Another day, another
furious litigant claiming that an Apple product infringes on one of their patents. Today we've got ZapMedia, who's having some fun with a patent granted
Tuesday by claiming that it covers tech used in both the iPod and iTunes. The patent describes a central media server and a "plurality of media player devices" that access the server over various networks -- but it was filed for on September 20th, 2005, which, you'll note, is after the 2003 launch of the iTunes Store. Hmm, not to worry, ZapMedia also says it has an almost identical 2006 patent filed for in 2000 -- but that patent, as far as a quick USPTO search shows, hasn't been assigned to ZapMedia, instead remaining with Kenneth Liscomb and several other individuals also listed on the new patent. What's more, ZapMedia has apparently been shopping the earlier patent for over a year now to no avail -- doesn't seem like anyone's interested, now does it?
Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer, but he's not your
lawyer, and none of this, particularly the quick USPTO searching part, is legal advice or analysis.Read - ZapMedia lawsuit article
Read - ZapMedia patent issued yesterday ("System and method for distributing media assets to user devices and managing user rights of the media assets")
Read - ZapMedia patent issued in 2006 ("System and method for distributing media assets to user devices via a portal synchronized by said user devices")
posted Mar 13th 2008 1:52AM
I drew a picture of a piece of glass encased in metal in art call, can I sue Apple for stealing my idea of the iPhone?
art class*
you can sue some window making companies
I think I will sue them as I have a patent for "electricity"
Who's suing Apple today? They hae so many more lawsuits to come before they'll get close to Microsoft's record.
please shut up. I it so much to ask to get thru one f'n article without some clown on one side or another making a stupid comment?
perhaps so.
I thought the usual question is who's Apple suing today.
When Apple sues someone, that's a good thing because of those nasty SOBs that are trying to steal Apple's hard work.
When Apple gets sued, it is because that person is desperate and stupid.
I agree. The story headlines reads like we should be sympathetic towards Apple for being sued. The reality is that Apple is very quick to sue anything and anyone that even approaches one of their IP's.
Fred, not necessarily. Just google 'Apple sues' and you get lots of examples for both sides.
My favorites on Apple being sue-happy themselves:
Apple sues sex shop: http://www.gadgets-weblog.com/50226711/apple_sues_sex_shop.php
Apple sues student: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505326
Apple preemptively sues: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802215
As Maestro also mentioned, it's easy to see Apple as a company quick to sue .
Examples of Apple being sued for its infringement of the intellectual property of others:
Apple was sued by Cisco over the 'iPhone' trademark (correct me if the term is wrong) and Cisco clearly owned it first, fair and square and even released an 'iPhone' product before Apple. Creative sued Apple, Apple counter-sued but ended up settling with a huge sum.
Luke, Ciscos ownership of the iphone trademark was less than certain. They had no product using that name as required and in their application for the trademark they pictured one of their other products with an iphone sticker stuck on it.
If Apple had won the suit against Cisco the trademark would have been invalidated and anyone could use "iphone". Since Cisco settled the trademark is upheld and protected.
And as an IP owner if apple does not attempt to enforce their rights then those rights can be nullified.
ah yes another obscured company who wants some money.
Surely American patent law isn't that stupid?
Well, actually, it is. If you've been watching any tech blog really, you'd notice.
I'm considering patenting the colour red. But I guess it'd have to be the color red, since I'd only succeed on getting a patent in the United States.
OMG, drives me insane!!! STUPID PATIENT LAWS!!!!
Thank goodness for the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which should hopefully change something....
BUT probably won't.
"Surely American patent law isn't that stupid?"
Yes it is.
And don't call me Shirley.
This is going to put Apple out of business!
/not
if you can sue for things like this paramount should sue everyone for copying the tech in star trek, except they actually put thought in to how the things could work, not just a simple diagram of an idea.
When will people ever grow up and actually try and work for a dollar instead of steal it from people who have. The only difference between this and armed robbery is instead of a gun they use a pen.
Itunes is pure & utter shit...period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I disagree. period. At least on Macs I like iTunes. Although on Windows, I would have to agree that iTunes sucks balls. Not sure if it's Apple or MS who is making it sucks, but suck it does.
Fred, not necessarily. Just google 'Apple sues' and you get lots of examples for both sides.
My favorites on Apple being sue-happy themselves:
Apple sues sex shop: http://www.gadgets-weblog.com/50226711/apple_sues_sex_shop.php
Apple sues student: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505326
Apple preemptively sues: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802215
As Maestro also mentioned, it's easy to see Apple as a company quick to sue .
Examples of Apple being sued for its infringement of the intellectual property of others:
Apple was sued by Cisco over the 'iPhone' trademark (correct me if the term is wrong) and Cisco clearly owned it first, fair and square and even released an 'iPhone' product before Apple. Creative sued Apple, Apple counter-sued but ended up settling with a huge sum.
D'oh, was meant as a reply to fred above.
The latest patent is after the iTunes store came into being, so Apple wins that one based on having established an earlier bar-date and prior art. The second patent, filed in 2000, describes a system of media distribution that is "virtual". In other words, it doesn't require local storage as the iPod has, but instead allows the content from a server to be distributed for local play. That "virtual" aspect is central to the entire patent (they describe the virtues of not needing memory to store it, or not having to worry about which media device might have the real copy). That clearly isn't applicable to the iTunes model.
Bottom line, neither patent is applicable to iTunes. Apple can sleep easy tonight.
I read a story about this yesterday. Apparently they shopped the earlier patented technology around to all the big media and hardware companies (including Apple) in 2000 looking for companies to license the tech. They all passed but then a couple years later Apple comes out with iTunes/iPod which allegedly infringes the patent. I agree that our patent laws are a wreck, but it seems they may have a decent case here against Apple and a bunch of other companies as well should they pursue them.
Please read Bob's reply above.
Thankyou for listening.
Sorry, I just based my comment on what was read. Either way, Bob's comment wasn't there when I started writing my comment. Didn't mean any harm.
Ken Liscomb and others are the founders of Zapmedia in 1998, which raised about $50 million during the dotcom boom...