PDA

View Full Version : iTunes under Net patent threat


MacBytes
Jan 22, 2004, 12:36 PM
Category: Tunes
Link: iTunes under Net patent threat (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040122133649)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Essefgy
Jan 22, 2004, 01:03 PM
I went to the E-Data site, but after reading "The present invention contemplates a system for reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location wherein the information to be reproduced is provided at the point of sale location from a location remote with respect to the point of sale location, an owner authorization code is provided to the point of sale location in reponse to receiving a request code from the point of sale location requesting to reproducing predetermined information in a material object, and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location in response to receiving the owner authorization code" my brain vaporlocked and I had to put my head down.

the_mole1314
Jan 22, 2004, 01:28 PM
Basically, they patent tons of basic ideas for the internet, and sue when the times comes. I've seen it. It's ugly. I really hate people like this. Instead of having a product and protecting it, they have an idea and are making money as a leech. I wonder if someone has patented how to hook up speakers to a computer, or some other basic things like that. Dear god, we need an overhall of the US Patent System.

crenz
Jan 22, 2004, 01:37 PM
People earning their money like this are responsible for the economic downturn, IMO.

Gone are the days where you didn't only have to have an idea, but also work on it. Now you just have to wait for the money to come in. At least their Chairman of the Board is a "Philantrophist"... probably using the money he earns to bolster up his reputation.

winmacguy
Jan 22, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Essefgy
I went to the E-Data site, but after reading "The present invention contemplates a system for reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location wherein the information to be reproduced is provided at the point of sale location from a location remote with respect to the point of sale location, an owner authorization code is provided to the point of sale location in reponse to receiving a request code from the point of sale location requesting to reproducing predetermined information in a material object, and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location in response to receiving the owner authorization code" my brain vaporlocked and I had to put my head down.

Geeez they dont make it easy to follow do they...

JereIC
Jan 22, 2004, 02:15 PM
This patent was issued in 1985; don't patents only last 17 years? And it looks absurdly broad. If I'm reading it correctly, I think it encompasses anything you download for cash, even information like archived NYTimes articles. Scary that they're getting the attention they are.

If this is for real, I bet Apple buys these guys off with a one-time payment, just to get them off iTunes's back. If they litigated it, it'd take years and millions of dollars before iTMS got to Europe.

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2004, 02:19 PM
Time to patent a process that electrocutes patent attorneys remotely over the internet, I'm sure somebody could make millions with such a patent. Especially if they developed the product. ;)

Bob Knob
Jan 22, 2004, 02:20 PM
This is a classic example of what happened during the whole dot-com boom. Anything was given a patent because the patent review system couldn't keep up with the technology. If they had never heard of it, instead of investigating it, it was awarded a patent.

rvernout
Jan 22, 2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Time to patent a process that electrocutes patent attorneys remotely over the internet

Thanks Sun Baked.... (see my profile) :).

Ooh, and patent attorneys are trained and experienced in opposing patents as well, and can thus be useful in correcting patent examiners' shortcomings, when they granted the obvious. So Steve, if you need me... send me an e-mail ;)

Anyways, the European patent will expire March 18, 2005, and the US patent already did.

themacolyte
Jan 22, 2004, 03:04 PM
If there were any justice in the world, a judge could refuse to hear the case and require this company to pay all legal fees for all the companies it has contacted. Hopefully running the company out of business.

That's being kind though. This isn't even a company. They produce nothing. They have one asset, the "Freeny" patent. The entire company website is dedicated to this one patent and enforcing it. Literally.

From their front page, "E-Data... is the holder of intellectual property related to the digital distribution of content over the internet". They go on to refer to "patents" (plural) even though the only patent mentioned anywhere that I can see is the "Freeny" patent. This patent, according to their front page again, "provides the basic building blocks of... content distributed digitally via Internet".

Yeah, right.

Reading the patent as posted on their web site, the patent covers the idea of getting content where you're at (in some retained form), from some other place, using an identifying password. It's so vague, I'm thinking that twins with ESP could be forced to pay a fee if one of them envisions what the other is experiencing and writes it down.

"The present invention provides a means for reproducing or manufacturing material objects at point of sale locations" while supposedly simultaneously solving problems of manufacturing, inventory, distribution and collections. WTF? It does no such thing. It provides (even though it's obvious) the idea of getting non transient content from somewhere else via some identification. It doesn't describe a means for reproduction or manufacture or distribution (it states there are two points and something is transferred, not how it's done). It doesn't describe the method of collections.

I was hoping to find this company actually did something so that they could be boycotted or fought in some way. No such luck.

Photorun
Jan 22, 2004, 04:29 PM
I like the idea of patenting electrocuting lawyers. How about just a hunting license for them exclusivelly. Oh there'd be limits and game wardens. I'm cleaning my gun now as I can think of three ("you need money, we can get it from insurance companies...") right now in the area. Currently I'm just signing them up for as much spam as I can (they've moved their email and domain twice) so they can't get any emails other than porn, offers, Yahoo, etc. (it's fun, try it). But if shooting them is allowed it'd save me a lot of typing.

shamino
Jan 22, 2004, 05:57 PM
I read their patent from their own web site. These suits are completely frivolous.

Their patent explicitly describes a system where a customer makes a purchase, then presents identifying information to a salesperson, who then copies the purchased media to a physical medium and gives it to the consumer.

In other words, it's describing the old Personics system - where you buy music that is recorded in-store.

Their attempt to extrapolate this to internet purchases is simply wrong. When you purchase stuff over the internet, the merchant isn't recording anything on your behalf, and you do not end up with any physical medium. The fact that you may choose to record your purchase to a CD afterwards, independantly of the purchase changes nothing.

I really hope they decide to sue Microsoft and get themselves walloped out of existance. But they won't do that. They will only sue small companies that can't afford to fight anything in court, while the big boys (Microsoft, Apple, Sony, etc.) will be let off with nothing more than a warning.

MrMacMan
Jan 22, 2004, 10:59 PM
Wouldn't they sue ALL of the download serviced?


Um...

Also its too broad.

Sabenth
Jan 23, 2004, 06:40 AM
bloody bastards thats what they are money grabbing bits of low life