You have to actuall spend the time and do something about it. In this case you could do alot in an hour or two of effort.
It's obvious to you and I *NOW*, but it in 1995 the idea that there would be a market for a dedicated device like what we now see as the Rio was NOVEL.
The belief in 1995 that a market for these devices could not exist does not make the ideas in the patent novel or nonobvious. There are plenty of unmarketable ideas that are obvious.
If the patent reviewers had looked at the minidisc player and said, "Gee doesn't it seem OBVIOUS that we could replace the mini-disc in the mini-disc player with an another storage medium (hard-drive,memory) some day?" I have a feeling it would not be a patent.
Of course, there are other claims in this patent, but the key claim is in the device itself (which seem pretty obvious).
-Modok
A patent has to be for a specific application - in this case, digital audio players. I'm not saying the patent isn't a load of shit, but there it is.
My impression of the patent office at this point is that they are overworked. It would be interesting to get a statistic of how many hours patent reviewer spend per application. I'm guessing they are pretty much approving (almost) everything and have decided to let the lawsuits really determine if the patent is valid or not.
Greetings,
I have to admit, this is a total opinion piece... I fundamentally disagree here... I think that the entire idea of technology is to build off the base of other people's knowledge as you go forward. It's what makes everything from Open Source to encryption technology better.
The idea is that by making the invention publicly known, he enables others to build new inventions on that, while still being rewarded for having the idea initially.
I understand the counterpoint, and sometimes even agree with it. Right now, though, I think too many people are freaking solely because someone was given a patent in an area important to them, and not looking at the fact that they DID innovate. While they didn't bring it to market, who is to say that Diamond wasn't spurred on and profited by learning from audiohighway's original experiences?
And isn't that what the sharing of knowledge that underlies the patent system all about?
Cyberfox!
p.s. The login system isn't logging me in, otherwise I wouldn't be AC'ing right now. Sorry.
For sure- I recall and may still have some assembly routines that flogged the Apple ][ speaker at a given frequency and duration...maybe not the tempered scale, but music appreciation is in the ear of the beholder.
I think the Trash-80 could too.
When was that released? '84 or '85 or something?
I only saw one once, and they were ugly things.
Portable version of the Commodore 64.
Playing compressed music on the SX-64 (portable Commodore 64) :-)
Likely a lot earlier... Computer music has a long history, usually the Illiac suite, composed 1955, is considered the first piece of computer music. I don't think Illiac I was capable of playing it back though (it was used as a tool to aid composition). But I'm quite sure you'll find machines back long before Apple II that were able to play back digital music.
Since there was a portable version of the C-64, as noted elsewhere, this should surely count as prior art, if there is any publicized descriptions of it.
Heh.. Remember that patents do expire, so even if someone had patented that, the patent would have expired a looong time ago.
Do We Really need yet another bunch of Scheaming theiving twits with nowt but crap in there heads on the net lets object to there domain name in a big way and force them out that way i say may take a little longer than NUKING them but it would hurt em good
..
Pete
TheProf@FreeNet.co.uk
What if i was using my device to store data not music ?? How would they know and without using the end application how would the prove it was music ? Looks like 1's and 0's to me......This just proves how troroughly STUPID the members of the patent board are....I have applied for a patent on any means by which a physical representation of the letter 'e' is transmitted. :)
So put down that illegal enscribe device AKA a pencil, you are infringing on my rights. I think I will just pursue Webster's for a start
I think that the entire idea of technology is to build off the base of other people's knowledge as you go forward. It's what makes everything from Open Source to encryption technology better.
----
Sure it is, so why not make it all available to anyone, including the little guy who has no money to pay stupid licencing fees to play with a product and release that they develop for free. Take what happened to the 8hz MP3 encoder when the patent holders decided to get nasty.
----
The idea is that by making the invention publicly known, he enables others to build new inventions on that, while still being rewarded for having the idea initially.
----
The problem is, it's NOT publicly available, and it's something that was going to happen, weather or not he thought of it or pattented it. It's now tied up in a patent and if someone else wants to use it they have to pay up whatever he wants or try to get it overturned in court. Even if someone had allready produced a device that is on the market and they had no idea this patent had even been filed. This is not right, and it is a convergence of technology that would have happened regardless. While such a product does not currently exist, it is very close. This type of patent only serves to restrict competition and produce monopoly problems.
----
I understand the counterpoint, and sometimes even agree with it. Right now, though, I think too many people are freaking solely because someone was given a patent in an area important to them, and not looking at the fact that they DID innovate. While they didn't bring it to market, who is to say that Diamond wasn't spurred on and profited by learning from audiohighway's original experiences?
----
Who cares? I don't care if Diamond learned from them. It doesn't matter. You shouldn't get a monopoly on something just because you thought of it first. If someone comes along and creates something that does the same thing your product does and charges less for it they should be allowed to. It's called a free market and the USA is supposed to have one. We haven't for many years now, but that's how it's supposed to be. It's called business, adapt or die.
----
And isn't that what the sharing of knowledge that underlies the patent system all about?
----
What sharing? They provide only what they must to get the patent in the first place. The patent system exists to protect big business from the little guy creating a product that's better then thiers and stealing the customers from them. Plain and simple. Look how Intel has used thier patents against AMD recently. AMD is not allowed to make a CPU talk on the Slot1 bus, even though you can download the specs online or reverse engineer it. This because of patents. And that's just one example in an ocean of possibilites.
M$ didn't patent the idea of an OS because there was prior art. Hell, they stole CP/M to create MS-DOS. Even the stupid patent examiners would have stopped that one!
Not to mention, computer tech moves too fast for the existing patent system. Stuff is obsolete in 6 months! Why should anyone get a 20 year monopoly on anything?
I don't think this much matters beyond the next 24 months or so. How fast are we moving PC technology into consumer applicances? Sure right now dedicated portable digital players are hot, but in 2 years? Not a chance. I think Slashdot has already had articles on integrated PDA/music player/cell phone type portable devices. Is the patent applicable there? Not likely. These devices are the real future; Rio is just an intermediate step.
By the time any litigation is settled the Rio and its ilk are going to be on the shelves of history.
Wearable computers. Check out the MIT Media Lab web pages. They have performed this function for ages.
I was wondering that myself. I know for a fact that the first MD Player I saw was at a Mall in DC, and since I haven't been there since September of '93.....
Interesting, CD audio is a digital format. I wonder how that was covered. It will never stand in court.
Just kidding, I remember reading about a couple of one-offs and prototypes of portable Amigas (I think one used an A600 mobo).
I seem to remember downloading a lot of electronic music back in my C-64 days, too, but it wasn't sampled like MODs are, it was all done procedurally...
You'll definitely need to explain how it is different from the prior art. A feature the patent currently under discussion is sorely lacking.
AT&T had the audio coder (called the Perceptual Audio Coder, or PAC, ancestor to AAC), the digital
player (built around a specially designed chip), and even the business concept of online music
distribution all working in 1994. That's pretty good prior art. The patent is worthless.
Don't worry about it.
- Anonicous Moward
Even if you assume that patents are useful, this patent is not your typical patent.
The purpose of a patent, as far as I'm concerned, is to grant a temporary monopoly to an inventor in order to offer protection from the marketplace. In turn, the inventor has a head start during which he can gain market share.
That is not what audiohighway did. They filed for this patent, and then they sort of "released" their device, and then they sat on it for two years. Try searching for "Listen Up" (the name of their device) in any search engine. You probably won't find it. They don't seem to have tried very hard to get the device into any retail channels--an alliance with a company that has some market penetration would have gotten the product on shelves and made both companies tons of money.
Instead, they are just sitting back and waiting for the cash to start pouring in.
If this patent meant anything to them other than free money, they wouldn't be giving away a Nomad on their web page, they'd be promoting their own damn product.
So, what about that one Information Society CD that has a 1200 baud (or so) modem carrier recorded on one of the tracks?
You can play it on a portable digital audio device, and then download the digital content (which is encoded as audio) onto a PC!
Voila! Just like the patent, but sorta inverted...
Also, has anyone tried to patent open source yet?
Which is why you posted an example of prior art on this claim before 1995, right?
Oh, right, you didn't.
Cyberfox's point was the point you missed: if it's that damned obvious, why didn't someone think of, research, develop, and release a product in 1994 or earlier?
Wouldn't a sampler, such as those made by Roland be similar? You can download digital audio samples via MIDI to them.. they have an interface to play the samples.. and most often this is used in music. (and some are even portable..)
"... this patent covers portable devices that record and playback digital audio files from the Internet."
... how do we close down the whole lot of 'em that want to own things that no person should ever own?
Well, gee, my portable device downloads digital audio files from my desktop machine. Now, some of those files that machine may have downloaded from the Net, and some I may have ripped from CD's. But there's not even a place to attach a modem to the portable device. Don't see where the patent applies though. It's supposed to cover any device that can even touch a file that ever went through the Net? How can the device tell the file that went from the file that was local to begin with? Or by 'Net' do they mean any networked computer at all? In that case, every modern recording studio owes 'em. Wow, this is big.
Software, human genome, crops
The Mits Altair 8800 (released in 1975) could play music by writing a basic program that generated RF interference to interrupt a radio next to the computer, by doing this you could play music on the Altair. Im sure you could also build a device to do the same thing though.
there device uses a keypad..... so I can make one utilizing a dial... or scroll ball.
Open letter sent to Nathan Schulhof....
...will react when deciding to buy their
I've read your patent.
Quite frankly, it disgusts me.
