Apple Settles Patent Lawsuit Over Web-Based Music Sales

[TexasAggie]

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?

You are not reading that right. As others and I have said repeatedly, this guy did NOT patent the idea of selling music over the Internet. He invented a form of DRM to protect music sold over the Internet.

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.

This guy clearly did describe how to implement a form of DRM, and he claimed it as his invention. Totally normal and perfectly acceptable.

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.

Fine, point us to something even remotely similar to what's been patented as defined in the claims of the patent. You simply saying "it existed at the time" doesn't cut it. You need to actually show proof that something similar was done back before he filed in 1999. And while you're trying to find it, keep in mind companies like this group collectively could have easily spent a little bit of money to find prior art and then ask the patent office to reexamine the patent. They didn't, and I think Apple might have lawyers who know a bit of patent law.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You are not reading that right. As others and I have said repeatedly, this guy did NOT patent the idea of selling music over the Internet. He invented a form of DRM to protect music sold over the Internet.

No, we read it right. If what you say is true, then the article is VERY poorly written because it states what I said verbatim. In any case, unless Apple is using their exact DRM format, I don't see why that patent would apply. For example, Williams/Bally owns a patent for a type of flipper solenoid. Stern simply uses a different solenoid design to avoid getting sued for their patent. In other words, you can't patent every possible way to do something. It has to be specific. Imagine if a company could have patented "pain killer drug" and have it cover every possible formula of pain killers until the patent runs out. That is akin to what is being said here. He invented one way to encrypt music files and so he gets control of every possible form of DRM encryption??? So, regardless of how it plays out, it's STILL BULLCRAP.

 

[SPUY767]

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.

Unfortunately, "That's ****ing retarded!", while true, does not constitute a sound legal argument. If the patent office keeps granting these, people are going to keep trolling because often, you get a judge who follows the law to the letter with no intention of interpreting what is and is not right and therefore get screwed in court.

 

[TexasAggie]

No, we read it right. If what you say is true, then the article is VERY poorly written because it states what I said verbatim.

I read the patent in question and posted what Claim 8 said -- the claims in a patent define what is actually patented. I'll do it again:

8. A method for digitally distributing music comprised of tracks and albums over the Internet to a plurality of the Internet users, comprising:
assigning a key to a track for downloading to a user;
inserting the assigned key into said track prior to the downloading;
transferring the same assigned key to said user prior to downloading said track;
combining the transferred key with additional data to generate an identifier that uniquely identifies a customer's computer; and
verifying that said key extracted from the downloaded track matches information that is based on the generated identifier to enable the playback of said track.

Claim 1 is a device claim that is similar. That is what his invention is. It isn't selling music over the Internet. At least one of the comments to the blog article pointed out the same thing. Just do a search for "patent claims define invention".

In any case, unless Apple is using their exact DRM format, I don't see why that patent would apply.

Apple was apparently using something close enough, since they decided to settle. If the patent was truly overbroad (as much as some people here are willing to declare), it would have been easy to invalidate it. All they'd have to do it find something invented earlier and was covered by the claims. They could have also asked the patent office to reexamine the patent. They didn't.

In other words, you can't patent every possible way to do something. It has to be specific.

Claim 8 above is quite specific. He didn't patent securing music with DRM, selling music over the Internet, etc. He patented a specific way to secure music.

That is akin to what is being said here. He invented one way to encrypt music files and so he gets control of every possible form of DRM encryption??? So, regardless of how it plays out, it's STILL BULLCRAP.

No, your posts are BS based on your wrong understanding of what was actually patented.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I read the patent in question and posted what Claim 8 said -- the claims in a patent define what is actually patented. I'll do it again:

8. A method for digitally distributing music comprised of tracks and albums over the Internet to a plurality of the Internet users, comprising:
assigning a key to a track for downloading to a user;
inserting the assigned key into said track prior to the downloading;
transferring the same assigned key to said user prior to downloading said track;
combining the transferred key with additional data to generate an identifier that uniquely identifies a customer's computer; and
verifying that said key extracted from the downloaded track matches information that is based on the generated identifier to enable the playback of said track.

So you're telling me that ONLY Section 8 contains ANY relevant patent information to the claim? What about the other 13 sections that describe the music shopping experience, name & password, web access and even web devices used to access them? They're irrelevant? The person that wrote the article concluded it may hold against any online music shopping experience (at least encrypted ones). And if it only covers encrypted songs, then why has Apple capitulated when their music isn't encrypted any longer?

