Apple Sued Over ITunes Technology

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A lawsuit was filed against Apple yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s iTunes infringes on two patents held by a company named ZapMedia.

The patents in question cover a way of sending music and other digital content from servers to multiple media players, a broad description that could also apply to a wide swath of other companies selling digital media and the devices to play it.
Click to expand...
 
Damb the EU always after American companies, The EU is just using an american company as a way to get money since the EU must be poor

oh wait...
 
lol, another company waiting till the pig is fat to cash out.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Damb the EU always after American companies, The EU is just using an american company as a way to get money since the EU must be poor

oh wait...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Actually, if you want to use this argument, you should know that you EU jockeys are the ones who are always saying "the US just gives their companies a slap on the wrist and lets them continue to rape consumers".

Right back at ya.
 
Wait... How long has iTunes been around? Shouldn't there be some limit of time after which you can no longer sue because you're too stupid to realize that your patent has been infringed upon? I mean, c'mon... iTunes has been around sine January of 2001. That's over seven years. You know how the darn thing works by now, but you wait that long to file suit? Jeez...
 
'"When someone takes our vision and our intellectual property without a license after several attempts, we have no option but to protect it through every means available to us," Robert Frohwein, ZapMedia's general counsel, said in a statement.'


What vision? Sending files over the internet? Yeah, that's really innovating. :rolleyes:
 
I'm waiting for the day when one of the inventors of the internet comes forth with some sort of patent and tries to sue everyone.
 
ZapMedia applied for the patents in 1999. One was granted in March 2006, the other on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

This is why they just now sued. They were just now granted the patents. 7 & 9 years is a shit load of time to wait.
 
Ockie said:
I'm waiting for the day when one of the inventors of the internet comes forth with some sort of patent and tries to sue everyone.
Click to expand...

BBC tried this. They have a patent on something that can be describe as inter-linking infomation (ie hyperlinks), the patent got overturned
 
Ockie said:
lol, another company waiting till the pig is fat to cash out.
Click to expand...


If you read the article, the company applied for hte patents in 1999. The patent office took untill March of 06 for one of hte patents, and untill tuesday for the other. It's not waiting for the pig to get fat, it's waiting for the government to recognize your innovation. Couple that with the fact that they had been talking to apple the entire time trying to get them to play fair, and it comes down to a legitimate case of apple thinking it will be cheaper to wait and see if the patent clears than just paying for it. Apple took a gamble and it didn't turn out like they planned. Now apple will have to fight to get the patent revoked, or pay up. Sounds legitimate to me.

The current patent system has many flaws, one of which is rediculous wait times for patents to clear.
 
GilmourD said:
Wait... How long has iTunes been around? Shouldn't there be some limit of time after which you can no longer sue because you're too stupid to realize that your patent has been infringed upon? I mean, c'mon... iTunes has been around sine January of 2001. That's over seven years. You know how the darn thing works by now, but you wait that long to file suit? Jeez...
Click to expand...

Well, you said it right there. iTunes - 2001. They APPLIED for these patents in 1999, and the government just this Tuesday reviewed and approved the patent they are suing over. We think of all of these smaller companies as leeching off the big successful companies in most of these patent lawsuits but seeing how long it took to get a patent I can't imagine how it would feel if I opened a new company with a new idea, applied for a patent for that idea, tried to sell that idea but since it wasn't patented yet people said "That's a good idea" then did it for themselves now that I'd mentioned it to them, because nobody paid for it I remained a small company, then FINALLY the patent was granted to me 9 years later by the government. By that time of course all the companies I'd mentioned it to 9 years ago have been using it for awhile without consent and I didn't have an approved patent to stop them in anyway, but when it's finally approved I go to them and the response is: "What? Are you crazy? We've been using that for years and you just now bring it up?" Then I look on the internet and everybody is siding with the bigger company. Imagine if something like that happened to you because with a wait time like that on patents it probably has happened to at least a few people out there.
 