I will admit that, as an inventor, it's great when you can see your
product out on the market. However, knowing full well that:
-- Digital audio existed LONG before this invention
-- Portable players existed LONG before this invention
-- DIGITAL PORTABLE PLAYERS (CD's, DAT's, etc) existed before you
"patented" them
all I can say is, this is a farce.
The invention of something great is in itself great. The repackaging and
minor alterations of some existing technologies, is not. It may be clever
in its application, but nothing more.
Any dissemination of information, and its subsequent absorbtion by the
public can not be patented. To try and "protect" a method of using this
information simply for the goal of "capitalize[ing] on the booming
popularity of downloading music and other content off the Internet for
playback on portable digital audio players", as your press release says,
is outright disgusting. It's on par with a facist government preventing
people from obtaining information in the first place. The only difference
being, in your case, you will "allow" people to use this digitally-stored
audio information if they have PAID YOU, via royalties, for the ability
to hear it. Disgusting. Completely amerikan of you, but that's my own
bias as a Socialist and as a Canadian, and is off topic.
Now that you've done this wonderful deed, I would suggest you go work for
the pharmaceutical companies. They could use someone with your ability to
leech money with something you didn't create in the first place.
Medicinal patents are very popular now, it seems.
As for your "inventing" of digital audio players... Had you at the time
not heard of digital tape, or portable CD players? Even Radio Shack had a
chip that could store digital audio, for use in little handheld voice
memo devices. Are you planning to steal/swindle royalties from there too?
I wonder how the *entire* arts community, the people who are pushing for
the use of MP3 and digital distribution, not to mention the *entire*
techie-adopter community, the people who are your actual MARKET, *NOT* to
mention younger kids who support causes you will NEVER understand
(primarily because they're rather anti-capitalist and you, in this case,
are portraying yourself as the typical capitalist swine they've come to
expect from an older generation)
next walkman type product?
I would STRONGLY suggest you keep the patent under a pile of papers, and
*wisely* decide not to do *anything* royalty-wise.
Remember... audio isn't the only thing that's distributed over the net.
Information of ALL sorts is. Including information like
who's-getting-rich-immorally-off-of-whom. More importantly than the
market, how will your *stockholders* react when cries of outrage come
pouring in?
As someone on slashdot.org wrote in reply to your announcement:
"If you can't get rich because of any skills, get rich on an Internet
IPO. Not clever enough to do that, get rich practicing extortion by
patenting obvious products and business practices and keep the licenses
cheap enough that no one will waste the $$$ to fight them. Ah America.
Makes you proud, huh?"
and
"My faith in the US Patent office, already quite low, is now
unrecoverable."
P.S. I'm sending this anonymously, simply because I don't *trust* people
like you to react to criticism without invoking legal bullshit.
Way back in the early 70s I used to carry around a portable tape recorder on which I would record music from the radio.
Seventy years (?) before that people carried small phonographs with which they could record music onto wax cylinders if the music was loud enough.
For thousands of years before that, people who were rich and powerful enough would "record" music on minstrels, and stories onto storytellers, and cause them to be transported about for "playback".
The point being that as soon as any relevant technology enables it, people will always record music and speech (and images!) onto portable devices and carry these devices around for playback. These folks guessed 5 years ago that digital recording would become such a technology. Good guess, but does it merit a patent? I think not. I can guess now that devices could be constructed which record music onto DNA, holograms, or the state of a quantum mechanical system. More specifically, I can state with high confidence that any technology which stores such data "better" (cheaper/faster/etc.) than the existing technology will be tried in this application. Consequently we can argue that a patent for "application of new technology to portable recording devices" should only be granted when the patent describes new technology which has been created by the applicant, which will not be obvious simply due to maturation of the technology, and which in some way advances the development of technology. The current patent fails all three criteria.
Personally, I think the Patent office also needs to give a lot more thought to the meaning of "obvious". I believe that a technology is "obvious" when that a technology is independently discovered or implemented by several individuals within a brief period of time. Polymerase chain reaction was not obvious, but integration of semiconductor devices was. These sorts of hidden patents should all be rescinded, since the normal course of technological development renders these "novel" results "obvious" to large numbers of people who have never before even heard of the patent or the supposed advance it contains.
The whole purpose of patents is supposed to be to advance technology - but this patent does nothing of the sort, it merely predicts the way in which technology will advance.
I suspect that digital tape recorders did exist befor that date. So this patent is just a generalisation of digital tape recorder, suggesting that other kind of digital storage may be used as well.
Is this kind of patent really possible ?
Why couldn't the airforce have missed the chinese embassy and hit the US Patent Office instead? The computer industry would soar to new heights without those brainless limp-dicks handing out patents like they're going out of style...
I say give the Patent Office a break. Ya, they make dumb decisions sometimes, but *you* try predicting technology 10 years from now. Esp. since the people you're dealing with, the patent-filers, are trying every trick in the book to slip things past you. It must be rough to work for the Patent Office and have people slamming you like this... :-(
My sides always hurt when I leave Slashdot...:-)
Um. From what I saw, they totally failed. Not *only* did they not cover the Rio and friends, they *tried* to patent a computer with sound system playing compressed music. Like Amigas playing MODs with MAD compression. Um. He sort of missed the boat on that one...not only does he not cover any of the MP3 players, his patent is invalid.
I can bang out some really rousing marches on my abacus...
Because if I claim the sun, the moon and the stars, then file infringement because someone built a telecommunications device using starlight as an encryption key, I'm still a jerk. It's the morality of the thing. I don't think *any* of it's of legal significance, because I don't think they're gonna win -- leeches always show up in successful industries. I just don't think they should able to be able to claim what they did and get away with it.
Can you challenge an already granted patent and have it voided?
Hate to say it, but a lot of this comes off as mindless ranting against the patent system, which has done well for the US so far -- we *do* have more technological invention than anyone else, and I think patents have a lot to do with that.
However, you are *so* right on one point. Computer patents should have a shorter lifespan. You get a patent on something in the computer world, it's useless by the time you lose the patent. That's *wrong* -- with a patent anywhere else, you can get rich and profit from your invention, but the world still benefits from the knowedge. But in the computer world, no one benefits from obsolete tech...
I could get rich. I do believe I'll patent the Thinkpad minus the IDE system and see what happens when IBM tries moving on past IDE... :-)
Seriously, these guys don't come off as inventors -- they come off as profit-mongers. I don't have a problem with an inventor getting an monopoly and getting fabulously rich (wish Apple had, and had pushed M$ out...), but when someone's just randomly restricting possible technologies in the hopes of someone someday setting up a business as such...
Besides, why did they wait so long? If they were really concerned with protecting their patent, rather than extorting money from tech companies, they *could* have complained back when the Rio was first announced. But, no, they wait until it's out all over and more are on the way. This is stupid. It smacks of the GIF-compression fiasco (which I *still* don't believe went over)
When is MD invented? I think that could fit the description. You can "download" to it given the right digital output from your PC, right?
What did they call their proto-type, was it the Audiohighwayman?
Blane.
I remember writing a little bit assembly in Big Mac, hooking up a dictaphone to the Apple and digitizing a message to a friend ("Winfried you possum - you didn't expect this?" :-) and then made the Apple playing this audio recording through it's built-in speaker later, when Winfried was working in the school lab.
He made quite a face :-)
Regards,
Marc
PS Shit, I'm telling war stories that means I must got old! :)
Suppose you try to patent a bottle opener that can be moved into and out of a casing via a hinge. Presumably a Swiss Army knife with a bottle opener would count as prior art no matter how many other blades and other doodads it also happened to include.
I bought a consumer device prior to 1992 that seems to meet all these qualifications.
Portable. I can carry it in one hand and operate it while out walking.
Data Interface. It does not "generate" the digital data, it uses an optical/mechanical interface to read data.
Faster than real time. It loads data from the interface into a memory device storage buffer.
Compressed Digital Audio. The data is audio information encoded digitally. The audio is compressed, since the sample rate used is only enough to provide an acceptably close approximation of the original audio, although no secondary compression of the digital data is used.
Audio output. A human can listen to the output using headphones or speakers.
I can easily play over an hour of continuous non-repeating compressed and digitally stored audio data on this portable battery-operated device via it's optical/mechanical data interface, as well as carry several different portable data sources for the interface.
These devices were a bit pricey (a couple hundred US dollars) but were commonly available. Since I bought mine in 1991, prices have fallen to below $50.
Are these guys on drugs, or do they really want royalties on devices that were mass market 5 years before their claim.
My Atari 400 played digital music in 1981.
Their patent is worthless.
The prior art blows it away. Specifically
the Ensoniq Mirage Sampler, in production
in 1984. Analog or digital in, analog or
digital out.
I can't believe how idiotic some people are being about this whole thing. How many people keep posting "uh..why don't I try and invent the wheel! yeah, that's the ticket..."? Do you really think you are adding anything of value to the conversation? If you read all of the posts, as well as the patent itself, you would know that this is not at all like that. Keep in mind when this was filed. Also keep in mind that these guys apparently did have a prototype so it isn't like they made a patent and just waited around for some one else to build it so they could cash in.
Have some common sense!
And please, we all know that digital music has existed for a while. You don't need to stroke your ego by posting "I made music by manually spinning by hard drive at different frequencies back in 1979 using a special machine-language coded utility!"
These discussions get really inane sometimes. Can't people have some intelligence when they post, without jumping to conclusions about (a) what the people in this company's intentions are, (b) whether they are all money-grubbing morons, and (c) what their intentions are for the patent?
That's all.
Patents are supposed to be alot more defined than this... they will most likely loose every legal battle.
On a similar note I have patended liquid beverages utilizing alcohol, so Jack Daniels etc... You all owe me money...
