Apple, Google, Napster sued over digital download patent
Digital download icons Apple Computer, Google and Napster are on the receiving end of a new lawsuit claiming patent infringement.
According to the New York Times, defunct video-on-demand company, Intertainer, last week filed a broad lawsuit asserting that three companies are infringing on a 2005 patent that covers the commercial distribution of audio and video over the Internet.
The paper said the Intertainer -- founded in 1996 by a veteran film producer and two Hollywood entertainment executives -- developed technology to distribute movies on demand through cable and phone lines for viewing on televisions and personal computers.
Before ceasing operations five years ago, Intertainer's investors were reported to included industry heavyweights such as Intel, Microsoft, Sony, NBC and Comcast.
"Intertainer was the leader of the idea of entertainment on demand over Internet platforms before Google was even thought up," Jonathan T. Taplin, one of the company's founders, told the Times.
Lawyers representing Mr. Taplin told the paper that the suit targets Apple, Google and Napster because "they were perceived as leaders in the market for digital downloads."
Intertainer is said to hold nine patents, including United States Patent No. 6,925,469, which was issued in 2005 and is intended to cover the management and distribution of digital media from various suppliers.
However, the Times cites digital media experts who say Intertainer might have a difficult time enforcing its patent because of its relatively recent filing date of 2001.
By that time, the paper said, Real Networks, for example, had already begun an Internet subscription service for digital content.
According to the New York Times, defunct video-on-demand company, Intertainer, last week filed a broad lawsuit asserting that three companies are infringing on a 2005 patent that covers the commercial distribution of audio and video over the Internet.
The paper said the Intertainer -- founded in 1996 by a veteran film producer and two Hollywood entertainment executives -- developed technology to distribute movies on demand through cable and phone lines for viewing on televisions and personal computers.
Before ceasing operations five years ago, Intertainer's investors were reported to included industry heavyweights such as Intel, Microsoft, Sony, NBC and Comcast.
"Intertainer was the leader of the idea of entertainment on demand over Internet platforms before Google was even thought up," Jonathan T. Taplin, one of the company's founders, told the Times.
Lawyers representing Mr. Taplin told the paper that the suit targets Apple, Google and Napster because "they were perceived as leaders in the market for digital downloads."
Intertainer is said to hold nine patents, including United States Patent No. 6,925,469, which was issued in 2005 and is intended to cover the management and distribution of digital media from various suppliers.
However, the Times cites digital media experts who say Intertainer might have a difficult time enforcing its patent because of its relatively recent filing date of 2001.
By that time, the paper said, Real Networks, for example, had already begun an Internet subscription service for digital content.
Comments
Better yet, how about patenting the general accessing of a webpage. I could see that being considered as on-demand as well.
...Lawyers representing Mr. Taplin told the paper that the suit targets Apple, Google and Napster because "they were perceived as leaders in the market for digital downloads."
....
However, the Times cites digital media experts who say Intertainer might have a difficult time enforcing its patent because of its relatively recent filing date of 2001.
By that time, the paper said, Real Networks, for example, had already begun an Internet subscription service for digital content.
Hmmm. I wonder why they aren't suing Real Networks?
Hmmm. I wonder why they aren't suing Real Networks?
Probably because Apple is the most successful and the lawsuit is baseless and without merit.
I guess they don't own an iPod?
By that time, the paper said, Real Networks, for example, had already begun an Internet subscription service for digital content.
I'm pretty sure there were lots of subscription services for digital content way before then. AOL springs to mind instantly in the USA and Compuserve in the UK.
Lawyers in the USA really should be disbarred for taking on such stupid law suits for their clients.
Just because a patent has been issued does not mean it may go unchallenged. There is a ton of prior art in this case, after all.
Hmmm. I wonder why they aren't suing Real Networks?
Or Walmart or Yahoo or Microsoft or or or.....
Besides, intellectual property--and specifically patents--are the Devil's business.
Hey, it's a brand new year! Macworld is just 6 days away! Don't we have better things to discuss?
Can I patent the drive-thru for on-demand eats?
Sadly, you probably could.
...Lawyers in the USA really should be disbarred for taking on such stupid law suits for their clients.
hear hear!
down with those who tries to milk anything for money
Or Walmart or Yahoo or Microsoft or or or.....
At least for Microsoft, probably because the article starts they were one of the primary investors in the patent holding company.
And where are the ads on this site coming from? I understand seeing computer ads and the like but earlier the ads on one page included anal beads and the adds with this included hernia support underwear. Unless market research states that Mac users are major users of such products, maybe...
Hey, it's a brand new year! Macworld is just 6 days away! Don't we have better things to discuss?
Nothing that hasn't already been beaten to death, then beaten several more times for good measure.