Slashdot Log In
Companies Claim iTMS, iPod Patent Infringement
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Mar 07, 2005 09:59 PM
from the willie-sutton-working-overtime dept.
from the willie-sutton-working-overtime dept.
ryan_fung writes "A Hong Kong based company, Pat-rights, is claiming that Apple's iTunes Music Store is infringing their patent on 'Internet User Identity Verification' and is demanding Apple pay 'a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods.'" (They also claim infringement by eBay, porn sites, and others.) Reader bblazer links to a Register article which mentions both the Pat-Rights claim and another suit entirely. From the article: "Apple has found itself facing a pair of intellectual property challenges that separately claim its FairPlay DRM system and its iPod music player contain technologies to which the Mac maker does not have a right. First up, Lake Forest, Illinois-based Advanced Audio Devices (AAD) alleges its patent, number 6,587,403, for a 'music jukebox,' filed in August 2000 but granted in July 2003, covers the kind of thing Apple has brought to market as the iPod."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
..in august 2000 (Score:4, Interesting)
which still works,btw..
(does the patent say something about hd then or something? seems like you can patent just about anything)
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:5, Insightful)
This company is patenting USER LOGINS OVER THE INTERNET ! This is a basic, fundamental technology of today's Internet. Obviously they are full of crap, but how do we stop patent-whoring companies who can steamroller anyone using the US Court system?
Parent
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:5, Funny)
"I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."
Parent
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:4, Informative)
Patent 6,665,797 [uspto.gov]
Parent
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two defenses:
1) The definition in the patent is "A method for protecting publicly distributed software from unauthorised use". This is not publicly distributed software. It is privately distributed.
2) Software, in the definition of this patent, is executing code. The patent is for an authorization system to enable the execution of specific software. With iTunes and every other DRM, the authorization is to access the content, not execute software code. There is quite a difference. Not all bits are the same. Different bits do different things.
Yes, you have to execute code to access the content but that is not the information in the patent. In fact, this particular patent seems more focused on authorization to access and use software program updates. I think Microsoft's update service is closer to this patent, as Microsoft checks your product ID before allowing you to obtain things like Service Pack 2 for XP. However, MS doesn't do any user specific authorization so that would exclude it anyway.
Parent
Re:Wel,, there's your out then (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:..in august 2000 (Score:5, Informative)
The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:
They then go and describe variations upon this claim, including players that use flash memory, players that use hard drives, etc.I think that it's pretty obvious the patent doesn't hold water - the first MP3 player sold in the US was the Eiger Labs MPMan, released in the summer of 1998. It was followed by the Rio, released in late 1998. Both players follow the same general form as the device described in the patent - they receive audio data, store it, and play it back out the headphone jack; they both have a screen where you can select a specific track from your library, and both have controls that allow you to do the selecting.
CNET described [com.com] these early MP3 players, even tracking down a 6 gig USB based MP3 player with a large screen that was released in 1999.
The IL company doesn't have a hope in the world of defending their patent.
Parent
Arg (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Arg (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets worse. This pat-rights outfit has retained some patent lawer:
Well, a search on Attorney Zito reveals that he was the patent attorney for some guy who has patented gravity [epimedia.com]! Talk about an all-encompassing patent. So this is the nut they've hired to enforce their patent. Somehow, I suspect Apple doesn't have a whole lot to worry about from these opportunists.
Parent
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Ohh and a patent for a digital jukebox? Hello ever hard of the Nomad Jukebox?!?
Ohh and then, umm 12% of sales form iPods? Holy shit thats a lot of fricking money...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same vein as Microsoft's indirect funding of SCO to make trouble for the competition, Apple should follow the money here too. Is this strictly about enforcing a probably-bogus patent in order to extract money from a successful company (can you say, "submarine"?) or is this an attempt by a third party to bring Apple to heel. Seems kind of fishy right on the heels of the RIAA wanting to jack up iTunes prices. In fact, speaking of the RIAA, and assuming that Apple were to lose this case
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're right
Parent
These people are professional parasites (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere down the line, government stopped being about the people, and became about capital.