No but really from what I was actually awake for in My Business Law class at Penn State (PSU BABY) They have to be specific, now te real question comes out to be who defines specific... I mean I can say I patent "Computer disks" andd to the average Computer Illiterate Bozo that means anything that's platter shapped and inserted into a computer (DVD, Floppy, ZIP, CDROM, anything...) From a technical standpoint this is Vague as hell and would be thrown out in n instant... because I have not specified suficiently the specifics of "Computer Disks"
Seeing the writing on the wall, I bailed (the company only made it through by the skin of its teeth after much pain and agony; the CFO had a nervous breakdown and a lot of people got laid off).
However, it shows that in '94 and '95 the idea of marrying e-commerce (before we had that vile neologism) and networking was in the air, and VCs were pouring money into it before they discovered the Internet stock rathole. As other people have pointed out, the technology needed to implement the invention described was off the shelf stuff at the time. In fact the canny VCs realized that the technologies were commodities, and began putting their chips on companies with content copyrights (remember the huge media company acquisitions?).
IANAL, but my reading of the patent is that the claimed originality is not in any technology such as audio playback or hard disk storage, but that the key element is how the system combines ordering program material, storing it and playing it back. If you consider the mythical set top box, combined with the other components consumers were expected to have (a TV and a VCR), you have pretty much the invention described. I doubt. that anyone could get a patent on the video counterpart because this idea was simply in the air. Everybody was working off the same page on that one, and nobody thought is sufficiently original (as far as I know) to warrant a patent. It was just a souped up cable box.
The question is whether taking this public domain idea and limiting it to audio only is sufficiently original to warrant a patent.. Again, IANAL, but it seems to me that if there is any germ of originality in this idea, it is so small that it flies in the face of the constitutional provision for patents to foster innovation. In any case, it's clear to me that extorting license fees for devices like the RIO is just so much legal chest thumping. The RIO lacks the critical integration of content ordering, downloading, storage and playing described.
This has been talked about a lot. And every time I get involved with a group looking to do it, it fails. The one exception I see to this is the UcLinux SIMM. That was done by 2 people (IIRC) with little help from outsiders. I think that for a hardware project to suceed one must do something like that. If you are serrious, and willing to put time or money into the project (this is hardware, PCB prototype costs are staggering, not to mention the costs to do a plastic mold). I'm in. Right this second I have a bit much on my plate, but in a few weeks I'll have some time and money to donate to the cause. I also have a professional electronics CAD program and some electronics design background. Email me if you are serrious.
bigboss@xmission.com
Look, if it's obvious, let's start writing it down. We need a web site which records any of our "obvious" musings about technology, records the date that they were entered and allows updates to remark whether a patent is already held (or pending) on the idea and pointers to project teams that may actually already be producing an implementation.
who wants to set something like this up? ccb@acm.org
Quite a few years ago ('90ish), I was looking at a portable CD player that would not skip. It was basically a CD Walkman with a small RAM buffer to hold up to 5 seconds(?) of audio. Since the drive was able to spin the disk slightly faster than normal, it was able to slowly fill up the buffer if it skipped. At this time, it was obvious to me that in one way or another, there will be an audio player that might copy the contents of the CD (or whatever replaces it) to RAM and play it separate from the drive portion (something like one of those old VCR'S that was separable from the tuner).
I knew something like it would come out eventually, but the question was when, not if. If it did come out in the early 1990's, it would have been larger than a full size tower PC (need more than 5120 1Mbit memory chips if no compression is used) and cost about $50,000. Today, you can probably build one that is the size of a small tv remote if you used the GB DRAM chips, but price of such a device would still be in the thousands.
FWIW, back then, solid state storage devices were called something similar to silicon disks, which were huge full size cards, small with only several MB worth of space, and VERY expensive.
I have also noticed that the device described seems to be different from the current products (ie RIO) and seems to be a product that is used to interactively download audio directly from an online source (server). Since I do not own a RIO and I can only speculate on its features, but I assume that the following is how you would go about listening to the music:
As far as I can tell, the player should do the first step by downloading the audio track directly and the second step should not exist at all.
According to an anouncement for the QY700(in Japanese), Yamaha had a MIDI sequencer the size of a VHS cassette tape which was designed to write and play music since December of 1990. I would also assume that this is a smaller version of something else that existed...
When compared to MP3 players, the following is similar:
- Small and portable.
- It can play music stored in RAM.
- Music files can be transferred (downloaded) to it.
Differences:- RIO can only playback.
- QY series uses MIDI files, RIO uses MP3 files.
I think this review about a su10 is the same thing, but I am not sure.MODPLAY 2 could scan through LZH and ZIP files, at least, and offer to play any recognized module in those archives. It supported other formats as well (maybe ARC and ARJ ?) I believe it is dated 1992 or 1993. Lots of people have downloaded zipped MODs during that time, because at 240 bytes per second, you wanted to. (MOD files were about 50k to 200k)
It holds up until someone wastes tens of thousands of dollars to challenge it. J. Random Hacker can't afford justice. Luckily, since there are big hardware vendors who need to be able to do this, maybe one of them can.
That POOF is the sound of some poor schlep wasting tens of thousands of dollars prolonging the death throes of our industry a little longer.
This, of course, is part of the problem. Patents are supposed to disclose the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art. But nobody's using the issued software patents except to harass others, because not only is access highly inconvenient (and impractical en masse), but they're full of gibberish only IP lawyers can understand!
The PTO only has so many monkeys, and so many "oh, sure, what the hell" rubber stamps.
But seriously, patent examination has always taken a long time, even back when it seemed to accomplish something. They recently changed the duration from date-of-issue to date-of-application (do I have this right?) so that the prosecution time wouldn't make such a big difference.
3) CmdrTaco could be sued for defamation or some such thoughtcrime.
Yes, this could fit the description I keep hearing in the discussion (and no, I haven't read the patent text, nor do I intend to bother). But, I
bought an ASR-10 sampling keyboard back in '93 - it has a hard drive, a keyboard, can download digital audio into its memory via MIDI (which is obtained via sample sites on the Internet). I think this would fit the 'non general-purpose computer' part of their definition. It only does music, it can't do your spreadsheets.
Hey! Lay off buddy! I invented the wheel, and if you say you did one more time, my lawyers will call in an airstrike!
William G. Gates III
Cool, I'm going off right now and put in a patent for my Electron Mobilizer. Basically, this uses an Electomotive Force to push electrons through various types of conductors and semiconductors, subject to Ohm's Law. I think I'll also charge royalties for any other devices made that mobilize electrons, regardless of usage or format of the device.
Hmmm, computers, audio electronics, the wiring in your house, your Uncle Freddy's pacemaker, these are all infringing on my patent's protection. Pay up, all you users of any sort of electronics.
Next up I'll patent a device that uses Maxwell's Equations, so all you optics and wireless people will need to pay up too. I better make my move now, it's only a matter of time before I'll be taken ov^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H friendly acquired by bill gates. Oh wait, he's probably already got a patent in for this stuff anyway...
Okay, now screw that GUS card onto the chassis of your car, and travel back in time until before 1995.
Make sure you have witnesses.
A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format and can play back audio programming, where such programming has been digitized and stored in data files using a variety of compression/decompression algorithms. Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory. The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system. The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation.
----
seems rather broad, wouldn't a laptop with a MOD Player fall under this, even though it's not a specialty device. Unfortunatly this seems to exactly describe most new MP3 players (Empress, etc.) I believe just having a patent doesn't entitle you to royalties (INAL) Legal or not, it really sucks that something like this is patentable. There is also a longer press release at: http://www.audiohighway.com /news/press/index_press.html
Brandon
I've got Radio Free Ethernet on this Sun, and the date on the manpage is March 17 1992, but I've read the patent and it dosen't look like Radio Free Ethernet on a Sun counts as prior art.
Sorry, but unless the patent covers some specific method of digital-based playback, I think it's invalid due to prior art.
Prior art: IBM PC with OS/2 Warp 3.
The level of disgust I am filled with after seeing this patent actually granted leads me to the conclusion that *all* "intellectual property" should be done away with. It has become obvious that government cannot possibly police this; it has become little more than a lottery.
--
These kind of patents defeat the purpose of having intellectual property; instead of encouraging innovation, they leech off of others' efforts, and discourage new products.
--
> I think I'll patent thinking.
Why? The market is so small. Better to patent stupidity.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
This thing sounds almost like a laptop with a music player app that is run on bootup. Quoting from the abstract:
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
Well, does that mean that a device that doesn't include all of these things would not be subject to the patent?
Does this mean that a laptop with WinAmp is covered by the patent?
Here is the part they say is unique:
"The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation."
Don't they at least have to have a prototype? Not that it would be too difficult. Just get the old Thinkpad out and rig it up with a pretty UI.
On the other hand, I don't think any of the current digital MP3 players would be subject to this patent. It is fairly specific about what it does and how the thing will operate. I don't know of any that operate specifically like this. As long as players continue to get their data from a PC, they wouldn't infringe on this patent.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
They didn't even say portable. In that case, try Apple ][ in the late '70s
There are earlier examples than that, but I don't know for a fact that music was ever downloaded and played on those.
I think I'll patent thinking.
I remember those things well. My favorite trick was the two bit (in both senses of the term :-) digital audio output. IIRC the speaker was driven at ultrasonic frequencies and the duty cycle was varied to more or less position the speaker cone (since it couldn't actually produce the ultrasonic, the cone went to the average position instead). It sounded awful, but then, some people feel the same way about MP3.
Thanks for the patent number!
