Slashdot Log In
Apple Sued Over Fundamental iTunes Model
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:02 AM
from the who-says-patent-reform-isn't-working dept.
from the who-says-patent-reform-isn't-working dept.
tuxgeek writes "A suit was filed Wednesday against Apple over the possibility that the iTunes music store and iPod are 'illegally using a patented method for distributing digital media over the Internet.' ZapMedia Services filed the suit, accusing the well-known OS and computer manufacturer of violating patents obtained just recently. 'The patents in question cover a way of sending music and other digital content from servers to multiple media players, a broad description that could also apply to a wide swath of other companies selling digital media and the devices to play it. ZapMedia said it met with Apple to discuss licensing, but Apple rebuffed the offer.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Review: ZapStation Media Box 131 comments
I've been excited about the ZapStation since I first saw it at ALS a few years ago. At the time it was at a good price point, and appeared to be a solid contender for the convergence media box that I crave. It took more then a year for them to release a product and for me to formulate an opinion. Now's your chance to read it. Don't get excited all at once now.
This discussion has been archived.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.
One can only hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One can only hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One can only hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:One can only hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:One can only hope... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:One can only hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum-shopping [wikipedia.org]
East Texas is apparently well known as a venue for patent suits, as the judges there tend to find in favor of the plaintiff more than the national average.
Yay America!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, the Eastern District of Texas has fashioned themselves as a Rocket Docket where litigation occurs much faster than elsewhere in the country. The Western District of Wisconsin is similarly situation.
There's, of course, lots of advantages to being in a rocket docket: few delays, short discovery, and quick results.
Parent
Re:There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, it's funny because it's real.
Parent
Re:There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay America!
You're right. In a really and truly free country, the government should forcefully tell you where you can and can't sue someone.
Sarcasm aside, why is it that when we have freedom and its abused, it's America's fault? You can't have your cake and eat it, too; either you have freedom and people abuse it, or you don't have freedom and people get upset. Utopia really isn't an option with what human nature is....
Parent
When will they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When will they learn (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:When will they learn (Score:5, Funny)
It will take exactly 27 more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such an innovative invention (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Such an innovative invention (Score:5, Informative)
Patent 7,313,414 is just a continuation of same.
Check out the whole filing here [justia.com].
Parent
Apple stole their vision! (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article: "When someone takes our vision and our intellectual property without a license after several attempts, we have no option but to protect it through every means available to us," Robert Frohwein, ZapMedia's general counsel, said in a statement.
Apple took their vision? iTunes has been out since January 2001 -- and based on 1999 software released by a third-party that Apple acquired -- and NOW somebody says it was theirs? Please. The only reason ZapMedia lacks vision is because they've got their heads up their sunless parts.
Re:Apple stole their vision! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Apple stole their vision! (Score:5, Informative)
It was not until Version 4 that the Itunes store was added allowing distribution of music in 2003.
This patent is all about distribution and was filed in 2000.
So apple might have a real issue here.. I hope not..
Information gathered from the ever reliable Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They were just granted the patent on Tuesday. Would you have rather they filed suit before the USPTO finished the paperwork? The patent was applied for years ago. Yes, it takes years to get a patent.
Not the best article about the topic (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/12/apple_sued_over_foundation_to_ipod_itunes_franchise.html [appleinsider.com]
ZapMedia claims in its suit that after filing for the patent, they went around to various tech companies - Apple included - and pitched the idea in great detail. This was before the launch of the iPod or iTunes.
I still think this shouldn't be a patentable thing, but the suit is less wildly without merit than the article linked in this story would suggest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
something from Compuserve that consistutes prior art. It's just not a particularly original
idea.
Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
They filed for these patents 9 years ago, and one of them was just granted
I know we are all against software patents... but these guys have been waiting for 9 years to be able to use this patent by the rules that everyone is supposed to play by. calling them Patent Trolls for standing by and watching while Apple used thier technology to make billions, is not quite accurate.
What would have happened if this patent was issued 9 years ago? or even just the year before the iPod came out? Would it be the ZapMediaPod that everyone was playing thier music on?
Patent laws were originally designed so that the little guys can get thier inventions out without being clobbered by the big guys. Granted they don't work that way in practice.
However - if you read the article's related to this issue, (and I don't mean the trashy yahoo article) try this one:
http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?cat=PRRELEASE&src=102&feed=cmt§ion=news&news_id=cmt-072b4826&date=20080312&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw [excite.com]
You will see that these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop, EXACTLY what patent law was originally designed to prevent.
Patents shouldn't apply to software... maybe. How do you protect the small time coder from the big business that takes thier ideas, makes billions, and then doesn't return a dime, without patents?
I'll accept any answer that doesn't end with
3: ????
4: PROFIT!
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you meant to ask was - what would have happened if these guys had actually made a store and tried to make deals with media companies for distribution? I might have a bit more sympathy for them if they'd actually done something with the idea, they might have made it big, been chosen by media companies who are desperate for an Apple alternative, or been bought out.
