Apple Settles Patent Lawsuit Over Web-Based Music Sales

[alent1234]

Are you KIDDING?
Seems you weren't really paying attention to the industry during the dotcom bubble. EVERYTHING was gonna be sold online, and MP3 had been around for quite a while at that time. You realize that Napster was already in full swing? The whole idea that you could sell digital content ONLINE. omg, why did no one ever have that idea before those guys patented it? /sarcasm

napster was p2p sharing

the company that filed this patent sold encrypted/DRM's music online in 1998. and the way he sold it and DRM'd it is pretty much the way iTunes started doing it a few years later. it was a cool idea but ahead of it's time. why buy music online that can only be played via the special player software when you can just buy a CD and rip it?

i think that was the year the first 1MB MP3 players came out. i had a dual celeron PC i built while in the army and was borrowing everyone's CD collections and ripping them

 

[TexasAggie]

omg, why did no one ever have that idea before those guys patented it? /sarcasm

The claims of a patent tell you what's actually patented. This guy didn't claim downloading music to people over the Internet.

I read the patent in question and it infuriates me to no end that this guy received a patent for a business model, nothing more. That's not protecting innovation, it's squatting. I'll patent a business idea wait until others try the same thing, see if they can make it work, then call foul and demand restitution. It's disgusting and a total manipulation of the patent system.

He did no such thing. He came up with a way to secure music downloaded to a certain computer. iTunes would appear to use something similar since, when music was still protected by Apple's DRM, you couldn't play the music unless it was on one of your authorized iTunes computers.

The patent system is so horribly broken. Patent an idea that is essentially an existing idea with a tiny and very obvious tweak?
...
If I'm not mistaken, you have to show that the exact idea had been done. One small difference and prior art doesn't apply.

He inserts a key into music, separately transfers the key to a computer, and uses the key from the music to see if you're authorized to play the music. What exactly is the "tiny" and "very obvious" tweak, keeping in mind prior art only means stuff developed before he filed his patent application, not after.

And you are mistaken -- "novelty" means no single piece of prior art does everything you claim as an invention. The invention can be novel and still obvious, which would also prevent you from getting a patent.

 

[costmo]

A little credit

Stuff like this makes me think I should just start patenting every idea that comes into my head and wait around for some big company to do something similar and then make a fortune settling with them. It's disgusting what they will grant a patent for these days. I mean who hadn't thought of the idea to have a music store on the Web?

Let's give this guy more credit than the patent trolls. He not only had the patent, but had the wherewithall to bring an actual product to market. I have no problem with people/companies pursuing compensation for others infringing on an awarded patent when they have actually invested real time and money into turning the patent into a tangible product.

 

[NokX]

people like to give big companies a hard time, but they constantly have to put up with bs like this.

 

[spookywarrior]

why?

Why'd the guy wait 10 years to take them to court? Is it like investing? Just wait till they make billions and sue them for more?

 

[mdelvecchio]

I mean:
These trolls only help Apple monopolize the industry by making it hard for real innovators.

HUH?? how do you figure apple has a monopoly on online music retailing when a billion other corps do the same thing? look that word up one day when you get out of class.

 

[rvernout]

This guy invented DRM ahead of anyone else, apparently. Otherwise Apple and all the other big companies would have been able to nullify his patent in court. So give him some credit.

 

[barkomatic]

Perhaps we're forgetting how aggressively Apple defends its own patents. It goes both ways.

 

[Gotta Hankerin]

He did no such thing. He came up with a way to secure music downloaded to a certain computer. iTunes would appear to use something similar since, when music was still protected by Apple's DRM, you couldn't play the music unless it was on one of your authorized iTunes computers.

I disagree and perhaps this a larger philosophical disagreement about what should be eligible for patents. His patent was not for a unique algorithm or for the software that created and secured the unique key identifiers, but rather the patent was for the monetization of distributing secured digital rights.

In my view it is an overly broad patent that basically says we want to move money from here to there and to do so we're going to build an armored truck so give us a patent on armored trucks. Not a specific design of an armored truck, not a specific build, but an overall patent that effectively stifles competition should we choose to enforce our patent.

I understand this is how the tech industry has operated for years and will probably continue to operate but I think it encourages excessively broad applications and is the primary reason we have companies whose sole purpose is to buy patents and sue.