Now that I read it, none of the current players fall under the patent at all. Just in claim 1, they are eliminated because none of them can initiate a download form said keypad, that happens on the other side. From there, they continue adding features that simply don't exist on any current player.
IMHO, most of those extra features are not desireable anyway.
Why? The market is so small. Better to patent stupidity.
That's very true, but USPTO might catch that one. I figured I'd patent something nobody there had ever encountered before.
The Mac Portable, released in 1990, came with a built-in modem and a TCP/IP stack that could download sound-clips in a variety of file-formats from the internet and play them in 8-bit mono. It ran off of batteries, and you could take it with you wherever you went (if you wanted to build strong muscle tone).
The Powerbook 170, released in 1992, could replay audio files downloaded from the internet in 16-bit stereo (CD-quality), ran for two hours off of a battery, and could fit in a small satchel or briefcase.
Doncha just loooove prior art?
Preffered, but not only. MacTCP (the precursor to Open Transport) ran spiffily under 6.0.x, and you could dial into the 'net with MacSLIP. MacTCP was a "control panel" (similar in concept to a configuarable daemon with a GUI, for you Linux fans) to the system software, and not built into the core operating system, tho.
SoupIsGood Food
One could certainly argue that Sony MD players meet the requirements of said patent, and they easily predate 1995.
sigs are a waste of space
Weird, I noticed the Sony MD player is actually listed as prior art, and he claims that it doesn't use compression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't MD players compress their data? He's right about it being real-time based, but it doesn't take a genius to make an MD cutter... certainly CD cutters can do the job in non-realtime fashions.
sigs are a waste of space
BTW, they haven't given a number, so we don't really know if the patent office was dumb enough to reward this one. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
How about this? For each patent that later overturned, they should be made to pay a penalty into a fund that provides for more detailed examination of patent filings. The size of this penalty should be proportional to the profits that the company expected to get from the frivolous patent.
If a company files more than x patents within y years that are overturned in court, it will be considered a habitual abuser of the patent process. For the first habitual abuse offense, the company should be prevented from ever filing a patent for things developed within the next six months. Repeated habitual abuse should result in increasing the length of the patent moratorium.
Let's put the cost of these frivolous abuses back onto the shoulders of the abusers!
Here's a lame list of links pointing to prior patents related to "digital audio players":
These are but just a few that I could find in IBM's patent database. Just look for "digital audio player", you'll be surprised.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
The patent hasn't been granted from what I can gather from the articles lack of information.
Any analog recording undergoes lossy compression as well. Cutting an LP for instance involves making scratches in wax (approximately) and the scratching device can only respond to a certain range of frequencies.
I had bothered to check their website and at the time they didn't display it.
It's a pretty sketchy article, and the patent so far hasn't even been granted from what I'm reading. The patent shouldn't be granted if its as vague as the article indicates. Prior to 1995 it was entirely possible to download music files and play them back on a portable device. Namely a laptop computer. Laptop type computing devices have been around for a while. I distinctly remember a MOD player or something on a friends clunky 8086 laptop in 1987 or 1988.
I don't know whether its that patents are so wrong or its that some people are so stupid, lazy and greedy. Though I suppose if those personality traits weren't so prevalent then patents wouldn't be needed.
If you read the actual text of the patent, the full 18 claims cover a suprisingly large area, including the concept of downloading content to the player via direct connection, modem, LAN, or wireless connection, the methods of interfacing to it to do that, or play back, the use of a computer to manage it, the use of such a device for e-commerce application (pay-per-listen), and a way of transmitting data to the unit via cable TV signals.
They pretty much cover the whole gamut. This is a bogus patent though, because the prior art of MD players covers those concepts, since early this decade there were MD players that had digital inputs. The stuff about PC's being prior art in this case doesnt' seem to hold up, since this is fairly specific about it being a portable device for this purpose specifically.
I've read the average cost to get a bogus patent struck down is about a million and a half dollars. This company probably knows it too, and will keep their licenses inexpensive enough that it won't be worth the money for a company to sue about it. $1 per player or some such B.S, or $1 million for a corporate license. Do that, and no one is going to challange the patent. Its not worth it. They probably know that.
Its no different than companies like Walker Digital snapping up patents on business concepts that are completely obvious in order to extort patent license fees when anyone else comes up with an idea (most of which aren't rocket science, and are pretty common sense).
If you can't get rich because of any skills, get rich on an Internet IPO. Not clever enough to do that, get rich practicing extortion by patenting obvious products and business practices and keep the licenses cheap enough that no one will waste the $$$ to fight them. Ah America. Makes you proud, huh?
Excuse me, but DAT and MiniDisc count as something falling under that patent- and BOTH are from before the patent application. Simply put, the Patent system in the US needs to be shot and put out of OUR misery.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Portable digital music players are not novel, the idea has been around for a long time. The reason they are possible now is the introduction of cheap, small, and efficient integrated circuits in the market place. These players are guilty of taking advantage of the cheap prices and assembling the parts. That's the whole purpose of having commodoty IC's: reuse in different applications. I would think this guy who applied and awarded this patent is guilty of a criminal offense of extortion. Lock him up for stupidity too. Why are people not vigilant anymore these days?
I'd like to challenge your patent on ass-whuppin. Say, nice tie... *pow!!!@#$%*
Ah, okay, so it does specifically cover devices such as the Rio, and not just any digital playback device. However: MOD players on laptops in 1992 had that functionality. (I know that in '92 notebook soundcards were nonexistant, but I built one of those LPT DAC things and used my mom's notebook as a portable Internet digital music player at that time.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Gee, since I can pull down ISO images of audio CD's, write them and playthem on my discman, I guess sony owes them a buttload of money.
Or does the description of the device in the patents sound more like a computer then something like the Rio. I mean, it states that it would have a keyword, modem, hard-drive etc. These people are going to get creamed on prior art.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Nothing like a good controversy to create publicity. I had most definately never heard of these people, and now I've seen their web site. Any lawyer with even 1/4 of a brain would realize that a patent will not be issued for this application, and even if issued will not stand up in court. But, before those decrees are handed down, a nice press release has made a great publicity splash.
I think most people are missing the major point here- they're trying to patent a time travel machine!
From the patent-
"A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format..."
So, if you're recording a song faster than it's being played, before the song is finished you'll be able to play it back and hear how it ends!
But think of the possibilites! You could record yourself reading off stock market prices and play them back before you're done, and then use that to become the world's greatest day trader!
We'd need to overhaul most languages to add a new tense- the future playback - in order to talk about things that are happening in the future but we're listening to now.
It's making my head swim. I'd better go lie down.
Oh come on! The essence of the 'non-obvious' requirement is to prevent things like this.
I am absolutely sure that any competent engineer would have whipped up substantially the design of the Rio, etc. if you suggested that Flash memory, harddrives, or something similar were about to reach a price point that made it feasible.
What is not obvious about extending the idea of a portable listening device with electro-magnetic memory (Sony (cassette) Walkman) to a portable listening device with optical memory (cd player) to a portable listening device with electro-magnetic-optical memory (Sony Minidisc) to a portable listening device with Flash/Harddrive/SuperRam...?
Just assembling the technology de jour in an obvious way doesn't make a valid patent.
IMHO, It won't hold up long...
sdw
Stephen D. Williams
> In closing, I'll repeat: if you honestly think
> you know of a specialized audio playback
> device integrating a hard drive or solid
> state memory with a dedicated
You mean to tell me that the specialization is
what qualifies the patent?
Specialization in this case means "removing other
functionalities of the device," since a laptop can
do what a Rio does and also other things.
Please tell me that doesn't count as grounds for patent approval.
Just think -- with a vaguely worded enough patent on my internet gaming software, I could force the makers of chess sets everywhere to pay me!!
... I think I'm going to move to China -- their government is starting to seem less totalitarian than ours.
How does the patent office decide who to give patents to, seriously? This patent seems to be applicable to a gramophone. It's digital, after all -- it has 2 states, "on" and "off".
The idea that one could patent something this broad indicates that there is a paradigmatic problem with the *concept* of a patent. It shouldn't even make sense (wrt the law) to own a patent on something this broad... this is a mistake it should not be possible to make.
However, this patent is just in the U.S.
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
Olde Timer says:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
I remember when you could find programs for the original Macintoshes that could play tunes on the variable speed floppy drive.
Those were the days, my friend...
This should have been invalidated by prior art in the 1960's when paper tape and punched card rhythm machines were all the rage.
Anyone got an old sampling keyboard with a floppy drive?
.aiff or .au player?
Or a Newton MP100 with, say, an
Either it does cover all portable PCs and PDAs (with sufficient audio hardware), in which case it's just absurd that it could be a valid patent, or it doesn't, then anyone's free to sell a mp3 player disguised as a PDA by adding a calendar, a notebook etc. (not a big deal). I wouldn't worry about this too much, in 1-2 years we will have plenty of combined PDAs/audio players/cellular phones/wireless internet terminals at our disposal. :-/
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
wasnt the audio home recording act passed into law by 1995. it would seem hard to defend a patented idea that could easily have be forseen by this law
--
When she told me I was average, she was just being mean.
this kinda fits nicely
--
When she told me I was average, she was just being mean.
I think the real problem is that the patent office cannot distinguish between something that is fundamentally and conceptually new... and something that is just the natural progression of the technology.
Downloading music and playing it on a player is a direct result of increased bandwidth. With enough bandwidth, it's a complete no brainer. While some of the methods people invent to get that bandwidth might be patentable, the obvious tag-along effects should not.
Unless that quote from the company was incorrect, I think we have enough of the story to accurately judge this to be a mistake on the patent office's part.
