Open Source Music Fingerprinter Gets Patent Nastygram 487
Nushio writes "The code wasn't even released, and yet Roy van Rijn, a Music & Free Software enthusiast received a C&D from Landmark Digital Services, owners of Shazam, a music service that allows you to find a song, by listening to a part of it. And if that wasn't enough, they want him to take down his blog post (Google Cache) explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world.'"
Update: 07/09 00:31 GMT by T :Story updated to reflect that Shazam is multiplatform, not Android-only, as implied by the original phrasing.
Patent and disclosure... (Score:5, Interesting)
IA (definitely) NAL, but I thought the whole purpose of patents (other than protection) was to disclose the invention in full (not behind trade secrets) in exchange for knowledge of how the invention is done/made. Have the patent owners given any implementation details about their application?
Re:Well, really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Use pHash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shazam... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
The code is speech, compiling and running it is the infringement. Is patent protection now more valued than free speech?
Re:What the? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even then, code is speech until you run it. Are we now to limit free speech by government order to protect their patents?
If the hardware store sells me a CNC mill and I make patented widgets with it will they sue the hardware store?
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember in a software patent all you need to say is "a method for identifying music playing by listening to a small sample and comparing to a list of sonic fingerprints" and you are pretty much all set.
You're referring to the description, which has little legal effect. The stuff that they can really take to court is any of the claims they have listed. Their main claim is
A method of characterizing a relationship between a first and a second audio sample, the method comprising: generating a first set of fingerprint objects for the first audio sample, each fingerprint object occurring at a respective location within the first audio sample, the respective location being determined in dependence upon the content of the first audio sample, and each fingerprint object characterising one or more features of the first audio sample at or near each respective location; generating a second set of fingerprint objects for the second audio sample, each fingerprint object occurring at a respective location within the second audio sample, the respective location being determined in dependence upon the content of the second audio sample, and each fingerprint object characterising one or more features of the second audio sample at or near each respective location; pairing fingerprint objects by matching a first fingerprint object from the first audio sample with a second fingerprint object from the second audio sample that is substantially similar to the first fingerprint object; generating, based on the pairing, a list of pairs of matched fingerprint objects; determining a relative value for each pair of matched fingerprint objects; generating a histogram of the relative values; and searching for a statistically significant peak in the histogram, the peak characterizing the relationship between the first and second audio samples.
which is not nearly as vague. But it's still very basic and obvious stuff. It doesn't seem easy to implement an efficient fingerprinter that avoids this patent since you basically have to throw away all the inter-feature timing information if you don't want to run into something equivalent to their peak histogram stuff.
I'm shocked at how such broad claims can be accepted by patent offices...
Re:Well, really... (Score:5, Interesting)
BoingBoing has a good write up (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/08/patent-holders-legal.html). Most interesting was the fact that Landmark Digital Services took exception to the technical details of a patent being discussed. I think most people (myself included!) believe that reading a patent should tell you precisely how to replicate something, but there's a subtext to this story implying that is not the case here. I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly ./ worthy.
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I looked Patents do not remove the right to "free speech" in any country.
Then you didn't look very hard. In the US, for example, the right to free speech is not absolute by any means. The government may prohibit defamatory speech such as libel and slander. It may regulate speech in a content-neutral manner (so-called time, place, and manner restrictions), such as ordinances regarding billboards. It may regulate obscene speech. The same Constitution that describes the right to free speech also gives Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights. There is some inherent tension between the First Amendment and the Patent & Copyright Clause, but there is no contradiction.
In this case, the argument (and it's a perfectly typical one) is that the code on the web page represents an active inducement to infringe the patent, for which the blogger would be liable for patent infringement. The ready-to-use code is a step too far towards actually using the claimed invention (which the patentee has the exclusive right to do). It would be one thing to discuss the song-recognition method in general, mathematical, or even pseudocode terms, but when you give people ready-to-use code that's too close to infringement. A court may or may not agree, but it's a close enough call that a cease & desist letter is legally appropriate, albeit kind of a jerk move on the part of the patentee.
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so if you never published it, preferring instead to keep it as a trade secret. In this case it's specifically not prior art and the patent can be upheld against you.