The usefull arts and sciences are those that increase profits.
The economic health of the nation obviously is directly linked to the economic health of the owners of the nation's infrastructures.
When people are obsessed over the enemies abroad, they don't notice the enemies within.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that is deserving of a patent? Are companies going to stop trying to make their interfaces better just because they can't stop others from taking their UI ideas? That hasn't stopped anyone so far. How exactly does being able to do one thing and then just sit back forever better (in terms of encouraging progress in arts and science) than being forced to keep on innovating in order to stay ahead? What do you think the state of spreadsheet software would be like today if someone had patented the whole concept of laying out data in the form of, well of a spreadsheet?
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not trying to say that maybe (Slashdot in general | you in particular) don't really have a clue, but compare your informational content to mine.
MPEP 2106(II)(A) states that, among other things, a software process must produce a "useful, concrete, and tangible result". The definition of "useful" is given a lot of ink, but later in that chapter it is made clear that a "concrete and tangible result" meets the "useful" requirement. Looking at the independent claims of this patent (6665797), I don't see anything that could be reasonably interpreted as a "concrete and tangible" result. While the idea of the claimed methods are useful, the "access" that is provided is by no means concrete or tangible. Therefore, were I defending against an infringement suit, I would attack these claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, not in compliance with 35 USC 101, and hopefully have the suit dropped.
The next thing I see is language like "in such a manner" in the claims. Oh really? Exactly what manner is that? Claim 14 says
Uh, wtf? If my attack on these claims under 35 USC 101 wasn't enough, I would use 35 USC 112. What the hell kind of limitation is that? Exactly WHAT "identity information" is covered by this? That one example is so vague that I couldn't begin to tell you what it covers. A user name? A credit card number? A DNA sequence? Give me a break.The third attack I would make has to do with the disclosure, and falls under 35 USC 112 as well. Just take a quick glance at the supposedly enabling disclosure. It's marginally better than Engrish. I certainly don't see every claimed feature depicted in the drawings. Exactly where in the drawings is "said operation being operation related to making payment from an account of said rightful user(s) and said first information being a password"?
I don't see what the fuss is about. Here's the real story.
"Inventors" hire lawyer to get patent.
Lawyer writes up a crap ass patent application.
Lawyer annoys an examiner, examiner looks at application, examiner smirks. (Issued now with flaws is far, far worse for the "inventor" than issued later after the application has been strengthened (and the opposite is true for humankind, which should make the limp-wristed hippy socialists happy.))
Examiner allows patent - lawyer gets paid - "inventor" gets patent.
Next comes the infringment and some publicity for the litigants. I wish them luck with that USPTO-issued wallpaper. Better hope Apple can't afford decent lawyers... oh wait.
I'd put odds on Apple not paying a cent for infringing this patent. I'd also put odds on never hearing about this patent after Apple's lawyers are done with it.
Seriously, all the alarmist talk around here about "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11one just more evidence that software patents are eilv!" is nothing more than silly if you have half a clue. There are definitely problems with the system, but THIS is not indicative of THAT problem.
Disclaimer: I hold a BSCS, BS Mathematics, and work entirely in IP.
Parent
is this applicable? (Score:5, Insightful)
now, i'm not a patent lawyer, but since this company is based in hong-kong, and has no worldwide patents, wouldn't that mean that the patent does not apply? or is an overseas company holding a us patent still able to enforce it's us patents from offshore?
The actual patent link (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The actual patent link (Score:4, Informative)
which refers to this patent: Patent 6,665,797 [uspto.gov]
Parent
Re:is this applicable? (Score:3, Informative)
About 50% of US patents are granted to foreign companies. However they can't enforce them from offshore, they have to sue in US court.
By world-wide patents they mean patents granted by other countries, say Australia, Japan, Canada etc. There is no one all-encompasing single worldwaide patent.