He's planning on collecting a royalty from every company building digital audio players.. whether they've heard of his company or not.
It doesn't have to fly in court. They simply send a letter requesting royalties.. *threatening* to take them to court if they are not paid. They make these royalties low enough, that the companies doing business find it more cost effective to pay the $1M rather than $10M for court costs. Now, suppose a device maker refuses to pay... they simply send them a notice licensing them to make their product free of royalties... hence preserving their ability to make justified threats against other companies.. (If the patent was dragged into court and struck down, they couldn't threaten anymore.. because it'd be frivolous harassment..)
As long as they avoid a judgement.. they've got a nice little gold mine.. many companies will just pay the money.... because they won't be asking for much.
see ompages.com to break a patent
on the obvious idea of webmail that handles encryption keys that ziplip.com seeks to monopolize.
Free thought, free speech, anonymity, security, freedom!!!
The best response to this kind of "intellectual property" nonsense is to boycott Audiohighway. Tell everyone you know what's going on and tell THEM to boycott audiohighway. Since they are going to force people to pay more for players, the only effective response is to take the money back from them by not buying their other products.
Given the broad contact range of the internet, just putting "boycott audiohighway" in your sig will reach tens of thousands of people. Remember, Jesse Jackson brought PepsiCo to its knees just by making speeches.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
I'm not familiar with audiohighway, but their press release says that they expect their new patent to help their present business -- they do not make it sound like they are expecting to rely on "compensation agreements" for their income. I assume that they market MP3-type products. So, don't buy them.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
I just filled in AudioHighway's on-line survey and told them if they didn't back off from their stupid patent that I'd never use their site again - I strongly recommend that you all do the same...
Kris.
Win a Rio (or join the SETI Club via same link)
I am hereby announcing my intent to file a patent covering any applications of ass-whuppin' to the US Patent Office for egregious stupidity. Contact me for a license to apply any such ass-whuppin'.
bowms
Although I agree that this is a bogus patent (it should have never been awarded -- much too general), you didn't read the article. They applied for the patent in 1995 before digital players were in production. You can't patent the CD player now, since it's easy for anyone to show prior art.
/peter
so they patented it before they had a player? I think i'm going to patent a Teleportation Device, Regardless of Form or Compression Type!
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Back in 1989 in college my final project in electronic engineering was a digital playback portable device designed to playback audio from a downloadable source....
:-) that company can bite me hard and long... their patent don't apply to me because I have proof of pre-existing technology :-PPP
I would gladly show up in any court with my project (Still have it... I think) and the schools' copy of the thesis/paperwork..
Hmmm, I think I should cross-sue these turds for infringement? espically when I made the design/idea PUBLIC DOMAIN!
1989..... 1995.... I beat them by a good 6 years!
They must have drooling morons working there for me to beat them to their own game!
Based on a 68000 processor I was able to record about 15 seconds with $300.00 worth of ram (about 2 meg) in raw format and crappy quality. ran off of a pack of D batteries for quite a while. (there's only so many times you can listen to a few audio clips... and I couldnt afford to buy more ram)
Nope
Maybe I should re-design it (anyone good at CF interfaces? and mp3 decoding?) and publish the whole shebang free on the net! hehehehehehe
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Usually I am dissapointed when a technically skilled person goes into the legal profession (US engineer/lawyer ratio is 1:10, japan's is 10:1) but I make an exection for anybody going into patent law.
The problem isn't that the patent office ppl are stupid, it's just that they usually don't have the necessary background to understand these new patents, and the few patent office ppl who do are overloaded with way too many applications.
If you really want to help prevent the issuance of overobvious patents, go back to school to learn about patent law and get a job at the patent office.
unfortunately, it is logically impossible to boycott a company that does not have any actual real products. Since you could or would not buy these products in the first place, refraining from buying them does not actually constitute something that can be described by a verb such as "boycott".
y .html
Too bad.
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/cyberlear
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
is it just me or is everyone missing the requirements stated in the patent?
/. and that alone was enough for me to rule out the portable mp3 players on the market or in development (at least those I've heard of), yet I was still curious enough to scan the full text of the patent before speaking my mind. I suggest everyone else that reads about this patent and is angry about it do the same.
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
none of the new digital audio devices like the rio or the nomad fit this description; none of them have hard drives, modems, or keyboards (unless this term refers to any input device with buttons). the newly released or soon to be released devices based around mp3s store things in solid state memory of one kind or another and although they do comunicate with your computer they have no modem (modulator/demodulator), they use some type of digital comunication (USB, serial, etc.). these devices themselves do not have anything to do with the downloading of the files.
also the patent states that the device will be capable of "ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive". does the rio do that?
I wish more people would take the time to do their homework before stirring up trouble for this company. the patent is vague but not nearly as vague as everyone seems to think it is, and that is necisary considering that the device does not yet exist.
I know that the abstract section of the patent has been posted to
and just to be fair...
Whoever the idiot was that wrote that press release should go back to school or at least find someone to show him the diference between a good informative press release and one that make his company look like a lying sack of $**t. (translation: that press release said they had patented things like laptops or the rio or nomad.... it sould have said that it patents things simmilar but quite a bit more advanced.)
my ramblings are deteriating now so I'll stop.
P.S.
please excuse the spelling, I am a product of the US public school system.
-----
"No one expects the spanish inquisition"
-- Monty Python
#include
This program was available in 1985, if not earlier.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Wouldn't Minidisc also server as prior art? I believe they encode (compress) music digitally. Minidiscs have been around long before 1995; I definitely got my first Minidisc player in 12/1995.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Have a look over the body of the text at the USPTO Database.
--The more you know, the less you know.
Seriously? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention at the time, but I think AppleTalk was still the preferred networking flavor.
-Imperator
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Don't be silly. This isn't a software patent at all.
Greetings,
If you'd bothered to check their website like I did, you'd find that they have been granted the patent, and it is patent number 5914941.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
Hello?!? Knock, Knock?
Did you read this at all? This isn't a software patent!
Why in the world you would post, when you have no basic comprehension at all, is beyond me. Think, think, think before you post.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
Or in better form, and straight from the horses mouth, you can get it from the USPTO.
Of particular interest is the description, as well, in which a lot of the points you want to raise are addressed.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/sr chnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5914941'.WKU.&OS=PN/591 4941&RS=PN/5914941
What the... That link didn't work at all. ARGH. Evidently Slashdot can't handle really long URL's, or URL's in quotes.
The URL is:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
But for some reason I can't include it in an "a href=" tag.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
It's plausible (to extend your question to a reasonable level) that a more general purpose device (PDA + MP3 player) could be considered a different enough device that it would not be subject to the claims. If a PDA shipped with an MP3 player and software to connect and get MP3's from the net or your computer, then it might have to be fought in the courts.
If it were an aftermarket application, then the device wasn't 'designed' to do this, and therefore most likely wouldn't qualify.
To answer your original question, however, I believe it could be reasonable argued that the primary purpose of the unit was the specialized playback of digitized audio obtained over the Internet or from your home computer.
Thus it would be subject to the patent licensing claims. This is why a general purpose PDA which had an aftermarket MP3 player would not fall under those claims. It's primary purpose is not digital audio playback, although it's capable of it coincidentally.
This would all very likely get fought out in the courts, though.
The primary point I was making is that given the specific nature of the product, I believe there is no prior art, despite people saying extremely ignorant things about their Macintoshes, Commodore 64s, and laptops being prior art.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
No, no, no, and once and for all, NO.
This is NOT an obvious patent.
Four years ago (4.5, given a bit of lead time for them to come up with the idea, implement it, fill out the paperwork and stuff) the details of this were absolutely unheard of.
Everyone seems to LOVE pretending it's a patent on something that has existed forever. If the patent were filed TODAY, you would be right. It wasn't. It was filed just over 4 years ago, when the digital music industry didn't exist!
Please, use some sense. Unless you can name prior art that meets all the restrictions described in the patent claims (not the overview, the actual claims, then it is not an obvious patent.)
I bet you can't.
Cyberfox!
p.s. PeelBoy, your post was picked at random. There are a few dozen equivelantly un-thinking posts like it, so don't think I'm singling you out.
Greetings,
when the digital music industry didn't exist!
To forestall someone else, I should have said, 'when the digital downloadable portable music player industry didn't exist!'
The point still stands, however.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
I've read their patent (yes it was granted, come on people do your research), I've read their press release, and I will preface this with IANAL, as always.
This patent (5914941) seems reasonable.
If you honestly think you know of prior art for a specialized audio playback device integrating a hard drive or solid state memory with a dedicated interface to be able to obtain music from the Internet or a personal computer that dates before 1995, I'd love to hear about it.
No, your Powerbook with a music player doesn't count. It's not a specialized audio playback device. No, your Minidisc doesn't count, it doesn't have the interface, and it doesn't have a hard drive or solid state memory.
OBVIOUSLY your Amiga with a network card, and playing MOD files doesn't count, it's not specialized *AND* it's not portable.
Listen up. These people came up with something original in 1995. It's obvious to us now, but it wasn't obvious that all these pieces could work together back then. They thought of it, they produced a working model (yes, they did, check out their site), and they patented it.
I don't like it, and I think there is POTENTIAL for it to be partially broken based on non-specific algorithms. However, MPEG1 Layers 1, 2, *AND* 3 are all mentioned in their patent, and they even say that Layer 3 is preferrable.
It's also worth looking at their current professional associations. Creative Labs *AND* Diamond both have notable relationships with these people, which means that both of them probably are aware of this, and are probably willing to work with them.