Trade secrets let you choose to not reveal your invention to the whole of humanity forever, but at the risk of losing control of your invention if someone else independently invents it later.
Re:Well, really... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, really... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Why Mr. van Rijn use their proprietary name in his blog post?
Because it damn well pleases him to do so, and in the USA, at least, he is free to do so with impunity as long as he does not use it in a way that might mislead the public into believing that they are getting said product when they are not. A trademark is not a copyright.
[Emphasis mine.]
Look, I'm on van Rijn's side. However, I can appreciate that a blog post entitled Creating Shazam in Java could "mislead the public" even though it might not mislead the technically savvy. If I wrote a blog post entitled Creating Microsoft Office in Java you'd better believe I'd get a message from the folks in Redmond.
IMHO, if Landmark has any beef here at all, it's that their trademark is threatened, and feebly at that.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Interesting)
By that logic you could freely distribute an infringing program as long as you don't run it.
No, you could freely distribute the source code of an infringing product so long as you don't compile it. The act of converting from "Speech" to a "device or process" happens in the compilation process, not in the execution of the process. (Software patents whilst legal, are still dumb to my thinking)
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:1, Interesting)
"The patent holds NO ability to stop him from disclosing ANYTHING"
Yes, but what if they Copyright their Patent?
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:3, Interesting)
While what you said is true, if this guy's blog post is only explaining how Shazaam works, without actually DOING what Shazaam does (e.g. offering source code), then he hasn't done any of the enumerated actions that a patentee can exclude others from doing. He does walk a fine line though... if he says: "Here's what Shazaam does, and here's my code to download that will do it for you" then he is coming very close to an "offer to sell" (giving it away for free is a little tenuous, but any monetary advantage he gets, even advertising revenue from page hits caused by people visiting & downloading the patented code.) He may also be open to indirect infringement charges. These often occur when Company A makes a product that, when used, infringes on a patent. Rather than suing the customers who bought & actually use the product (the direct infringers) the patentee will sue Company A for inducing all of its customers to infringe by using the devices.
One other thing: If he's in Europe where this program is not under patent protection, good luck establishing minimum contacts in the US unless he is intentionally directing business into the US, which he does not appear to be doing. Simply posting information on a website without an offer to sell in the US will likely fail, meaning there is no jurisdiction in the US. Plus, any infringement has to occur in the US somehow since the Supreme Court has limited the scope of US patents to US territory on many occasions. As long as he does not actively try to "import" the code into the US, especially trying to sell it, he shouldn't have too much trouble.
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, by threatening the guy Shazam & LDS have created their very own Streisand Effect; this is front page on
As for me, I won't be using their software, and I will be contacting them to register my disgust, though it probably will make no difference in their attitude.
Posible prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
The name of this proyect that seems to be prior art is Tararira (music retrival by sung query). It's from Uruguay, and does recognition of music just humming at a microphone. Proyect was created in 2004 and have code published.
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/ingles.php3
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tarariraEN-src-0.1.tar.gz
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tarariraEN.tar.gz
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tararira.pdf
Tararira is a query by singing system. The problem of music retrieval by sung query (QBH, query by humming) consist of building a machine capable of simulating the cognitive process of identifying a musical piece from a few sung notes of its melody.
A melody is described by a sequence of notes, so it is natural to compare melodies by means of the similarity of their constituent notes. For this reason, the problem can be divided in two stages: the transcription of the voice signal into a sequence of notes and the search of this pattern in a MIDI melody database.
Tararira originates in July 2004 as the graduation project of Ernesto López, Martín Rocamora and Gonzalo Sosa at the IIE of the Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de la República.
Re:android hate (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>As a non-native english writer, who has difficulties dealing with grammar nazism, I find commas useful to explain stuff.
Let me help - "The code wasn't even released, and yet Roy van Rijn, a Music & Free Software enthusiast[,] received a C&D from Landmark Digital Services, owners of Shazam, a music service that allows you to find a song [] by listening to a part of it. And if that wasn't enough, they want him to take down his blog post explaining how he did it[,] because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, it may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world.'"
