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.
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 think I'll patent thinking.
Why? The market is so small. Better to patent stupidity.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
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.
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.
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?"
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!!!@#$%*
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.
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...
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.
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
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
Actually, try Apple's Macintosh Portable, released around 91, though it may have been as much as 4 years earlier, because my memory is faded. It was a hideous machine, about 40 pounds for 40 MB HD and 4 MB RAM, and the screen was tiny. Went up on the shuttle a couple of times, replaced by the first batch of Powerbooks (the 100, 140, and 170).
-Imperator
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
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.
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
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.]
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.
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
their stock will be boosted initially and then crash like crazy when the lawsuits invalidate the patent. not good for long term holdings..a few days, maybe. not more than that.
US5914941: Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface
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.
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.
The point people are trying to make is that the term "digital audio player" is much too vague, as it would definitely cover home computers (I was downloading and listening to MODs back in the early 90s -- well before the 1995 patent application date). In all likelyhood the article was too vague, and the actual patent deals with something similar to the Rio or other portable MP3 players (or covers those explicitly). What would really help is the text of the actual patent.
I personally don't think we have the whole story.
Your soundcard would almost definately qualify as a "digital audio player" in this light. The GUS (for one) can store and playback MODs (for one format) all by itself -- of course it takes the computer it's plugged into to load ("download") the MOD to the card and provide power, but it definately fits the claims of the patent.
So, when was the GUS first made? Heck, even the Soundblaster (.voc) fits those claims.
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