I agree that many patents suck, and I hope to heck that this goes the way of the Comptons patent.
Cut audiohighway some slack, though. They DID innovate, they AREN'T patenting the action of breathing, or the letter 'e' or the wheel or anything obvious. It's obvious to you and I *NOW*, but it in 1995 the idea that there would be a market for a dedicated device like what we now see as the Rio was NOVEL. When the Rio was RELEASED even, the majority of people weren't sure if there was a market for it. We now know better, but look how long it took?
These people guessed right, they produced hardware, they described it, and they applied for a patent.
I keep seeing people talking about the 'natural progression of technology'. If you see something that others DON'T see, whether it's the natural progression of technology or not, make it, patent it, and build a damn business around it. The biggest wins are almost ALWAYS people who predicted the growth right, and got there first. I sure as hell don't begrudge them THAT.
In closing, I'll repeat: if you honestly think you know of a specialized audio playback device integrating a hard drive or solid state memory with a dedicated interface to be able to obtain music from either the Internet or a personal computer that dates before 1995, please post it!
I don't think it exists, and if you let go the knee-jerk reaction (same as I had!), I'll bet you think it doesn't either.
Cyberfox!
p.s. Few people will be happier than I if I'm shown wrong, and/or the patent is overturned on any basis. I just don't believe it will.
If you'd read the *rest* of the post, you would have seen that they produced one in 1997.
"Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface
Abstract
A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format and can play back audio programming, where such programming has been digitized and stored in data files using a variety of compression/decompression algorithms. Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory. The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system. The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation."
In approximately 1985, I was able to download and play a piece of digitized music music on my COMMODORE 64! It had no hard drive or mouse. However, if you fast-forward to 1995, the hard-drive and mouse are obvious additions to a computer, and patents are supposed to be for non-obvious additions/improvements. I don't think they can patent the combination of hardware involved, as it is all pretty obvious.
This seems to me to be a software patent, pure and simple, since they seem to be making a case for an integrated, seamless process.
One more piece of evidence that the patent office is incompetent to do more than the copyright office does, and that software patents are evil.
I never said that IBM, Microsoft, or whoever don't file patents. Their patents tend to make SENSE, though. Like if IBM invents a new kind of drive that can store information 10 times more densely than any existing drives. That's an actual product that they created that they patented.
... and they didn't go to the USPO and say, 'hey, we want you to give us exclusive rights to the concept of conducting business and commerce via the Internet', now, did they? They are successful because they have realized where the market was going, and they positioned themselves (or, more properly, are in the process of positioning themselves) to offer the right services to reap the benefits.
This patent, however, appears to be much less, however. First, these people haven't created anything. They seem to have just said 'Gee, we should patent this here idea we have.' Regardless of the fact that literally thousands of other people probably had the same idea. Regardless of the fact that it is merely an _idea_, not a thing. I can come up with a lot of shit that will probably be invented and come into widespread use someday, but that doesn't give me any right to be able to claim such future devices as my own, especially since I haven't created anything!
The point of my post about IBM and other successful companies is that they don't NEED the patents to succeed. What is driving IBM's success right now? -- E-business! They have convinced the world that they are the owners of the e-business space
I'm not a huge fan of patents, but I can see the benefit to protecting the rights of the creator of a beneficial thing. This particular case of trying to patent an entire industry, however, appears to be blatant misuse of the system. THAT'S what I have a problem with.
darkmagus
Here's the stupid patent description
Apparently Acer, Apple, Compaq, Dell, and anyone else making portable computers with builtin wireless data-transfer technology owe money to these jokers.
That's the real beauty of the patent; the device described is no less (and no more) than a modern notebook-style personal computer. I'll be rather amused when they start trying to collect fees from the big boys....
Both Amiga MOD files and BBS ASCII music predate 1995 therefore it should not be too hard for anyone to invalidate this patent.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
I forget the name of the utility, but it let you assign different sounds to various system events. These sounds could be (often were) digitized clips from various movies, downloaded from bulletin board sites. And there were certainly portable 68K Macs. (The 68K establishes the time frame - I remember this stuff from late 80s/first couple years of the 90s)
(Example events/sound-clips:
Inserting a floppy: "Ooh, input!" (from Short Circuit)
General error alert: "Human error." (HAL from 2001)
and so forth. There were some pretty long sound clips available, kinda useless for system event sounds though.)
-- Alastair
When I got my first modem ( 300bps ) in about 1985 I downloaded a program that would play the first few bars of Van Halen's You Really Got Me on my Atari 600XL.
It wasn't portable but I don't see how you can patent something like this. Who has the patent on using ink on paper to represent the spoken word?
Yes, yes, yes. Why don't you tell me what makes the Minidisc any different from a portable device with a harddrive? Take it to court, here's the dialog:
:P
Q - Does this patent cover MD (Minidiscs)?
A - No
Q - But a minidisc uses rewritable data, on a disk, not THAT dissimilar to a harddrive. Does this mean that the Minidisc is not a storage system of similar nature?
A - It is of similar nature
Q - Then why is a minidisc NOT covered by this patent? It is in fact prior art.
So there
In fact, it's a surprise that someone hasn't bothered wipping together software to just go mp3->minidisc using the MD's digital input and doing whatever decode/encode is needed?
I might be dead wrong on this but isnt a CD-Rom drive a "digital" audio player ? Isnt music on a cd in a 0-1 format ? That means Sony actually let them patent the CD-rom ? I think not. This company should be closed down for blatant theft. Sony should sue AudioHighway & USPTO.
Sun Tzu must have been running Linux...
- Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. (Sun Tzu, The art of war)
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
It's at this point that I would suggest we start figuring out who is actually responsible for proofing these applications. This is almost like the IRS sillyness that eventually led to that whole department be supposedly revamped. How many more of these "I invented the wheel" broadband patents are we going to see before someone takes serious action.
Get an old laptop, download a wave file, and there you go. Remove all software but windows and media player :-)
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Sometimes I think Rob should create an add'l choice on the side: Boycott List. We'd put
companies who do *really* stupid things like
this on it, and leave 'em there until they
"change their evil ways." I honestly don't
think that the list, in and of itself, would
have that much impact, but I do think that
it would be, shall we say, un-nerving to have
a company listed on the best-known "Nerd"
site on the Internet. I do, however, see
two potential problems with the list:
1) It would have to be maintained.
2) It could become overly politicized. How would we determine who gets on it? How would we decide when they'd been good enough to get off of it?
Still and all, I like the idea, because the word "boycott" makes marketing VP's get sweat like crazy.
What an interesting little bit of bad news for, well, everyone...
Why do people make idiotic decisions like this?
I think I'll go out and patent the cd player, now; that should be worth a chunk of change.
-----------
Suspect everyone.
Do any actual scientists work here, or is it just one long game of truth or dare?
http://wut.rhps.org
Maybe by claiming such a dumb patnet they get on a lot of news sites, and this get a lot of free press. Bad press in our minds, but many people may say "Wow, really?" and then go check out their site. Just a thought....
/*---------------------------*/
Man? What is man?
But a collection of chemicals with delusions of granduer.
The patent's 18 claims, when taken all together, would give AudioHighway patents on the personal computer, the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the telephone company.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Many years ago (I'm guessing around 1985), my brother had a small, toyish Casio keyboard. This particular keyboard had a card slot attached to it. Casio sold cards with various pieces of music on them (I remember a few Beatles tunes). If I recall correctly, the keys had little lights over them that would blink in time with the music. So, what we have is:
* A dedicated music player
* With a keyboard
* And a display (das blinkenlights)
* And stored music on solid state memory (the little cards)
uhhh...crud....what did I miss?
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
The ONLY part of a patent of legal significance are the CLAIMS! What the abstract says, how vague you think it is, what you can 'read into' it, etc. are totally irrelevant. There are 18 claims, and those are the only things you should be reading. Why is it that so many indignant /.ers feel that they have to have strong opinions about things that they know nothing about?
Yes, patents do have to be specific, and this one (sort of) is. The problem is that absolutely nobody on /. as far as I can tell knows how to read a patent.
1 __
:)
[Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. This is not to be taken as legal advice.]
The ONLY part of a patent with any legal significance, as I understand it, is the "claims" section. As broad as you think "digital audio player" is, this is NOT what has been patented, and does not have to be more specific.
The patent itself is here:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0591494
Skip right down to the "Show all 18 claims" link, and click it.
For a product to infringe the patent, it must be completely covered by at least one WHOLE claim. If it is similar to -part- of one claim, then it doesn't infringe. There are some pretty specific requirements within these claims that a potentially infringing product must satisfy.
None of this is to suggest that the patent is any more legitimate, but read the -claims-, not the title or abstract before you get mad.
Is it just me, or does this press release seem like a cheap way to boost their stock prices? I seriously doubt they think their patent will hold up in court. Nobody on /. does, not even the PHBs that read /. It's more like "Hey everybody, we just won a patent that's going to make us rich. Buy our stock. Our ticker symbol is Nasdaq - AHWY"
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
There have been a few officials at the USPO that have stated that the patent office no longer has the resources to investigate the patents that are applied for. Instead they just approve everything and let the lawyers fight it out afterwards. He who has the mightiest lawyer wins.
The problem with that is it negates the whole point of patents in the first place: inovation. Now, instead of loan inventors creating inovative ideas, we have a bunch of big corporations with a new tool to help promote their own monopolies.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
In general, it is not a bar to a patent that the invention in question includes some patented or unpatentable components, provided that it otherwise meets all the requirements of the patent laws.
[P.S. You guys better not rip off my neat idea. FDA approval, here I come.]