Fixed that for you. [] are deletions/additions. Basically I only found three errors. Grammarwise I'd recommend fewer interruptions. Simplify; simplify. As for the cease-and-desist I'd respond like so:
Dear Landmark:
Go watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit". The title of that show is what I think of your shitty letter you litigious motherfuckers. I live in ____ where you do not hold a patent, so you can go shove a dildo up you anus. My post is protected my this country's right of free speech and free press.
Respectfully,
Not Your Slave Nor Your Serf
(middle finger)
obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Just about all computer-based signal processing related to anything at all is performed in the frequency domain so passing the raw data through an FFT (or at least an FT) first is a no-brainer.
Calculating a hash is the blindingly obvious and standard approach to getting a semi-unique signature for mostly any data.
Both the FFT and the hashing would likely be the first thought of any competent software engineer tasked with solving this, in as much as using a screwdriver to undo a screw is obvious to a mechanic.
Don't even software patents have to require at least some concept of originality and non-obviousness?
Wimp out. (Score:3, Interesting)
No patent numbers? "Algorithm" in unreleased code? At least put up a token resistance and ask for details.
We need more responses like Blue Jean Cable's response to Monster [slashdot.org] when Monster Cable tried something similar.
Re:They're actually being fairly reasonable (Score:2, Interesting)
Um...his code is an implementation of the patent. His code describes how to do their fingerprinting patent. That is the point of the code, to generate the same fingerprint as Shazam.
Now, I don't like software patents either, and this one is rather obvious, but it's not like he sat down to come up with some audio fingerprinting method and accidentally infringed a patent. He sat down with a patent and wrote code to implement it.
OTOH, half of Shazam's complaint is idiotic...everyone is supposed to have enough information to infringe a patent. That's how the system works, that you get a patent in return for telling everyone how to do it. The idea that, without this code, no one can implement the patent should trigger a patent review by the patent office, because Shazam just admitted their patent application was incomplete and didn't give as much information as it needed to give.
And the other half is on horrible legal footing, because the courts have consistently ruled that source code is the equivalent of a diagram of a patented device, and is perfectly legal to distribute. (As opposed to the device itself, aka, compiled code.) So Shazam really doesn't have any rights there beyond demanding that he put a warning on the code that the method is patented and cannot actually be used without licensing the patent.
In a sane court system, the courts would bitchslap patent holders who showed up to sue someone who looked at their patent and designed a functioning blueprint from it so that others could use it. That's the point of patents, that other people get the knowledge. Patent holders should restrict their suits to people who build such a device and don't license the patent.
Re:Well, really... (Score:5, Interesting)
> I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented ./ worthy.
> technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly
In a sane world making such an admission in a legal filing would be grounds for voiding the patent since patent law requires dislosure of everything a person skilled in that field would need to know to implement the patented tech. The idea of patents is to trade full disclosure for a limited monopoly on commercial exploitation of the idea. However as soon as a patent is filed others may begin using your patented tech as a base to build their own innovations on. Of course they will need to license your original tech to sell theirs and you will have to license theirs if you want to incorporate it, etc. Of this are vast portfolios built of cross licensed codependent patents.
But we live in bizarro world. Sucks don't it.
Re:The code was released in the original blog post (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally, the courts have held that source code is akin to a 'diagram', not the device itself.
It's perfectly legal to distribute diagrams of devices that implement patented methods. The patent holder can demand you make a note that it uses such a method, and is illegal to operate without a license, but can't actually stop you from distributing the diagrams.
Yes, it's weird a normal person can spend five minutes turning a diagram into a device.
OTOH, plenty of patents use already existing devices in novel ways, like 'entertain a cat with a laser pointer', which, now that I've described it, a good fraction of the people out there can implement with even less work then compiling. That's a silly, but real example, but there are real, serious patents on the use of medicines, for example, in novel ways, or adding tiny impurities to a well known process to make it better. Those are just as easy to implement.
Describing ways for people to make devices that implement patented methods, no matter how simple it is to turn it from 'diagram' to 'device', is legal. And source code has consistently been held to be 'diagram'.
Did anyone happen to look up *who* LDS is? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a wholly owned subsidary of BMI... As in BMI/ASCAP?
It's the record companies again.
oops... (Score:1, Interesting)
oops...
