Apple Sued Over Fundamental iTunes Model 257
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.'"
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:4, Interesting)
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:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:When will they learn (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When will they learn (Score:4, 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.
We can only hope. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't be so quick to judge... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was talking about Apple's one "innovation" -- the one new thing that set Apple apart from all the others who came before them. And that "innovation" was the product tying. You're worse off that the files you bought are only playable on one manufacturer's players.
Because 9 or 10 years ago, before there was an iPod or iTunes, you could already do everything you just described, thanks to mp3.com and a host of other companies like them. We're talking about patents and inventions, and the thing that Apple invented (selling music that required you to use their player) is a worse situation for you, than what you had before.
And yes, I realize that Apple's business deals with the music publishers, in contrast to mp3.com's absolutely braindead and suicidal my.mp3.com service, makes Apple's store more appealing. From the non-technical (i.e. outside the scope of patents) how-much-music-you-can-get perspective, you may be better off with Apple's store. I will concede that point. But from a technical (i.e within the context of patents) perspective, your situation is unambiguously inferior: a decade ago, compared to Apple's offering, you could do everything and more. Buy and immediately download: check. Copy to a CD: check. Play on any player on the market (with the exact same filesize and amount of artifacting -- no degradation from transcoding) including the iPod which came out a few years later: checkmate (don't try this with a iTMS purchase).
While I recognize the situation is complex and some aspects are subjective, that actually is my opinion (well, I'd use a less harsh word than "idiots"). Why buy proprietary media when you can buy interoperable media instead? Even if I thought the iPod were a good music player (I don't) today, I wouldn't buy DRMed music files from Apple that only work with iPods, because someone else might come out with a better player later. It's a nothing-for-something deal.
Re:You would have though they would notice sooner (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's a lot of leeway in federal cases (Score:3, Interesting)
good (Score:3, Interesting)
Old Paradigm (Score:3, Interesting)