Re: Re: Agreed
I am not a patent lawyer, and I'm not trying to argue here. I'd really like an educated opinion.
Originally posted by rvernout
Imagine yourself in the early 80's....A very obvious concept indeed for that time.... not.
This is the sort of point that could just be argued about, but IMO since ARPANET was created in the 1960s for chrissakes, and computers were already networked at this time, the idea was pretty damned obvious. Of course, that's something to be argued in court.
In order to be able to develop your concept into a business, which requires huge investments because the technology is not readily available yet, you want to protect your idea, so you apply for a patent, and invest at least US$ 30.000 to establish protection in both the US and Europe. Despite your attempts to market the concept, 15 years later the return on your investment is still zero. Nevertheless you pay the annual fees required to maintain your patents in all the seperate countries, a total of several thousands of dollars per year, apparently because you still believe in the concept.
OK, here is what I really want to know, and where I think your argument falls apart. What the hell has this ******* been doing for the last 8 years since the Internet broke mainstream? I've been working on the Web since that time, and I've certainly thought -- numerous times -- about ways to sell music online, though that has never been a business I wanted to get into.
It seems to me the patent loses some worth when all the technological pieces are served up to you on a silver platter, and yet you still fail to act on a patent YOU OWN -
for eight years.
Then finally, in 2003, your idea is copied (at least sort of, there are no physical stores involved) and implemented on a big scale, and some big money is made..... by others.
Unfortunately your patent has expired in the US in the meantime, and your patents in Europe will lapse VERY soon because of maximum duration... Lucky you...
The iTunes Music Store, or Microsoft's UK venture, weren't the first services for selling downloadable music! There have been such services for years -- smaller ones. Remember how people were talking about how Apple was crazy to do the music store, because it was pointed out the labels had failed with their enterprises? Well, those enterprises were started BEFORE 2003, and the expiration of the U.S. patent.
So, answer me this: can Microsoft argue that this company didn't enforce their own patents the last few years in the U.S., while it was still in effect, and therefore they are only selectively enforcing the patent now after the media attention has been focused on iTMS?
Finally, as others have pointed out...the patent says nothing about music, and is incredibly broad ("information"? come on!). So, might this apply to fonts, shareware, printable back issues of magazines...etc. and so on?
I think this patent claim is ridiculous...as are most patent claims.