Apple Sued Over Fundamental iTunes Model

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.'"

Frank Zappa was first

[EnterDaMatrix]

Zappa came up with the idea of centralized digital distribution of music back in 1983. He wins: http://blog.boondoggle.eu/2007/02/frank_zappa_pro.html [boondoggle.eu]

Re:Apple stole their vision!

[onefriedrice]

I don't want to come off as supporting patent trolls, but I read the article and this is an honest question. You say that iTunes came about in 2001, but this was before the iTunes Music Store which seems to be the issue. Furthermore, does the fact that ZapMedia apparently applied for the patents as early as 1999 mean that patent protection covers since the applications date? If so (although I believe the patent(s) themselves are bogus), it seems they might have a case in our messed-up system. But I don't really know anything about patents, so whatever.

Re:Apple stole their vision!

[Pontiac]

Yes Itunes was based on SoundJam MP released in 1999 but that was just an MP player that Apple re-tagged as Itunes 1.0 in 2001

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]

Re:Don't be so quick to judge...

[vally_manea]

Ok, I'll bite... these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop what does this mean? Did they have a contract? If so I guess there's no problem otherwise I won't really take their word for it because as I understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes#History [wikipedia.org] Apple bought Itunes predecessor from some guys back 2000

Re:Such an innovative invention

[MightyYar]

Patent 7,020,704 is unbelievably stupid. I can't believe anyone got that one.

Patent 7,313,414 is just a continuation of same.

Check out the whole filing here [justia.com].

Link to patent

[Enrique1218]

Here is the link [uspto.gov] to the actual patent. It seems to be filed in 2000. I don't have time to analyze it, but can someone analyze it and comment on its merits.

Re:Don't be so quick to judge...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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.

The thing is, in most cases like these, the patent owner was primarily responsible for the delay as it is generally part of their strategy. They do this by continually amending the patent application, effectively delaying the date the patent is issued (and consequentially expires). This is such a common strategy that it even has a name: submarine patent [wikipedia.org].

Re:Not the best article about the topic

[jedidiah]

I am sure that people came up with ideas like this in the BBS days. Hell, there might even be
something from Compuserve that consistutes prior art. It's just not a particularly original
idea.

Re:Link to patent

[mckinnsb]

There are two places where they are going to try to nail Apple, reading the patent:

The portal 300 may distribute digital media assets, that is download them in their entirety, to a client media player device for use on that device subject to the licensing rights associated therewith ... The portal applies a series of rights management rules associated with each user's tagged digital media assets to limit the user's access to and use to those periods to which the user's licensed rights of those assets applies. Depending upon the specific licensing arrangement between a digital media asset owner and the user, the rights management rules can provide for ... a limited number of other individuals with which the user may share the asset.

I took out the parts which mostly don't apply to Apple. I also read later in the document something about a "private key" which would be located on each device (IE, iPod/Apple TV), that would prevent other parties from stripping all of the information from the device in a usable fashion. They are also going to try to prove that limiting a user to sharing the song five times (among five different users) was their idea.

That being said, I don't think they have a chance in hell. The wording of the patent is entirely too broad and doesn't relate to specifics concerning algorithms or methods of encryption or distribution. It is literally just a patent of a generalized idea - they could also sue Rhapsody, Zune, and Sirius Radio with the same patent (I took out some parts that related to "Streaming Media"). As soon as Apple brings out schematics/flow diagrams of the ways in which the iPod actually works - because it doesn't just "have a single encrypted key"- from my understanding, ZapMedia will lose, most likely because they actually don't have a product or software component that does anything close to what the iPod does. They also use the term "portal"...again, the language is too broad, because they state it both encompasses "a webpage or application", without getting into any of the nuts and bolts of how either would work. The "structural descriptions" are written in abstract language.

Re:Don't be so quick to judge...

[jrothwell97]

The problem is that the idea is so feckin' obvious. It's a music shop, except the music is sent down a wire rather than etched into unreliable, breakable plastic. You might as well patent record shops as well. Oh, and music sent down a wire. Oh, and the wire at the same time.

If I'm correct, Apple had their sights on turning the computer into a 'digital media hub' around the time they released the iMac (1998). Also, the idea that a 'centralized system for digital media distribution over the Internet'. Isn't that what we call, um... the Internet? Seeing as it's pretty much centralised around Google, I think so.

Did you read the patent?

[qazwart]

The patent is not about the iPod or iTunes. It is about distributing "media" via a "network", tracking permissions who can or cannot use that "media", and being able to use the "media" on various players. The iPod came out in 2000, and the iTunes software came out in 1998, but this isn't talking about the integration between the iPod and iTunes because there is no centralized distribution database.

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).

Re:Apple stole their vision!

[teknopurge]

You clipped from the article but you didn't read it, did you.

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.

Re:You would have though they would notice sooner

[smallfries]

It will be hard to find. The patent was filed on Oct 5th 1999. I can't find exactly when Napster started, but it was first sued in Dec 1999 - so shortly before that. The problem is that Napster is not prior art for this patent. The service described is basically iTunes. It uses a central server with a library of music, and client devices use licenses to download the tracks that they can prove they are entitled to.

I suspect that this patent will be very hard to fight in the US courts because the defense relies on how obvious the invention is. There may be prior art for music distribution, and for downloading licensed content from a central server, but the issue is whether or not there is prior art for the combination. I can't think of any iTunes-like servers back before Napster. Although there were plenty of illegal ftp/web sites they didn't use licenses for obvious reasons.

Looks like these guys saw Napster, guessed which way the wind was going to blow and rushed to file a patent before the music industry organised themselves. I bet that they never implemented / released a product before iTunes. So Apple may have some scope in that it is an obvious combination of well-known pieces, and that ZapMedia didn't even have to invent the product (at least build a prototype) to file the patent.

Re:When will they learn

[samkass]

I agree that the term "obvious to a practitioner in the art" needs to be more narrowly defined, but the problem with basing obviousness on what seems obvious later is that a lot of things seem obvious after-the-fact that were in fact fairly innovative. In addition, once a patent is published it's very hard to prove independent invention, since the knowledge is now "out there". The whole point of patents is to make openly publishing more attractive than keeping trade secrets so the industry can move forward faster.

I think the biggest problem with software patents is that the software industry is too new. Everything seems patentable. In a decade or so all the low hanging fruit will be gone and everything will have prior art published in the patent database. Things should settle down.

My personal solution is some combination of making "obvious" a little stricter and requiring a patent holder to monetize the patent themselves, sell it at an independently appraised value, or lose it.