Apple, Google and Napster named in video download patent suit

Apple just can't catch a break this week, what with all those backdating shenanigans and lawsuits galore. Now it's been lumped with such ilk as Google and Napster in a patent lawsuit regarding online video distribution. What Napster has to with this is anyones guess, but Apple and Google seem appropriate (and well enough funded) targets for the suit. The patent, owned by now-defunct online movie service Intertainer, was filed in 2001 and granted in 2005, and apparently outlines the business model for providing video from multiple providers to consumers on the TV and the Internet. Sounds rather vague to us, and it's apparently vague enough to encompass Napster, so we're not quite sure how this one will hold up in court -- probably a lot better than we would figure. Intertainer was an early entrant into the online movie biz, but got beat out by Movielink, and now makes a living licensing its patented technology and bothering other companies that are apparently better at profiting from its ideas than it is.

[Thanks, Mike]

[pipe912 @ Jan 3rd 2007 11:01PM]

Intertainer who the F#$% are they!!!
marketing people marketing!!!!!
it's hard to succeed on ideas alone

[neonez @ Jan 3rd 2007 11:34PM]

I beleive that Napster lets you stream music videos with their software. don't quote me on that but I'm pretty sure.

[moma @ Jan 3rd 2007 11:37PM]

I really have no idea how these companies get patents on the friggin obvious!

[JRA219psu @ Jan 3rd 2007 11:47PM]

I honestly am starting to think that some of these no name companies just patent random obvious ideas so that they can file lawsuits against big names. This is getting slightly ridiculous. Where is the line anymore?

[one2gamble @ Jan 3rd 2007 11:50PM]

Im still not sure how you can "patent" a business model. Not to mention a patent that includes
"providing video from multiple providers to consumers on the TV" would seem to mean "cable" companies are in violation as their "content" comes from "multiple providers"

[Korgmeister @ Jan 4th 2007 4:41AM]

Excellent point one2gamble. This ridiculous "patent" ought to be immediately overturned on a "prior art" basis.

Frankly, intellectual property law reform really does need to become a priority. When a legal mechanism intended to protect people's inventions from being ripped off starts being (ab)used to patent business models, it's not in the best interests of capitalism.

[No7 @ Jan 4th 2007 12:07AM]

Here is a handy link from the bowels of Google itself. At least Google can read why they are getting sued. Lots of fancy logic diagrams are used describing what seems to be absolutely nothing. WARNING! patents like these aren't fun to read! http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6925469&id=I5sVAAAAEBAJ&dq=intertainer

[Dar the Monk @ Jan 4th 2007 12:21AM]

No7, Thanks for the nifty link...


Is there ever going to be reform in the Patent area? if so, which congressman is leading the charge?? I would like to e-mail my support....

[Morgan L. Catlin @ Jan 4th 2007 5:34AM]

Sorry, too late. I already patented the idea of supporting a congress-person or senator by any means. ( XP~~~ )

Yeah, lame jokes 101. AKA, I agree; getting more than a little silly.

Thanks.

Peace. ^^

[one1082 @ Jan 4th 2007 12:40AM]

oh man, i need to start patenting everything i think of... has anyone patented the "pass play" in the professional/collegiate(sp?)/high school/pee wee level of football play? i could make bank off that.

[thomas @ Jan 4th 2007 3:45AM]

the idea to reform the patent system has already been patented so any congressman would have to pay a licensing fee to try to pass the law. i've heard it is in the millions.

[ruddiger @ Jan 4th 2007 7:07AM]

I don't think Intertainer filed this patent to make big money out of nuisance lawsuits, they were launched with investments from Comcast Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., Sony Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC and they actually did set up and run a video distribution over the internet service. After 4 years they ceased that operation and now license the patent to other companies. Plus I think you'll find a lot of IT/technology companies are filing many patents out of fear another company will. All would have been lost for Intertainer had someone else been granted that patent.

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 9:00AM]

It probably sounds like a vague patent to you guys at engadget because, as usual, you haven't read it.


What good is this post without a link to the patent text anyway? www.uspto.gov

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 9:04AM]

Hopefully not reformed by someone like you who doesn't know that you can't patent a business model in the first place.


You can patent a method of making or accomplishing something that is useful.


Are you now arguing that all software should lose patent protection, or are you just parroting something you read somewhere?

[superpotential @ Jan 4th 2007 10:52AM]

i hate living in this country. there are so many ideas i want to develop (and some i do develop) but the damn problem is if anything gets popular, some stupid brat who said "nya nya i invented that 5 years ago, look, my patent!" and didn't actually do anything about it will sue and win.

damnit. i need to move out of here where people can't sue me for stupid shit. at the least, i wish that patents wouldn't be granted to people that came up with ideas and didn't implement them. if you don't plan on implementing something, you idea ought to be in the open.

the only reason patents are a good idea is if someone ACTUALLY implements something and turns it into a business, their business is protected.