 

[8CoreWhore]

I'm going to patent the coffee mug and then sue the planet.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Mr. Fritsch had a good idea.

 

[pr5owner]

Bigger news is that horrible icon....

yes the fate of the world and all that exist in the universe depends on how good looking new icons and logos are...

does everyone in your family get so emotional?

 

[mytdave]

dysfunctional

time to abolish software patents

 

[prezasti]

They approved, "I hereby patent the sale of music over a computer network"?

I agree 100%. This is crazy! It's patents like these that disgust me and are an embarrassment to the whole patent process.

I would like to see companies sue the patent office over allowing patents like this to make it thru the system in the first place.

 

[pubwvj]

This is absurd. Time to stop this nonsense and kill the patent system. It is massively abused. Patents on software, life, house designs, fashion, etc should not be allowed. Kill the patent trolls.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

The guy thought of it before anyone else. So he patented it. Get over it. Do you have an idea? There is an ad for patenting ideas on this site.

 

[TexasAggie]

His patent was not for a unique algorithm or for the software that created and secured the unique key identifiers, but rather the patent was for the monetization of distributing secured digital rights.
...
In my view it is an overly broad patent that basically says we want to move money from here to there and to do so we're going to build an armored truck so give us a patent on armored trucks. Not a specific design of an armored truck, not a specific build, but an overall patent that effectively stifles competition should we choose to enforce our patent.

Can you show any other algorithm back in 1999 that involved inserting a key into a song, separately sending the key to a computer, and using the key at the computer and the key in the song to determine whether to allow the song to be played? It should be easy to do if this patent is "overly broad". If you can't, the patent is perfectly fine, and it describes a unique algorithm. And he doesn't have to have an algorithm for creating the keys, just an (apparently very practical) algorithm for using the keys.

And guess what, a patent is supposed to "stifle competition" if the competition is infringing the patent. The goal of the patent system is to allow people to disclose their inventions to the public in exchange for a limited monopoly (which means you can't infringe the patent while it is in force). That way, someone else can come along and improve on the patent or figure out a better way to do something to avoid the patent. But you can't infringe someone's patent and then claim that they can't stop you since they'd be stifling competition. They call it a limited monopoly for a reason.

I agree 100%. This is crazy! It's patents like these that disgust me and are an embarrassment to the whole patent process.

Can you even tell what invention is actually covered by the patent? The patent wasn't for distributing music via the Internet. If it was, you can rest assured that companies like Apple and others wouldn't have settled. From what it looks like, this guy may have invented DRM for music before anyone else. Are you honestly saying that this wasn't worthy of a patent? Keep in mind, without DRM, Apple may have never been able to get the iTunes music store going, since the music industry likely wouldn't have initially allowed the music to be distributed without it at that time.

 

[xStep]

Must not have been that lame if Apple settled, they have the legal resources to bury just about anybody assuming their legal argument is sound.

It may have been much less costly to settle rather than pay all those lawyers their big bucks for their time.

 

[potatis]

HA. I know, but that doesn't make it a good icon.

It has three notes that match in color, what more do you want?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

A safe bet is this guys patent has a lot of grounds because so far almost everyone has paid up. It would be safe to say MS or Apple would of fought this guy if they though they had a good leg to stand on. I bet they knew that they were screwed and just choose to pay up. I am also guessing his terms were not unreasonable so they had no issue with it.

 

[Durendal]

Can you show any other algorithm back in 1999 that involved inserting a key into a song, separately sending the key to a computer, and using the key at the computer and the key in the song to determine whether to allow the song to be played? It should be easy to do if this patent is "overly broad". If you can't, the patent is perfectly fine, and it describes a unique algorithm. And he doesn't have to have an algorithm for creating the keys, just an (apparently very practical) algorithm for using the keys.

And guess what, a patent is supposed to "stifle competition" if the competition is infringing the patent. The goal of the patent system is to allow people to disclose their inventions to the public in exchange for a limited monopoly (which means you can't infringe the patent while it is in force). That way, someone else can come along and improve on the patent or figure out a better way to do something to avoid the patent. But you can't infringe someone's patent and then claim that they can't stop you since they'd be stifling competition. They call it a limited monopoly for a reason.