Ualdayan said:
Well, you said it right there. iTunes - 2001. They APPLIED for these patents in 1999, and the government just this Tuesday reviewed and approved the patent they are suing over. We think of all of these smaller companies as leeching off the big successful companies in most of these patent lawsuits but seeing how long it took to get a patent I can't imagine how it would feel if I opened a new company with a new idea, applied for a patent for that idea, tried to sell that idea but since it wasn't patented yet people said "That's a good idea" then did it for themselves now that I'd mentioned it to them, because nobody paid for it I remained a small company, then FINALLY the patent was granted to me 9 years later by the government. By that time of course all the companies I'd mentioned it to 9 years ago have been using it for awhile without consent and I didn't have an approved patent to stop them in anyway, but when it's finally approved I go to them and the response is: "What? Are you crazy? We've been using that for years and you just now bring it up?" Then I look on the internet and everybody is siding with the bigger company. Imagine if something like that happened to you because with a wait time like that on patents it probably has happened to at least a few people out there.
Click to expand...

I think you just summed up the obvious but man was that terrible to read.
 
Ualdayan said:
Well, you said it right there. iTunes - 2001. They APPLIED for these patents in 1999, and the government just this Tuesday reviewed and approved the patent they are suing over. We think of all of these smaller companies as leeching off the big successful companies in most of these patent lawsuits but seeing how long it took to get a patent I can't imagine how it would feel if I opened a new company with a new idea, applied for a patent for that idea, tried to sell that idea but since it wasn't patented yet people said "That's a good idea" then did it for themselves now that I'd mentioned it to them, because nobody paid for it I remained a small company, then FINALLY the patent was granted to me 9 years later by the government. By that time of course all the companies I'd mentioned it to 9 years ago have been using it for awhile without consent and I didn't have an approved patent to stop them in anyway, but when it's finally approved I go to them and the response is: "What? Are you crazy? We've been using that for years and you just now bring it up?" Then I look on the internet and everybody is siding with the bigger company. Imagine if something like that happened to you because with a wait time like that on patents it probably has happened to at least a few people out there.
Click to expand...



At least for myself, my problem is not so much that they are suing over a patent they own now after years of waiting to get it approved, it is what they managed to get a patent for. Or at least what the article makes it sound like they patented.

They got a patent for storing media (music/movies) on a server and allowing people to download them to play on their computer or any other device they wanted to move the media too. As people have said, they patented file downloads from the internet.

I wouldn't have paid them either if I was Apple until they got their patents approved than a court said that I had to pay them.

I can see where if this was a legit patent, but I myself don't consider a patent on how to download files from the internet to play them later a valid patent.
 
Exavior said:
At least for myself, my problem is not so much that they are suing over a patent they own now after years of waiting to get it approved, it is what they managed to get a patent for. Or at least what the article makes it sound like they patented.

They got a patent for storing media (music/movies) on a server and allowing people to download them to play on their computer or any other device they wanted to move the media too. As people have said, they patented file downloads from the internet.

I wouldn't have paid them either if I was Apple until they got their patents approved than a court said that I had to pay them.

I can see where if this was a legit patent, but I myself don't consider a patent on how to download files from the internet to play them later a valid patent.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if people read the patent other than relying on what other people have said and what they think to be true. From the patent itself:

What is claimed is:

1. A method of managing access to a plurality of media assets comprising the steps of: providing a user with a user account; storing references to a plurality of media assets which the user has a license to use; and authorizing over a network a plurality of media player devices with the user account, wherein the plurality of referenced media assets can be accessed by any one of the authorized plurality of media player devices.

That does not claim to patent downloading files. It is specific in the wording as to be the basis of why Apple is being sued over iTunes. The "portal" must provide a user account, can store and distribute to multiple media devices, authorizes distribution with licenses etc. iTunes meets all of those. Simply downloading files to your hard drive does not.
 
tehblue said:
It would be nice if people read the patent other than relying on what other people have said and what they think to be true. From the patent itself:

What is claimed is:

1. A method of managing access to a plurality of media assets comprising the steps of: providing a user with a user account; storing references to a plurality of media assets which the user has a license to use; and authorizing over a network a plurality of media player devices with the user account, wherein the plurality of referenced media assets can be accessed by any one of the authorized plurality of media player devices.

