Patent suit targets Apple over iTunes' 'information distribution'

[AppleInsider]

Apple and its iTunes store has been grouped with a number of mainstream media outlets in a new lawsuit regarding a patent of distribution and processing of information online.

Online News Link, a California-based company, holds claim to U.S. Patent No. 7,508,789, which covers the transmission of digital information through a broadcast channel and bi-directional channel. The company has alleged that Apple has infringed on that patent.

"Defendant Apple infringes, either directly or indirectly, through its operation of iTunes and the email and Web-based products, systems, and services offered via iTunes," the suit, filed in a U.S. District Court this week, reads.

The patent was granted on March 24, 2009. It describes a system that allows quick search and retrieval of broadcast information via the Internet.

"The amount of information delivered is preferably sufficient to satisfy the needs of a large number of subscribers so they do not have to obtain additional information using the bi-directional channel," the patent reads. "The broadcast information is stored on fast storage media located at subscriber sites."

In addition to Apple, Online News Link's suit targets Dow Jones & Company, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes Media, Forbes.com, TheStreet.com, Morningstar, A.H. Belo Corporation, and The Dallas Morning News. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, where complainants often file in hopes of a favorable outcome.

Online News Link patent: "Information Distribution and Processing System."

"Each Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement, directly and/or through agents and intermediaries, by offering for sale, selling, and distributing certain infringing products, services, and systems in Texas and, particularly, the Eastern District of Texas," the suit reads. "Each Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, services, and systems into the stream of commerce."

Online News Link has requested a trial by jury, and asserts that it is entitled to damages and costs incurred by the company.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[OnePotato]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"Each Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement, directly and/or through agents and intermediaries, by offering for sale, selling, and distributing certain infringing products, services, and systems in Texas and, particularly, the Eastern District of Texas," the suit reads. "Each Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, services, and systems into the stream of commerce."

Quick fix here, just don't allow the infringing products, services, and systems to be sold in Texas, and, particularly, the Eastern District of Texas.

[SuperMacGuy]

"Information Distribution" You're F***in kiddin me? That covers every communication ever. He should sue Tim Berners Lee for inventing the internet.

[Guartho]

Yeah... reads to me like someone was granted a 2009 patent on networking computers.

[Aaargh!]

"(...) and distributing certain infringing products, services, and systems in Texas and, particularly, the Eastern District of Texas,"

This would be the district of texas with the patent-suit-friendly judge, right ?

[DJRumpy]

Hopefully the Supreme Court will put a stop to this madness. You have to wonder at some point if someone doesn't poke their head into the Patent Office management headquarters and simply say WTF are you guys doing? Getting a patent on an 'idea' without any tangible means (infrastructure/manufacturing) to produce a product or tangible product resulting from the patent is just stupid.

[JSmith]

How about we allow North Korea to do their next nuke test in east Texas? They'll get a kick out of it, and we'll be rid of a problem.

Win-win.

[MadCow42]

Originally Posted by Guartho

Yeah... reads to me like someone was granted a 2009 patent on networking computers.

Ok, but when was the patent FILED? That's the date that counts, not the issue date. It could have been filed in 1977 and only now been granted. Read up on "submarine patents" on google to see how companies do that on purpose in order to ambush people later on with infringement.

MadCow.

[DJRumpy]

Originally Posted by MadCow42

Ok, but when was the patent FILED? That's the date that counts, not the issue date. It could have been filed in 1977 and only now been granted. Read up on "submarine patents" on google to see how companies do that on purpose in order to ambush people later on with infringement.

MadCow.

Doesn't matter. This is a basic method of doing business in a technological age. The patent law was never designed to limit business in this way.

From the link above:

The patent system is intended to protect and promote advances in science and technology, not ideas about how to structure commercial transactions. Claim 1 of the application . . . is not eligible for patent protection because it is directed to a method of conducting business. Affording patent protection to business methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves to hinder rather than promote innovation and usurps that which rightfully belongs in the public domain. State Street and AT&T should be overruled.
Pointing to the Statute of Monopolies and the public hostility to the “odious monopolies,” he concluded that when Congress enacted the first patent statute (in language substantially unchanged to this day in regard to patent-eligibility), Congress did not want the system to allow patents on methods of conducting trade.[12] State Street was a grave error. “Before State Street led us down the wrong path, this court had rightly concluded that patents were designed to protect technological innovations, not ideas about the best way to run a business.”