> audiohighway.com was originally formed in June 1994 as Information Highway Media Corporation
> by Nathan Schulhof and Grant Jasmin. The company set out to develop a system capable of
> receiving, cataloging and delivering digital audio content via any form of high-speed network. At
> the same time, the company began development of the industry's first portable digital audio
> player, allowing users to select and download any type of digital audio content that could then be
> stored for future playback.
What are they, _completely_ incompetent? They have been working at it all this time and haven't actually produced a player?
Portable - open to some interpretation, but still applies, and would probably be interpreted based on the other claims
Data interface - pretty vague, but I'd interpret that, given the context of the rest of the patent, as being a "live" serial/USB/firewire/modem type of interface instead of a disk drive
Faster-than-real-time reception of data - this rules out a straight digital recorder
Compressed, digitized audio - someone claimed MODs were compressed, which is stretching the definition a bit, but I wouldn't consider them digitized. They use digitized samples, but that doesn't make the whole MOD a digitized sample.
Audio output - self-explanatory
So show me a portable device that let you download and store compressed, digitized audio faster than real time and play it back, that existed prior to 1995. Somebody mentioned a Psion -- could you download audio to it faster than real time? It's not enough if the hardware had the basic specifications to allow it; prior art would actually require the software.
Sure, it seems obvious now, with the Rio on the shelf, but was it really that obvious in May of 1995?
Fear not. Patents that prove too much usually won't hold up in court. This patent probably won't be that useful to its creators because it's covering such a broad range. It will be challenged in court, and my guess (I am currently working in a patent law firm as a summer associate) is that it won't fly.
Heh. Check out the guy's name: Schulhof. In English, "schoolyard". I guess when the lunch-money-extorting playground bully grows up, he goes into patent extortion. (:
clear assumption here that a company applied for a patent in 1995 - four years ago - and hasn't been either laughed out of the office or had their patent granted yet?
Aren't serial killers appeals, all the way up to the Supreme Court, handled faster than this? How can this continue? Can businesses really function like this?
Excuse me, but these compaines you mention file thousands of patents every year. Don't believe for a second that they choose not to patent something if have the chance. If they don't have a patent for a design, it's because either the patent application was rejected or someone beat them to it! Go search www.patents.ibm.com and you'll see (IBM gives >20K hits...)
patent all sexual transmissions that can be broadcast over the internet and percieved by the human body as a tactile in terms of the human experience. Id est feely pads shaped like breasts or rubber hands controlled remotely by third parties.
From the text of the patent:
Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory. The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system.
Since they previously state a few different forms of storage media, I doubt they'll have a major problem with just saying "hard drive" in the rest of the text.
What I *do* suspect they'll have problems with is the connection... their patent seems to access an on-line database directly, not through a seperate computer or other storage device. We all know that Rio, Empeg, etc. grab the music from your home PC.
-t
That means they could patent the process of playing back "any kind of" digital music (I think not), or they could patent the process of storing digital music "regardless of storage format" (I think not), or some part of the process in between.
Seemingly, what was patented here was the idea of having a portable digital music player that you can fill up with music from the internet. But that's not only not patentable, but, as many people pointed out, we could do that way before 1995.
The IBM patent server doesn't give you the full text of the patent.
Here is the URL to fulltext of the patent as provided by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Enjoy!
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
I don't know what happened to the last link.
But here is the front page for the USPTO's full text database. I'm sure y'all can find U.S. Patent No. 5,914,941 from there. If you can't then I can't help you.
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
Well excuse me for a moment while I go out and get a patent for all devices that display images downloaded from the internet regardless of format.
--Random Brainwaavs
This is such an obviously trivial innovation that it makes all software patents look suspect. If they try to enforce this patent, we should all join together in a countersuit against them for frivolous abuse of the legal system.
With enough such countersuits, the entire software patent system will collapse.
This is enought to stop many little guys from creating portable mp3 players and market them. Although a suit may not hold up in court, the threat alone is enough.
/. articles they have mentioned solid state ram. So that gets dragged into it too?
I also dont like it since it's vague and all encompassing. I understand being able to patent a protocol or codec, but you can't just patent a whole realm of devices by simply creating a simple device and claiming the whole. It just isnt right.
And the whole deal about "solid state": in recent
The term "specialized" is way too vague.
So if you put the linux kernel into your mp3 player (there are some) then is it specialized?
If you can use it as a part time webserver, is it "specialized"? How bout if it can be added to the network as a freenet node? "Specialized" ??
My $0.02.
I was downloading and playing SID tunes on my SX-64 nearly a decade before this company was founded. Later, that was MODs on my HP laptop, still at least five years before this company came to be.
The patent is utter bunk. It simply reflects the patent office's inability to research, and that the patent has been granted doesn't mean it will stand its first test. Maybe AudioHighway can leverage the patent to scam money out of a few naive startups in the mean time, but I'm not losing any sleep over this one.
That's like me getting a patent on anything built with wood, or anything you can sit on. All those makers of wood chairs owe me big time!
Get real.
-----------------------
If the audio player includes something like a little LCD game (like tetris?) it's no longer specialized for audio there for not affected by this patent?
:)
-----------------------
I get your point. I was just joking around :)
:)
I also think it is very ignorant to belive that a device like this didn't exist before 1995. Chances are one did exist but, nobody here knew about it or remembers it. Something like that probably wouldn't have been too popular back then.
Ah well.. I still see where you are coming from and I'm not about to argue
-----------------------
OK, since people are able to patent any `coming technology' or so it seems, I'm going to patent a portable, solid-state or harddisk-based sigital video player which replaces the current tape fed variety. It will be able to download video from the public network, it will operate in several distinct modes, etc blah blah fill in the missing features which are sure to be there.
Now all I have to do is wait a couple of years for this stuff to appear on the market, and then I'll cash in on my `idea'.
Oh, and while I'm at it I'll patent a portable direct brain stimulator as well, which does away with all the messy screens and speakers. It'll appear, one day, and my lawyers will be ready...
Cheers//Frank
--frank[at]unternet.org
Apparently, greed outweighed common sense here. How does this company expect this patent to be approved (if it is still pending, as it appears to be)??? I would have thought companies would have learned by now that vague, incredibly broad patents have this strange habit of going "POOF!" whenever they're challenged? If I wasn't already sure the world was full of idiots, I'd be smashing my head against table too...
"Evil will always triumph, because good....is dumb!" Dark Helmet
US5914941: Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface
Believe it - it is far from over - I had a lengthy email conversation with a spokeswoman over at Unisys about this issue - they are real assholes who just don't get it...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Yes, the MD format operates using ATRAC, a very advanced (relative to mp3 or anything else) compression scheme. From the MiniDisc Community Homepages:
ATRAC (Adaptive TRansform Acoustic Coding) divides the 16 bit 44.1 KHz digital signal into 52 sub-bands in the frequency domain (after a Fast Fourier Transform). The sub-bands in the low frequencies are finer than the ones in the high frequency range. A psycho-acoustic transfer function that takes advantage of the masking effect and the absolute hearing threshold then removes enough information to reduce the data stream to 1/5th of the original size. Each channel receives that treatment separately (the Sony MZ-1 portable MD recorder features one ATRAC encoder/decoder chip per channel). PASC (Precision Adaptive Sub-band Coding) divides the digital signal into equally spaced sub-bands and removes less information (to only 1/4th of the original size). PASC is essentially the MPEG Layer 1 audio standard (can be decompressed with MPEG Layer 1 players after a trivial preprocessing step).
Both are data compression algorithms, used to store the information content from a stream of 16-bit samples in fewer bits. The purpose of compression is to reduce the rate at which the disk has to deliver or record bits, and to reduce the total number of bits stored. There are many compression algorithms. The ones used for computer data (for example in archiving programs) are lossless; the result of decompression is identical to the input.
PASC and ATRAC are both "lossy" algorithms. In order to get greater compression, they do not attempt to preserve every bit of the original data, but rather only the acoustically "important" bits. Considerable cleverness goes into finding the sounds masked by properties of the human auditory system, ones that you would not hear even if they were reproduced. By all accounts the two schemes do amazing well, considering they operate in real time.
So basically, yes. MD definitely compresses, at roughly a 4.6:1 ratio (I assume... it squeezes 74 minutes of music into 140MB worth of media). I personally have a MD, and it rocks. If this company thinks they're going to beat Sony in court, they've got another thought coming. The MD standard has been around for almost a decade.
They contain digital audio, and have been around since the CEO of audio-whatever was still in diapers. If that's not "prior art", then what is? This suit is a joke.
Excuse me while I go patent the "thing". I expect royalties from everyone on the planet who uses anything, ever.
This ought to be invalidated by prior art.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
First, the article quotes a public relations flack for the purported patentee. Lawyers for companies making digital audio devices would probably have a quite different view of the scope of the patent claims (although a search of the PTO website for patents assigned to Audiohighway turned up nothing). Audiohighway has probably just received a notice of allowance from the PTO indicating that they intend to issue the patent in the near future.
Second, instead of crying about this, do something about it. If the U.S. application was filed in 1995, and if the technology is important enough to file abroad, a PCT application may have been filed. These publish 18 mos. after the first filing date (in this case, some time in 1995), so if such an application exists, it should be published by now. The advantage to this is that you can search (on IBM's patent webserver) for the PCT application, get the U.S. application number from the priority information, and file a protest in the PTO (the MPEP, available on the PTO website tells you how) bringing prior art to the attention of the PTO. If enough people do this, and the prior art is realistic, it could gum up the works for the patentee for a while.
