PDA

View Full Version : Apple, Google and Napster sued by Intertainer




Clive At Five
Jan 3, 2007, 09:39 AM
Another company is trying to capitalize on other peoples' successes. :rolleyes:

Intertainer (http://www.intertainer.com/) is suing Apple, Google and Napster for "infringing a patent on a way to distribute digital entertainment over the Internet."

Of course, these are three big players, but you might also think that Microsoft would be sued as long as Intertainer going for the deep pockets but, alas, no. Microsoft is one of the company's investors...

Scumbags.

-Clive



Clive At Five
Jan 3, 2007, 09:42 AM
Oh, and also, it can be seen on their "Press" page, that there hasn't been any since 2003.

Someone's looking for a moment in the spotlight.

BTW, here's an article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/298129_intertainersuit03.html) about the mess.

-Clive

shunpike
Jan 3, 2007, 09:42 AM
Says in the article u linked 2 that INTEL are one of their investors but arn't intel and apple meant to be like doing business?

failsafe1
Jan 3, 2007, 09:58 AM
Is this another example of someone holding a patent on an idea but did not move on it. So they waited for someone to use the idea and pounce? If so shame on Apple for not doing their homework. if not then throw them out.

Clive At Five
Jan 3, 2007, 10:02 AM
Says in the article u linked 2 that INTEL are one of their investors but arn't intel and apple meant to be like doing business?

Yes and no.

The Apple and Intel partnership has to do with hardware almost exclusively. Apple's iTunes software (which is the obvious source of "patent infringment") is not related to Intel at all, thus Intertainer has no reason to want to sue them (or not sue them).

If anything, Intel is at odds with Microsoft. I recall hearing, in the near past, something about Intel complaining that Microsoft's software doesn't give Intel any challenges and are a boring company.

And of course Apple and Google are Microsoft's two biggest enemies, and Napster is a strong competitor against Urge/Zune Marketplace, next to iTunes. Thus, I suspect preferential treatment towards their prized investor.

Idiots.

-Clive

Clive At Five
Jan 3, 2007, 10:06 AM
Is this another example of someone holding a patent on an idea but did not move on it. So they waited for someone to use the idea and pounce? If so shame on Apple for not doing their homework. if not then throw them out.

I think it's more one of those "someone holding a patent that everybody uses and has been using for the past 5 years so wait until someone else is really rich off of it and pounce" cases. It's like Windows and Mac OS X. They could probably sue each other over a billion things, but they don't want to open that can of worms... so they don't.

-Clive

failsafe1
Jan 3, 2007, 10:07 AM
I think it's more one of those "someone holding a patent that everybody uses and has been using for the past 5 years sowait until someone else is really rich off of it and pounce" cases. It's like Windows and Mac OS X. They could probably sue each other over a billion things, but they don't want to open that can of worms... so they don't.

-Clive

Good point.

Clive At Five
Jan 3, 2007, 11:04 AM
More details arise:

The Santa Monica, Calif., company, founded in 1996 to distribute movies on demand through cable and phone lines for viewing on televisions and personal computers, shut down operations in 2002 but still has [two employees] on staff.

This is purely a money-motivated endeavor.

Either Intertainer will lose and dwindle out of business, or they will win and close down, millionaires. Or maybe they're feeling pressure to generate some return from their investors (which according to AppleInsider, also includes Sony). Hmm.

You'd think that if they haven't been doing anything since 2002, they would have had plenty of time to realize Apple, Google and Napster's (and MS's and Sony's, etc.) patent infringements.

The more I think about it, the more I'm suspicious that the lawsuit is an MS and/or Sony scheme to elbow out the competition.

-Clive

840quadra
Jan 3, 2007, 11:14 AM
This is really stupid.

There is allot of prior art on this. The ability to Stream and download content on the web existed long before 2005.

Apple had Quicktime TV streaming, and quicktime movie downloading as far back as 1998!

clevin
Jan 3, 2007, 11:39 AM
I think it's more one of those "someone holding a patent that everybody uses and has been using for the past 5 years so wait until someone else is really rich off of it and pounce" cases. It's like Windows and Mac OS X. They could probably sue each other over a billion things, but they don't want to open that can of worms... so they don't.

-Clive

u gotta respect heir ability to get the patent for the stuff everybody been using for past 5 years, don't you?

patent is a business weapon, everybody is using it, intel, M$, AMD, Real, Netscape, Apple, etc. u can feel bad, but u can't do nothing about it.