http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/ Engadget Comments for Apple's other patent infringement lawsuit, this one over iTunes DRM http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/
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.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/
I think that our patent system is a little screwed up.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/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a patent's impact was underestimated and that the holder is capitalizing beyond his/her inventional effort it should be withdrawn.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.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/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.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/05/apples-em-other-em-patent-infringement-lawsuit-this-one/Dec 19th 2005 12:11AM