Re:is this applicable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you're confusing "trademark" with "patent". BMW has the exclusive right to make cars called "BMW", but they are NOT trying to claim an exclusive right to make cars period.
Parent
Re:is this applicable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there's nothing to IP whatsoever; IP is a meaningless concept. Trademark, copyright, and patent law are distinct entities with different rules and purposes. It's fallacious to lump them together under "IP". Your statement about trademark law is almost entirely irrelevant when we're talking about patents.
That said, your basic point was correct; non-US companies can file US patents (as well as trademarks and presumably copyrights) as long as they have a US presence.
Parent
Correct, as far as you go (Score:5, Insightful)
People who deal in the industry call it IP. It's only a stupid Slashdot meme that "IP is meaningless".
It may be pedantic, bad politics, or (frequently, here) misinformed, but distinguishing between different types of rights bundles granted by the state is not "onlya stupid Slashdot meme". The state granting those rights does the same, and one way to oppose those who wish ideas to become perpetual cash fountains is to point out the concepts, law and history that underpins the reasons why the state grants those rights in the first place. Of course, to do so, one must explain the difference between different types of things that fall under the umbrella term "IP".
Um, would you care to explain what exactly is wrong with the construction "it is [adj] to [verb]Parent
Not a laughing matter anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope breathing fresh air is never patented.
from the willie-sutton-working-overtime dept...
Q: Who is Willie Sutton?
A: This is Willie Sutton. [fbi.gov]
This is sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Suspicious (Score:5, Interesting)
Difference in 'reasonable' (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, who wants to bet that their version of reasonable differs from their view? That is an outrageously large amount. Let's examine their claim.. From the blog (complete with poorly written English):
It is related to using a payment account information to verify the identity of a user, the payment account may be a credit account, before providing the user access to computer software/apparatus.
Probably you have use it before
Certainly sounds like their dubious claim is worth 12%, eh? Does anybody think this is legitimate, and shouldn't be laughed out of court ASAP? Basically, they can't even be bothered to formulate their case well - the article is actually worth reading in this case, if only for a chuckle.
Outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go scum, inflict some pain!
How ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wait until China starts enforcing patents it decides to grant to it's own companies on any foreign company that wants to operate there. The fun'll really start then.
Parent
Internet/Remote User Identity Verification (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for ssh, telnet, FTP, terminal services, and remote desktop.
These patent lawsuits must stop. They're getting ridiculous.
Re:Internet/Remote User Identity Verification (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Plain English (Score:3, Insightful)
From the "press release":
The US Patent 6,665,797 is written in plain English, even a layman can read and understand it.
Too bad the press release isn't in plain English.
Woo! (Score:5, Funny)
business plan. (Score:5, Funny)
2. Take out patent on "Prior art".
3. Profit!
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
But now that Apple's finding themselves up against a frivolous patent suit, maybe it will finally occur to them they aren't really getting anything out of patent law but they're having to pay for frivolous patent lawsuits and only have to pay more and more as IP abuse looks more and more like a growth industry...
Only defence is be a patent-only company... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the patent system is creating an incentive for small companies to concentrate on acting as IP toll collectors on ideas reinvented independently by other companies, rather than actually producing products, or for that matter actively selling their IP to companies to produce new products.
That's my explanation for why software patents are bad for people to whom the ideological arguments are lefty blathering.
Parent
They Patented WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is related to using a payment account information to verify the identity of a user, the payment account may be a credit account, before providing the user access to computer software/apparatus."
Apparently, Pat-Rights has a patent which covers ANY logins in which a payment account is used to verify the user. So companies such as shareware companies, online websites that accept subscribers (redvsblue.com, slashdot.org, userfriendly.org, etc.), Amazon, Buy.com...
Who hasn't violated their patent rights?
Fitzghon
Coming soon to the European Union (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you expect from a company called Pat-Right (Score:5, Informative)
"Pat" stands for PATENT, "Pat-rights" means patent rights.
