Apple's other patent infringement lawsuit, this one over iTunes DRM
posted March 5th 2005 4:11PM
Can you believe that Apple's facing a second patent lawsuit? We just mentioned how a company called
Advanced Audio Devices is suing them for infringing on their
patent for a "music jukebox", now apparently some outfit in Hong Kong called Pat-rights is claiming that it holds a
patent for "Internet/Remote User Identity Verification" that Apple is violating with the digital rights management
software used on both iTunes and the iPod. Pat-rights says that Apple has pretty much been ignoring them ever since
they contacted them back in 2003 about this, and that they're getting ready to file suit on March 21st if their demands
aren't met. And what exactly do they want? No less than 12 percent of all the money Apple has made off of iTunes and
the iPod (good luck squeezing that out of Stevie J.). So does Pat-right's case have any merit? We'll leave that to the
federal courts to decide (we've heard they're good at that sort of thing), but Mike Masnick over at TechDirt nailed
this one: basically Apple is getting sued because the tools they've been using to protect other people's intellectual
property (namely that of the record industry) supposedly violate some other person's intellectual property. The DRM
ain't worth it, bros. At least we hope it's not worth it.
[Via TechDirt]
I took a look at this patent. If it's upheld it would apply to "all DRM scemes" where remote identity verification is involved. Software, Music, video, porn everything.A global killer.
I'm astonished that this patent was granted, they must be smokin crak at the patent office, cuz there is mucho prior art on this one.
But the patent does not mention music at all. I wonder if that matters? It only sites "software". That means "executable programs" to me.It's a good time to be an IP lawyer, plenty of work.
I would guess, these folks would settle for a very small sum with Apple, so they could then go after everyone else.Or perhaps the big boys will band together, as in the jpeg case, and go after this patent.
I personally think that this company's going to get nothing out of it. Apple may give them a small settlement. The patent shouldn't have been granted, I agree. You can't cover something so broad as that.
I think that our patent system is a little screwed up.
We use patents to grant short-term monopolies in order for legal persons to capitalize on an invention. This is an incentive for invention and very good.
Now, recently and especially with computers those who grant the patents seem to not know what they are doing. A short-term monopoly is an incredibly powerful weapon in a free market and should be issued with extreme care. It distorts the market heavily and should only be issued for the purpose mentioned above. I would argue that if it can be showed at a later stage that a patent's impact was underestimated and that the holder is capitalizing beyond his/her inventional effort it should be withdrawn. Bang, no patent anymore.
Patents used in a context like this have the reverse intended effect, they block invention instead of fuelling it.
We use patents to grant short-term monopolies in order for legal persons to capitalize on an invention. This is an incentive for invention and very good.
Now, recently and especially with computers those who grant the patents seem to not know what they are doing. A short-term monopoly is an incredibly powerful weapon in a free market and should be issued with extreme care. It distorts the market heavily and should only be issued for the purpose mentioned above. I would argue that if it can be showed at a later stage that a patent's impact was underestimated and that the holder is capitalizing beyond his/her inventional effort it should be withdrawn. Bang, no patent anymore.
Patents used in a context like this have the reverse intended effect, they block invention instead of fuelling it.
You know it's messed up when they are only going after apple instead of all the other DRM schemes, they obviously just want some of the ipod/itunes profit
software patents are the dumbest thing. the main problem is how they are implamented....and that the patent office has almost no clue what they are doing when i comes to software....
This is another prime example of how a small useless company tries to take advantage of a successful company...I certainly do not see either of them winning...you have to remember that you cannot pantent an idea without actually making it!!! These people deserve nothing...I think all Apple entheusiasts should band together in a show of support!