Even after the patent issues, it can be reexamined by bringing art to the attention of the PTO. By filing protests (which do not cost anything to file), the public can at least get the prior art in the file, so that when the digital audio companies review the file history (in response to the demand letters the patentee will surely send them), the art will be available for them to use in their reexamination requests as well.
Keep in mind that, if the patentee has to amend his claims substantially in the reexamination proceeding, any sales previous to the amendment are not subject to damages.
The point has been made that this patent is at the very least not what it claims to be. It describes laptops better than it describes MP3 players. They don't want to force companies like Sony to pay them, they want one to buy them out! With a patent that is so weak it would never stand up in court, I think their only prayer at getting paid for this patent is through the stock market. I think they know this too because they weren't terribly subtle in letting people know that they're public in the press release.
MODs could also be considered a type of music compression.
Regardless of what RMS says, "custom software" is becoming a more and more important part of our lives. Shouldn't this be GNU software. Shouldn't we all have the liberty to poke and prode at the software used to play back our MP3's or cook our microwave dinner? But what good is open software if you have no idea what the embedded system consists of? For these reasons, the free software movement must expand. We must set our sights on free, open hardware platforms. In the case of MP3 players, let's get the expertise together and design a system that has freely available PCB/Processor/Plastic mold designs and free software. Let's use off the shelf parts and create a quality product that is free. From there we can move onto any other system that has way too many features that are not user designable (video players?). Because if we don't, we just may find ourselves slaves to the machines in 5 years time.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What's more, it appears to explicitly include laptops, desktop computers, etc.
My faith in the US Patent office, already quite low, is now unrecoverable.
Back when microprocessors were invented, well, about the 8080's time, someone was trying to get anyone who used IC memory chips of any type to pay royalties based on the theory that this infringed on their patent for an obscure mechanical crossbar switch.
As far as I could understand the language of the demand, it was based mainly on the fact that the device and the memory chips both were electrical things sort of organized in a rectangular grid.
I hope Diamond has to pay a fortune to settle this one. Diamond is a large corporation with lots of money and lots, and these guys are like you and me---trying to get a break with nothing but a few ideas and no mega-bucks to back it up.
Why are we all so anxious to keep this from costing Diamond money? I remember back in about 94 when I was trying to get X to work under Linux on my Diamond Stealth 24. It was impossible. Diamond told all the open source people to go stuff themselves and refused to play ball. They were the most resistant. They deserve to pay.
This is just the first instance of what's probably going to become a HUGE problem in the eletronics/computer industry.
You see, a lot of companies want to make money from working on the internet, BUT, you simply cannot throw up a web site and expect the money to start rolling in (with a few exceptions, of course).
So what these companies are thinking is "gee, if we can invent a new way of doind something on the internet, and patent that technology, we have something that no one else has. That gives us intellectual capital, which will make us a very attractive company come IPO/merger/buy-out time. And in the mean time, we can lisence the stuff out, and make money, which makes us more attractive still."
The short form of this is:
Patent=Intellectual capital+Lisencing=$$$
So in a few years, those of you who are doing the start-up thing, don't be suprised if your spending as much time reading through patent applciations as application code! The lawsuits will fly, the lawyers will get rich, the companies will go under, and this whole fun industry we're in will become a feeding trough or the patent lawyers!
Ok, so that's a worse case scenario, but I'm pretty sure the general principle holds true. And with the (relative) ease of creating code (it ain't like building a roket ship to the moon, after all), this process is simply going to accellerate.
The thing about this patent that's worrysome to me is NOT the fact that they have it (someone was probably going to get something like this eventualy), but the whole "should be compensated" clause, really. One of the things that fuels this industry is the relative low cost (thank you, open source!) of getting "raw materials" for whatever your working on.
If we have to start putting up cash for everything, it's simply going to be that much harder for companies to develop new ideas, because the companies are going to say: " Well, we COULD do this, but we'd have to spend money fo the lisences for all the stuff to make it, then we'd have to spend money on the lawyers to check if it's OK to make it, and that's too expensive for what we're going to do! So forget it."
Next we'll find that some unknown company has patented "A disc shaped object that rotates on any pole, or axle, that is used to facilitate transportation" and that they're demanding a "compensation agreement" from all manufacturers who use what they refer to as a "wheel".
The invention provides a device that is in part a digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder. The device can record audio programming digitally and can play back audio programming, where such programming has been digitized and stored in data files using a variety of compression/decompression algorithms. Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory.
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/sr chnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,914,941'.WKU.&OS=PN/5 ,914,941&RS=PN/5,914,941
In contrast to such digital audio systems as Digital Audio Tape (DAT), the device herein uses a different storage medium, provides random access search ability, and stores information in accordance with various data compression algorithms. It contrast to such writeable audio storage devices as the Sony recordable mini-CD, the device herein uses a different storage medium, such as a hard drive, has intentionally limited audio bandwidth, i.e. it does not provide stereo full fidelity, and includes a novel integrated data communications protocol and data exchange port, including a modem, for automatic program material acquisition.
The invention provides two methods for a person using the device to obtain program material:
Through a digital data storage cartridge, which is the digital equivalent of a tape cassette, and in one preferred embodiment of the invention is a removable cartridge;
Through an electronic data transfer from a variety of sources such as a cable TV broadcasting system having an appropriate data transmission system.
The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation.
cut from us patent office database
friggin huge URL whihci dont think will work -
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Well Jeez, if my laptop is portable, and I have winamp on it, and it has a headphone jack.... Hmmm How many copies of winamp are floating around on laptops out there? Who is responcible for the pantent violation, winamp or the laptop manufature.
How about digital cammeras that can record video. They have mic's on them, they 'store and play downloaded content'.
Who the hell gave this patent to audiohighway?
Your mammas flamebait.
Don't bloody give into this one or any other software patent. They can't sue everybody, break it together and boycott all products from that firm.
The US patent system is stupid. I hope we don't get the same system in Europe... M$ is lobbying for it for sure.
Try to infringe on all patents you can and then see them trying to sue every last one of you. All software patents should be banned. It's like you can't think the way you want, you can't produce the things you're capable of or you risk being sued. This is true even for free software.
The only way to beat it is passive resistance, infringe everything... What are they going to do ? Lock every programmer up... I seriously doubt it. Maybe we should create "Softpeace", which would promote software freedom the way Greenpeace does nature, only the targets would be the companies with patents.
Of course copyrights are a different story, violating them is stealing, which I would never advocate.
Programmers unite against the biggest threat to your freedom !
When I first saw this, my immediate thought was exactly similar to what I've seen on the list so far. Like any good capitalist, I was horrified at what was obviously an attempt to steal the intellectual property that others have spent $B developing. Then I read the patent.
.wav, mp3, .au, etc (instead of just one format). I don't think they are trying to screw anyone out of their intellectual property; they just hired engineers to do their tech writing.
My personal interpretation of the patent is that this company has developed a "unique" system which records music broadcast on the net and plays it back. They have effectively created a proprietery 'rio' type device that can use
If I have gone insane I am sure you will tell me...
Nehemiah S.
"This is the best tea party that I've ever been to."
-Faith No More
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Despite claims that the Rio and Nomad violate their new patent, Audiohighway seems to have no problem selling these devices on their web site. They even have a "win a Rio" contest running.
This is a tough patent to enforce. They'll probably come after every guy who ever built an Mp3 player.
Bring on the battle!
http://www.linuxradio.com
HASP: Humanity Against Software Patents
Let's put our $$$ where our mouth is:
1. Form 501c corp (non profit)
2. Solicit $1-$5 from all
3. File in court and fight this one.
4. As momentum gathers solicit more donations
5. Threaten and Fight other stupid patent attempts
6. Lobby for the removal of patents period.
that whole thing with Microsoft claiming it patented streaming music (or music content) on the Internet. (If I remember correctly) They were granted a patent for something like this and everybody had pretty much the same reaction then.
Nothing has happened to music on the internet since then, and I wouldn't expect anything to portable players either.
The full abstract from the us patent office reads:
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/sr chnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,914,941'.WKU.&OS=PN/5 ,914,941&RS=PN/5,914,941
A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format and can play back audio programming, where such programming has been digitized and stored in data files using a variety of compression/decompression algorithms. Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory. The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system. The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation.
Assumably, with that specific wording, your Rio and Nomad players would not be covered (they dont have keyboards, and dont fit the spec)
Of course, you could make the case that what they are talking about is, in fact, a laptop computer equipped with a sound device of some kind. I'd frankly love to see them try to bring someone to court based on this patent. They'd lose, and waste alot of money doing so.
The full text of the patent can be read at:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Now that I think about it I was downloading all kinds of digital sounds file to my Tadpole, to showoff to all my DOS using friends. It was extremely portable.
-- James
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
In fact some were portable. They are were from a company called Tadpole. They still make portable SPARC machines.
See http://www.tadpole.com
Any more questions?
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Back when I worked supporting an all Sun based company I used a set of programs called radio/broadcast to play music to the workstations. I would use workman to play a CD from the CD-ROM, which was wired to the audio in port of the back of the Sun.
I had quite a bit of fun being the company DJ. I even hooked up a radio so people could get up-to-the-minute news reports.
On weekends I would play music loudly through all desktop machines. This helped me locate all working desktop Suns, and It was damned fun.
I later moved to converting entire CDs to
So. This has been done before, long ago. These people are completely fooling themselfs.
Does anyone have an old copy of radio/broadcast? I might have it on an old 8mm if they live that long. Please email me if it's needed to stop these fools.
-- James
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I say we organize a boycott of audiohighway, and a campaign to inform the public of the ludicruos nature of this patent. Gene