[cranfordio]

This patent was filed in July, 2007. I don't think Apple would have a hard time citing previous work considering the iTunes store was around for more than 4 years prior to the filing date.

[azcodemonkey]

Originally Posted by cranfordio

This patent was filed in July, 2007. I don't think Apple would have a hard time citing previous work considering the iTunes store was around for more than 4 years prior to the filing date.

From the patent:

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/073,124, filed Feb. 9, 2002 now abandoned; which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/812,003, filed Mar. 19, 2001 (now U.S. Pat No. 6,349,409); which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/434,413, filed Nov. 4, 1999 (now U.S. Pat No. 6,317,785); which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/939,368, filed Sep. 29, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,021,307); which is a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/644,838, filed May 10, 1996 (now abandoned); which is a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/279,424, filed Jul. 25, 1994 (now abandoned); and application Ser. No. 08/255,649, filed Jun. 8, 1994 (now abandoned); which is a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/224,280, filed Apr. 7, 1994 (now abandoned); all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

It's a continuation of multiple filings. I'm guessing that all the abandoned ones were due to the filer(s) realizing the complete lack of novelty in the patent. Technically, one could say that port 80 is the broadcast channel, and port 443 is the bi-directional channel for one-to-one communication(which could route to a different server). This patent should be invalidated. It's not novel, nor is it non-obvious. Streaming media is another application of this. Port 80(http) displays the references to the streams served up by another piece of hardware to a specific user on a different channel(port).

If they are granted a jury trial, the only way to win is with a completely ignorant and/or stupid jury. If the jury awards them a win, the judge should smack them down and say they are incapable of understanding the evidence.

[D.J. Adequate]

I know I should study this more, but I swear that patent image just looks like a standard network drawing.

"It like, we store stuff on our server that people want--and then people access it. If they don't find what they want, they can email us."

I love our patent office.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple and its iTunes store has been grouped with a number of mainstream media outlets in a new lawsuit regarding a patent of distribution and processing of information online. ...

This is probably beyond the capabilities of the "automated slave," but this article hasn't got enough information on what the patent is to make any judgement or comment on the article.

On the face of it, it covers all broadcasting everywhere, yet the patent is specifically not mentioning podcasts, which by Apple Insiders description of the patent would seem central to the issue, but it somehow isn't? There just isn't enough information here to have an opinion one way or the other on who is right.

[technohermit]

What do they at the USPTO consider subscribers, and storage/retrieval from a network? Would any website anywhere be guilty of this infringement? I think they would grant a patent for something like watching TV these days. Someone stop the madness please

[SpamSandwich]

I'd have to read the patent in detail, but this seems to be the most ridiculous patent I've seen in a while... There is so much prior art it would blow this patent away at the slightest challenge. Completely absurd.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I'd have to read the patent in detail, but this seems to be the most ridiculous patent I've seen in a while... There is so much prior art it would blow this patent away at the slightest challenge. Completely absurd.

You probably don't have to read the patent in more detail. I think your analysis from afar is adequate. The problem here is that such a patent was ever granted.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by DJRumpy

Hopefully the Supreme Court will put a stop to this madness. You have to wonder at some point if someone doesn't poke their head into the Patent Office management headquarters and simply say WTF are you guys doing? Getting a patent on an 'idea' without any tangible means (infrastructure/manufacturing) to produce a product or tangible product resulting from the patent is just stupid.

more and more cases like this (idea with no practical implementation)are being shot down. a kin to the notion that you can't copyright an idea only the form you give it. which is why you can have twilight, true blood, moonlight etc all out there for the world to get their vamp on.

Also, when they did they apply for this patent. it seems in July 2007. When was itunes and even dot mac started. these are the services they say violate their patent. the itunes store was April 2003. dotmac as itools was 2000.

and as someone else pointed out, the whole of the internet, especially the web, could be said to be in violation. although it has existed well before July 2007

[Rot'nApple]

I don't know who works at the Patent Office but they really need to rethink the applications they receive regarding universalness of the idea... That's like awarding a patent for breathing or electricity! What then? Is God going to sue for infringement of His breathing idea and Mother Nature will sue for the alteration of lightening altered to use as electricity?!