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 11:14AM]

superpotential:


so you're going to do development work without patenting it in the US?

Microsoft/Apple/Google/HP love free help.


Do yourself a favor and get educated about the patent system (US and International) before doing something briliantly dumb. That is, spending time and money to develop something and then giving it away FOR FREE to big corp's to make money off of.



You guys really think that these inventors spend in the neighborhood of 20k on these patents and then JUST SIT ON THEM?? Hell no, they shop it to EVERY company that they've EVER heard of, and then research more companies and pitch it to them. Then, when that fails, they start their company to develop it. They then go bankrupt when trying to compete with Microsoft/Apple/HP/Google when the big corp steals the idea and puts clever marketing behind it. An infringement suit is the last place that they ever really wanted to go, but in the end, it's what you're left with.

[Malyvan @ Jan 4th 2007 11:10AM]

I may not quite understand US Patent law (but then what logical person does), but can this really apply to google? There is a significant amount of billing talk in there. Last time I used google video it was free, unless that has changed as well :)
I could see iTunes being in violation of this, but I am not sure if you have to watch ads before the video with iTunes.

No offense to all you Americans, but your patent law blows goats :D

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 11:19AM]

Malyvan:


Assuming you live in a developed country (PCT contracting states) you have virtually identical patent laws. You just call the it inventive step instead of non-obviousness, but the underlying rules are all the same. We file the same (i.e., identical) applications and amendments in PCT cases as we do in the US analog cases.

get a clue.

[Malyvan @ Jan 4th 2007 4:48PM]

All the PCT does is allow you to file 1 application for many different countries at once.
It's not a standard law by any means, enforcement and laws vary from country to country.

For example in the Canada Patent Act

(8) No patent shall be granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.
[R.S., 1985, c. P-4, s. 27; R.S., 1985, c. 33 (3rd Supp.), s. 8; 1993, c. 15, s. 31, c. 44, s. 192.]

Invention must not be obvious
28.3 The subject-matter defined by a claim in an application for a patent in Canada must be subject-matter that would not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, having regard to
(a) information disclosed more than one year before the filing date by the applicant, or by a person who obtained knowledge, directly or indirectly, from the applicant in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere; and
(b) information disclosed before the claim date by a person not mentioned in paragraph (a) in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere.
[1993, c. 15, s. 33.]


While the USPTO may have similar rules in effect they seem to rarely if ever enforce them at the time of granting the patent. Which is why these patent lawsuits have pretty much become jokes. USPTO's grant processes have made it a lazy man's paradise in the states. Come up with a vague, fairly obvious, but complex looking technique. Get Patent. Let somebody else come up with the same thing. Sue the pants of them if they get rich.

[wizzle @ Jan 4th 2007 12:09PM]

i patented agriculture. and recreational jogging.

[Dar the Monk @ Jan 4th 2007 2:39PM]

Andy seems to have emotional issues. I would bet that he had an idea and tried to develop it, but it failed. Then some years later a "Big" corporation used his idea. But because his idea was not patented or papers written incorrectly, he loss out.

As to patent rights... yes there should be protection, but not a hindrence to innovation. I asked for reform because I've seen some pretty stupid activity and I've been accused of infringements when I was fully in the right. Reform is needed. Just like some corporations need to restructure (Ford), overhaul in the patents are needed. It has become to messy and non-intelligent.

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 11:32PM]

Dar:

No, I work for these big corporations, and I've seen this done to people. I do not pity them, they had fair warning.


btw, if there truly is "pretty stupid activity" and it is "obvious in light of the prior art" as insinuated by people above, then you invalidate the patent you're being sued on. It's pretty easy to come up with some new prior art references that cover at least some of the patented subject matter in crowded areas, and it's a pretty standard first stab at a defense in a patent suit. If you have good prior art, you win, if not, the patent is valid and you have to deal with why you don't infringe the claims.

[andy @ Jan 4th 2007 11:26PM]

Well, you're right and wrong. The PCT allows you to file one app, get an action and amend, then have the app go into the national phase in countries you designate that are PCT signatories. The PCT also includes standards for patent term, prior art references, and rights.

It is a patent cooperation treaty, and it's designed to make it easier to file and prosecute in all of those countries.


You just quoted me the useful article provision and the non-obviousness provision of the CA code. You missed the inventive step provision. Didn't I say that PCT states had similar standards including non-obviousness/inventive step/novelty? So I'm left wondering, why did you google the canadian code?