That does not claim to patent downloading files. It is specific in the wording as to be the basis of why Apple is being sued over iTunes. The "portal" must provide a user account, can store and distribute to multiple media devices, authorizes distribution with licenses etc. iTunes meets all of those. Simply downloading files to your hard drive does not.
Click to expand...

What has ZapMedia used this patent for before the suit? ... from what I'm reading, all it patented as an obvious innevitability... mind as well patent streaming HD content and Online Operating Systems you dont need to install and "flying cars" without stating how theyre going to do it. And I'm the last person on earth to defend Apple.
 
The Red said:
What has ZapMedia used this patent for before the suit? ... from what I'm reading, all it patented as an obvious innevitability... mind as well patent streaming HD content and Online Operating Systems you dont need to install and "flying cars" without stating how theyre going to do it. And I'm the last person on earth to defend Apple.
Click to expand...

What you see as obvious inevitability was not that obvious in 1999 when the company filed the patent. What other services were out at that time or even close that fit within their claim? They were specific to what they intended to patent. What you see as commonplace now was not so common then. Did you ever consider streaming HD content in 1999, what about an online OS? The patent has to be looked at from when it was filed, not from what is "obvious" now.

What I do agree with you is that I'm the last person to defend Apple as well however the real problem is the US Patent System. A reform is necessary however all ideas that were put forth have their drawbacks.
 
Has ZapMedia actually made an iTune-like product or is this another RIM suit where patents were filed, but they let someone else make the product?
 
tehblue said:
What you see as obvious inevitability was not that obvious in 1999 when the company filed the patent. What other services were out at that time or even close that fit within their claim? They were specific to what they intended to patent. What you see as commonplace now was not so common then. Did you ever consider streaming HD content in 1999, what about an online OS? The patent has to be looked at from when it was filed, not from what is "obvious" now.

What I do agree with you is that I'm the last person to defend Apple as well however the real problem is the US Patent System. A reform is necessary however all ideas that were put forth have their drawbacks.
Click to expand...

I dunno... I remember streaming videos on my "high-speed DSL" back then. I don't see where their patent wasn't a leap to the obvious. The original Napster was in use in 1999 and I don't see iTunes as anything but a centralized, legal rendition of that.
 
GilmourD said:
I dunno... I remember streaming videos on my "high-speed DSL" back then. I don't see where their patent wasn't a leap to the obvious. The original Napster was in use in 1999 and I don't see iTunes as anything but a centralized, legal rendition of that.
Click to expand...

Excellent argument regarding Napster considering it started in early '99 and ZapMedia's patent wasn't filed until Oct '99. The difference here is that ZapMedia patent requires the portal to provide or require a license for the media. Although this can be argued as "inevitably obvious" you'll have a tough time proving this considering no companies with legal standing were taking advantage of what Napster had developed. But that doesn't mean Napster doesn't have a case against ZapMedia. Oh what a tangled web we've weaved. LOL

Its possible that ZapMedia took advantage of the Napster issue or saw that Napster could evolve and filed a patent although it should be noted the first suit against Napster wasn't filed until Dec 99.
 
This will just go under the table and we will hear nothing more just like every other one.
 
tehblue said:
What you see as obvious inevitability was not that obvious in 1999 when the company filed the patent. What other services were out at that time or even close that fit within their claim? They were specific to what they intended to patent. What you see as commonplace now was not so common then. Did you ever consider streaming HD content in 1999, what about an online OS? The patent has to be looked at from when it was filed, not from what is "obvious" now.

What I do agree with you is that I'm the last person to defend Apple as well however the real problem is the US Patent System. A reform is necessary however all ideas that were put forth have their drawbacks.
Click to expand...


You make it sound like they were not already doing this in 1999. The patent is and was a joke. A thief is a thief. It doesn't matter if you are picking pocket, conning old people out of their retirement money or if you are a IP grifter filing bogus patent claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top