Seems like I accidentally hit the "uninstall" button of Shazam on my iPhone, accidentally rated it 1 star, and accidentally put down "malicious: patent infringement" as the reason for uninstalling.
99% of patents infringe on prior art. This statistic was made up on the spot.
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, the source code itself isn't infringing. But where is that source code? It's in RAM and/or on your disk or flash drive. And there's probably a claim akin to "A storage device containing software to implement the method of claim X". So now your own drive or RAM has become an infringing device.
(I only wish I was joking).
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't Shazam. Odd sounding, but Shazam doesn't actually own the Shazam algorithm anymore, although it does retain the right to use it. Landmark LLC is a separate entity.
Re:Well, really... (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny you should mention railroads... [sourceforge.net]
Re:android hate (Score:2, Interesting)
FOSS will still be around when these companies are long since swallowed up by the governments they pray to. People will still create, for good or for ill. It's part of our wiring. Some few people will desire to create for profit, and some of those will work for these immoral companies. However, that still leaves the majority of creators outside of any commercial entity. They may not cure cancer in a weekend, but they can certainly reproduce a silly algorithm.
I for one plan to archive the article. Perhaps I'll even try to recreate it. If it weren't for ridiclulous patents I would have just assumed that it would be there when I needed it. Instead, I feel the need to propigate the knowledge for future generations.
Re:android hate (Score:1, Interesting)
What I don't get is that Music Brains Picard has had music fingerprinting for years and it's always been opensource. I got Shazam the day it was released because I thought it'd be cool to have that feature mobile, and it has been. So how can they claim a patent on old tech that they weren't even close to being the inventor of?
Sorry for AC.
Re:Posible prior art (Score:1, Interesting)
More prior art might be musipedia [www.musipedia.org], which uses the 'melodyhound' algorithm. Its inventor, Rainer Typke, wrote several articles and books about it: [http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/music-retrieval-based-on-melodic-similarity/663655], [http://rainer.typke.org/publications1.html]. I have not read the articles or the book, and my guess is that the method described their is more advanced than the method used by Roy van Rijn or Shazam. We did these kind of things way back in the eighties, at university. We just didn't have the fast computers and big databases to make a melody recognition system with it.
Re:Well, really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:3, Interesting)
He does walk a fine line though... if he says: "Here's what Shazaam does, and here's my code to download that will do it for you" then he is coming very close to an "offer to sell" (giving it away for free is a little tenuous, but any monetary advantage he gets, even advertising revenue from page hits caused by people visiting & downloading the patented code.)
The fine line seems to me to be between the software as implemented and the patent claims description of it.
Suppose I do the following:
1) Create a custom parser that is designed to do nothing but read a particular patent document on the the USPTO's website.
2) Add a backend to the parser that generates machine code--possibly via an intermediate form like C++, Python or Java--that is nothing but a representation of the steps outlined in the patent.
3) Run said machine code.
At what point have I violated the patent? And why have I violated the patent? I have done nothing but transform the description of the steps layed out in the patent document to an isomorophic form. Since it cannot be a violaton of the patent to simply talk about it or write about it, and since the primary purpose of high level programming languages is to allow humans to describe algorithms, at what point does a description of the patent claims become a violation of the patent?
It seems to me that by granting software patents the USPTO has put the world in a position where someone who simply describes the patent in the clearest possible way is putting themselves in a position where they can be accused of contributory infringement. That would be analogous to someone who published a clearer drawing of patented material than was in the original patent documents being accused of the same.
This is, to put it mildly, insane.
Re:Patent and disclosure... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I patent a gizmo, and you make your own, it doesn't matter if you distributed it, you are liable for patent infringement.
But a software patent is nothing but a description of an algorithm. Full disclosure: the reason I know this is because I am a co-inventor on a software patent (I was evil once, but I got better.)
So apparently the First Rule of Software Patents is you do not talk about software patents, because by doing so you are actually in violation of the patent.
And don't kid yourself: code is how developers communicate with each other, and the distinction between pseudo-code and the real thing is utterly moot these days. Most of us write in sufficiently high level languages that our pseudo-code is indistinguishable from Python. So whenver a couple of developers talk about a patented algorithm they are almost certain to be violating the patent.