I'd say the patent is pretty generic and wide scope and the only possible thing that sounds unique is the key insertion method for Internet encryption. We had shopping sites prior to this one. The patent doesn't cover a specific encryption method (as none are provided; besides even music DVDs had DRM encryption long before this patent).

Most of us know that patents are an iffy business to begin with. It comes down to covering a specific "idea" on how to do something, but over the years it has steadily expanded to become more and more generic, abstract and quite frankly, there's a lot of question of whether patent laws even cover software (many think it should not period; that's what copyright laws are for as they pertain to software/code, not inventions, which is what patents are supposed to be for). Sadly, the Supreme Court always wiggles around issues to specifics whenever a case comes up that remotely involves it. Someone would have to challenge (and pay for) the process to get the Supreme Court to challenge everything from the DMCA in a broad scope to software patents. It's usually in big business' favor to NOT challenge potentially beneficial laws and most small frys don't have the money to do it.

 

[TexasAggie]

So you're telling me that ONLY Section 8 contains ANY relevant patent information to the claim?

The patent description can describe anything the inventor wants, but that doesn't mean the patent covers everything it describes.

The claims are what define the scope of patent protection. Claim 8 is the broadest method claim. Claim 1 is the broadest device claim. If you don't do everything in Claim 1 or everything in Claim 8, you don't infringe. Stated another way, if you perform a method but don't do one of the steps in Claim 8, you don't infringe. If you have a device and don't include everything in Claim 1, you don't infringe.

The claims are interpreted in light of the remaining description, but it is the claims that define specifically what is patented.

The person that wrote the article concluded it may hold against any online music shopping experience (at least encrypted ones). And if it only covers encrypted songs, then why has Apple capitulated when their music isn't encrypted any longer?

Gee, a blog writer who got something wrong. Who would have thought.

The patent would apply to any online music store that uses keys as described in Claim 8, or who uses a device as defined in Claim 1.

As for Apple now selling DRM-free music, that's just recent. They could owe damages for any infringement over the past 6 years.

I'd say the patent is pretty generic and wide scope and the only possible thing that sounds unique is the key insertion method for Internet encryption.

Congrats. You just admitted that the invention as defined in the claims is possibly unique. The only thing that is patented is what is specifically described in the claims.

The patent doesn't cover a specific encryption method (as none are provided; besides even music DVDs had DRM encryption long before this patent).

But music DVDs didn't insert keys into the music and then use them to make sure the music could only be played on certain computers, right?

Most of us know that patents are an iffy business to begin with.

Then you haven't spent the time or money to develop a product that could be easily copied. A patent is the only thing that would help keep your competitors at bay.

there's a lot of question of whether patent laws even cover software (many think it should not period; that's what copyright laws are for as they pertain to software/code, not inventions, which is what patents are supposed to be for).

There are people who think software deserves a special exemption from the patent laws, which currently doesn't exist in US law.

Sadly, the Supreme Court always wiggles around issues to specifics whenever a case comes up that remotely involves it. Someone would have to challenge (and pay for) the process to get the Supreme Court to challenge everything from the DMCA in a broad scope to software patents. It's usually in big business' favor to NOT challenge potentially beneficial laws and most small frys don't have the money to do it.

If you've been sued for millions or billions in damages by a software patent owner, you'd easily be motivated to appeal all the way. And the Supreme Court recently held that some business methods could be patentable, refusing to find a blanket exception against those methods. If the Court won't refuse to ban business methods, they mostly likely wouldn't ban software patents.

 

[leroypants]

Nice to see when apple is caught stealing they have to pay for it.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Nice to see when apple is caught stealing they have to pay for it.

Sigh... another troll who didn't bother reading post #1 (or articles it links to):
>> The lawsuit, filed in May, targeted Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody,
>> and other companies, with Amazon, Netflix, and additional companies
>> included in a similar suit filed around the same time.

I.e., virtually everyone who ever engaged in online music sales.
So um, why try and single out Apple for your commentary?

Stealing?!?! Get a clue, will ya.

 

[SuperMacMan]

Have to laugh at how MacRumors have used the iTunes 1.0 icon, haha. Sorta fits in with this patent from what, 1999 or something?