Can you even tell what invention is actually covered by the patent? The patent wasn't for distributing music via the Internet. If it was, you can rest assured that companies like Apple and others wouldn't have settled. From what it looks like, this guy may have invented DRM for music before anyone else. Are you honestly saying that this wasn't worthy of a patent? Keep in mind, without DRM, Apple may have never been able to get the iTunes music store going, since the music industry likely wouldn't have initially allowed the music to be distributed without it at that time.

You're describing techniques that already existed at the time. The use of separate keys for encryption/decryption, even when one is embedded into the encrypted material, have been around for a long time. What is the purpose of encryption? To ensure that the recipient who decrypts it is the person for whom it was meant. This is the same principle that simply applies to online music. The idea was around online and elsewhere in many varying forms before he simply tweaked it to apply to online music accounts. This patent is still overly broad and only uses concepts that existed well before in a slightly different way.

 

[pmz]

This is absurd. Time to stop this nonsense and kill the patent system. It is massively abused. Patents on software, life, house designs, fashion, etc should not be allowed. Kill the patent trolls.

How is software and life in the same sentence? Please tell me you are better than that.

And cry me a river, Apple doesn't wait for permission, and when they get into trouble, they buy their way out.

I really don't care what any of you outside observers think about patents, and you're the worst kind of double standard whenever the topic comes up.

Oh Palm wants to use multitouch? BURN EM!

This guy thinks he had the first hooks of the iTunes store shopping cart? Bury him for even trying, how dare he involve almighty Apple.

 

[pmz]

You're describing techniques that already existed at the time. The use of separate keys for encryption/decryption, even when one is embedded into the encrypted material, have been around for a long time. What is the purpose of encryption? To ensure that the recipient who decrypts it is the person for whom it was meant. This is the same principle that simply applies to online music. The idea was around online and elsewhere in many varying forms before he simply tweaked it to apply to online music accounts. This patent is still overly broad and only uses concepts that existed well before in a slightly different way.

The. IDEA. as you repeat multiple times.

Has absolutely nothing to do with this guy's specific implementation.

 

[zeemeerman2]

Why'd the guy wait 10 years to take them to court? Is it like investing? Just wait till they make billions and sue them for more?

More or less, yeah... That is business today, it seems.
The first one thinks and patents.
The second one thinks and creates.
The first one waits.
The second one makes masses of profit, innovates, tweaks to perfect. Much of the profit goes into making it better and better, costing a lot of money.
The second one has "finished" his product and is happy about it.
The first one acclaims it to his own.
The first one makes masses of profit. (= happy and done near nothing)
The second one loses masses of money. (= unhappy after all work spend)

Of course, the first one could have met the second one and talked into him about making the product, assuring himself about the product being made and not have a patent about nothing.

That's business today, as it seems.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I simply cannot comprehend HOW a "patent" can be granted for such basic abstract ideas of commerce over the Internet. Is there some kind of unique method employed that prevents ANYONE from offering up items for sale over the Internet????? We've had online stores LONG before they filed the patent! It doesn't MATTER *WHAT* is being sold or transmitted over the Internet. It's ALL THE SAME! This is a freaking TRAVESTY FAILURE of the system and essentially allows ANYONE to patent ANYTHING. I'm filing a patent to cover sales of all future 3D movies over the Internet. If the movie companies want to sell them online, they're going to have to pay me a bazillion dollars first.

Ridiculous. This means you cannot start your own personal web site to sell your own homemade music even without paying these guys for a patent right to do so. Am I reading that right? WTF do they have to do with me selling my music online? I don't use any secret technology to sell items online. It's available EVERYWHERE. This is truly akin to asking for and receiving a patent on 2+2 = 4 and charging everyone in retrograde fashion for using that in their math books for the past 200 years.


I wish someone would take this whole issue to the Supreme Court. It is getting OBSCENE the things people are being allowed to "patent". Oh I have this idea about future wrist watch computers transmitting data over the Internet so I filed a patent on it and now anyone using a computer watch to sync over the Internet has to pay me because I thought of it first even though I didn't do anything with the idea and I didn't even describe in exact detail HOW it would be done. But everyone falls under this general blanket of "syncing computer data over the Internet to wrist watches" so pay me already!!!

I'm putting in my patent for a warp drive that folds space using the Element 115. I'll then wait for someone to invent it and own their butts for taking my idea!