Doesn't say that anywhere in the press release you link to, which is in fact direct from the company suing in any case, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. If they could claim they were in negotiations or actually working with Apple, they would have. Probably they just pitched to lots of companies in the hope of taking them to court later.
You don't. Small time coders don't need protection in a world without patents (so long as you also prevent cartels and monopolies), because it's very easy to break into a market - all you need is one computer, one programmer and the right idea to make it big, or nowadays perhaps a server if you want to do web apps. A big company is not agile enough to react to rapid changes in features etc - you could run rings round them as a small company if you have good ideas and talent because with software you don't have to manufacture, pay up front for materials etc etc. In a world with software patents this is virtually impossible as a larger competitor can crush you like a bug with some ridiculous 'One Click' patent or a patent on tabs in a user interface as soon as you begin to threaten them. Software patents work exclusively in favour of the big guys, and offer no protection to smaller companies. They were intended for physical inventions, and that's where they should have stayed - even there they're open to abuse and should require a physical prototype.
Quite apart from anything else the US Patent Office obviously can't handle the workload, so they need to restrict the number applications as a matter of practicality - that should have been done years ago because as it is they're becoming the laughing stock of the world.
Parent
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:5, Funny)
the ZapPod BeebleBox?
Parent
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Protect someone whose obvious idea (send a file over the internet! ooh! aah!) is taken? You don't (why would you?). Protect someone whose product is ripped off? Copyright. Protect someone who did some consulting for Apple and spent time explaining that it might be profitable to build a vertical market of selling a player and selling music that can only be played on that player? Small claims court for the unpaid consulting bill.
There is nothing about iTunes or the music store that should be patentable. Neither one contains any technical innovation that patent law was ever intended to protect. Neither one has anything that makes any engineer exclaim, "Damn! How did they do that?"
The only "innovation" (and I use that loosely) is the product tying itself, but building vertical markets is an old idea anyway. Apple just happened to get there first with the music and only-player-that-can-play-it combo (and even that shouldn't be patentable).
They waited 9 years for what? They didn't need a patent in order to sell players and music. They didn't need a patent to write an http server.
If these guys got the idea before Apple but didn't get around to implementing it, it's no loss. There has been no ill effect on the progress of the useful sciences and arts.
And on top of all that, what Apple is doing happens to be a bad (i.e. not useful) idea (from society's point of view, not Apple's). Having music that isn't interoperable with other players, is a regression in useful sciences and arts. Everybody who buys music from iTMS is worse off than they would be if the store didn't exist. Why should society grant a monopoly to incentivize the development of business models that have a negative value? (Well, ok, I can think of a reason: to limit its deployment. ;-)
Parent
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent [wikipedia.org]
Basically, you can keep modifying claims, filing for extensions, etc for quite some time on a patent and only wrap up the process when:
a) the technology is well entrenched in the market,
b) you've tweaked the specific claims on your overly broad patent to match the market you're going after, and
c) are ready to start suing.
It's one of the most asinine parts of an already very asinine system.
Parent
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm. Without reading the patent
What about 'media players' and 'music' differentiates this from, oh, 'files' and 'NFS' for instance? "A method of allowing multiple clients to remotely access a networked resource".
Man, patents can seem so stupid.
Cheers
Bits is Bits, Encoding is Encoding (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, coming up with an insanely cool new encoding technology? Designing a new network transport system that passes information in a new and highly efficient way? Those should be patentable. But pushing a file in that encoding over the new network, please, somebody get a clue. If not, I'm planning on patenting a system to transport iPods across country using Hybrid vehicles....
Link to patent (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We can only hope. (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you read the patent? (Score:5, Informative)
In 2003, Apple came out with the iTunes store, and this is where the patent infringement is claimed. There's a centralized database of media (music files, video, etc.), and that is distributed to local media players. There is something that verifies that the player has permission to play that media.
Notice there is nothing in the patent that says downloading! If I had a streaming service, and you connected to the streaming service via WiFi or some other mechanism, if you selected some media to play, and the server verifies you have permission to play that, and then it streams the media to your local player, that would be covered under the patent.
To me, the patent is overly broad. There is no method specified, only the results (local player plays media from a central server it has permission to play). In fact, because it is so overly broad, it is easily possible to find local prior art. For example, cable TV might qualify (central database of TV shows, and these are played via a local player (called a TV set), but only by the people who have permission).
Oldest patent lawsuit filed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes has been out for yonks now and people have been raving for years about it and not one person at this patent troll office thought "hmmm, we have a patent on that".
Parent
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What good is an idea if you can't execute on it? I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't steal the idea from Zapmedia, so really....what is the consideration that Apple is supposed to pay Zapmedia for?
They (Zapmedia) had a headstart but didn't have the business/marketing wherewithal to do anything with it and now they want the US govt to do what their ineffective business could not - make big money.
I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't the original Slashdot posting about the iPod [slashdot.org] (now legendarily) just, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." with a number of followup comments about "Probably just OEM'd." and "Mediocre at best" type summaries?
In fairness, a few did say that the device shouldn't be dismissed, but I call shenanigans that people saw it was going to dominate.
Parent