Early in 1995, Founder of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. TSE visualised Internet as the most promising environment for digital content distribution and began to develop ideas and technologies essential for these changes.
As a result of his long term efforts, several national patents are being issued. And, some of them are being infringed by Global Industrial giants."
http://www.pat-rights.com/
The company's whole business model is built around going after companies over IP.
Darl, is that you?
Paco23
Reading the patent claim... (Score:5, Informative)
The present invention relates to protection of software, and particularly, to protection of software against unauthorised use or copying.
Let's see, iTMS does not use logging in to protect software. It only "protects" files such as the MP3's that you download. iTMS also doesn't care about unauthorised copying of iTMS because you can download it whenever you want, for free, from Apple. Lastly, iTMS doesn't use logins to prevent the unauthorised use of iTMS, but instead, only the unauthorised use of the music. The biggest distinction is that this patent is to protect a software program (from what I can gather). iTMS, and many other website, etc., use login to protect either A) Information or B) Files of some kind. A file is not necessarily a piece of software. Hell, I know that every word document I have ever written is a file, but it is most certainly not a piece of software. Yes, we all know that this is a bogus patent, but this shows that it definitely does not apply.
Totally disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
This is certainly a patentable technology. If iTunes does not patent it, there must be a very good reason for them not to do so- someone else has patented this.
Certainly patentable? Perhaps apple's version is although it's a bit of a stretch. It's a huge assumption to make that because apple didn't patent it then someone else must have. Perhaps apple considered this to be an obvious technology and therefore NOT patentable? Perhaps they didn't patent it because they wanted everyone to be able to use this technology?
Pat-rights named the technology as "Internet/Remote User Identity Verification", earned a US Patent 6,665,797 therefor, and world-wide patents pending. In the end of 2003, Apple indicated in its communication to Pat-rights that Apple had no interested in licensing it and remain silence ever since then.
As far as I can tell it's called "Protection of software again against unauthorized use" who knew we could "again" protect against unauthorized use?
"We have kept a close watch on every development of iTunes. We believe this is willful infringement", said CEO of Pat-rights, Mr. Philip H.K. Tse,"We lose face. Apple shows no respect to us and our patent rights!"
The US Patent 6,665,797 is written in plain English, even a layman can read and understand it. "They are playing unfair to their customers, not us." Mr. Tse further commented.
Plain english is debatable, here is the abstract: "A central program comprising a EI sub-program for providing identity information of the rightful user thereof for accessing a network central computer to obtain service(s) or software product(s) or alike, in which a secure operation on an account of the rightful user for payment therefor involved; and a AS sub-program for using the existence of the EI sub-program in a computer as a precondition for authorising use of those software products obtained on that computer. The central program is for managing the use of the individual sub-programs therein so that the AS sub-program can be protected from being copied individually."
That's a whopping TWO sentences! Although I guess it is "plain" english.
To me this seems overly broad and stupidly obvious. Authentication is a security mechanism covered in any undergrad network security course so it seems a bit of a stretch that this isn't obvious to anyone skilled in the arts.. hmmph.. disgusting.
This patent crap is getting absolutely absurd. (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time someone did something like that in response to this sort of BS.
Re:This patent crap is getting absolutely absurd. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This patent crap is getting absolutely absurd. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The Patent in Question (Score:4, Informative)
There's definately some prior art for this one. Amazon is a likely one, they came to exist in 1996, while the patent was filed in 1998. Hmm...
Excellent news. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wait patiently for the day that intellectual property law is reined in.
Cheers.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The solution is to ban licencing of patents... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. But it would not prevent him from selling it to that firm. Or if it is a good idea, in a competitive market, auctioning it to the highest bidder. So the small time inventor can still get what his idea is worth.
It also doesn't stop him from getting someone to make his product under license, and then marketing it himself.
What it really stops is people developing a set of patents and cross licensing between a group of firms so that there is an effective monopoly, which is where the computer industry stands at the moment.
Regards,
-Jeremy
Parent