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by azcodemonkey

It's a continuation of multiple filings. I'm guessing that all the abandoned ones were due to the filer(s) realizing the complete lack of

not a single one of which predates the Internet or the World Wide Web,which is the model for how the 'offending' services work.

in the end, all Apple has to do it dig up the various cases where a patent for a vague idea has been rejected, put together a statement showing that in fact that is what this new patent is and file for a summary judgement.

as you say unless the judge is a moron it is a win for Apple

And then perhaps all these targeted companies could ban together to get it determined and stated once and for all that you can not patent an idea but must have the method and technology spelled out, and perhaps even get the filing laws changed so that you must file all suits in the district where one of the parties actually is (as is typical of all other lawsuits) and stop this East Texas nonsense

[mac_dog]

Originally Posted by JSmith

How about we allow North Korea to do their next nuke test in east Texas? They'll get a kick out of it, and we'll be rid of a problem.

Win-win.

why stop with just eastern texas? as far as i'm concerned, we could do without the entire state.

[mrstep]

Wait, I have an idea - the USPTO sucks, but that's a 'real world' idea and not patentable. Now if I do this:

Figure 1

10 PRINT "THE USPTO SUCKS"; GOTO 10

An algorithmic approach, as shown in Figure 1, with which the USPTO sucks and then continues to suck over and over again.


See, I can actually patent the concept of the current patent system.

Anyway, at least someone finally patented the idea of a table of contents - the shopping cart idea wasn't asinine enough.

[Damn_Its_Hot]

Originally Posted by mac_dog

why stop with just eastern texas? as far as i'm concerned, we could do without the entire state.

Some of us feel the same about you!

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by azcodemonkey

From the patent:


It's a continuation of multiple filings. I'm guessing that all the abandoned ones were due to the filer(s) realizing the complete lack of novelty in the patent. Technically, one could say that port 80 is the broadcast channel, and port 443 is the bi-directional channel for one-to-one communication(which could route to a different server). This patent should be invalidated. It's not novel, nor is it non-obvious. Streaming media is another application of this. Port 80(http) displays the references to the streams served up by another piece of hardware to a specific user on a different channel(port).

If they are granted a jury trial, the only way to win is with a completely ignorant and/or stupid jury. If the jury awards them a win, the judge should smack them down and say they are incapable of understanding the evidence.

and the original itunes store came out in 2002. before that there was napster and amazon

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by DJRumpy

Getting a patent on an 'idea' without any tangible means (infrastructure/manufacturing) to produce a product or tangible product resulting from the patent is just stupid.

What is a tangible product? Does a working prototype count?
If not, Tesla, Edison and others would never have been given many of the patents they received.
Someone goes to a manufacturer with an idea and the manufacturer says, "Great idea! We'll have it", then files for a patents and it's theirs?
Simply because Joe Inventor did not have ANY infrastructure/manufacturing to produce a product?

[RoboNerd]

This is why software patents must be abolished. They do not drive innovation; they can only stifle it.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by MadCow42

Ok, but when was the patent FILED? That's the date that counts, not the issue date. It could have been filed in 1977 and only now been granted. Read up on "submarine patents" on google to see how companies do that on purpose in order to ambush people later on with infringement.

MadCow.

It was filed in 2007 and iTunes existed before that.

[DJRumpy]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

What is a tangible product? Does a working prototype count?
If not, Tesla, Edison and others would never have been given many of the patents they received.
Someone goes to a manufacturer with an idea and the manufacturer says, "Great idea! We'll have it", then files for a patents and it's theirs?
Simply because Joe Inventor did not have ANY infrastructure/manufacturing to produce a product?

Two words: Prior Art

All the inventor has to do is publish his work. Anywhere will do, including the internet. Someone trying to get a patent would have a large list of rules to overcome before it could be granted.

• If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• If the invention were publicly known in the US, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• In each of these three cases we would say that the earlier reference of knowledge is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing.
  
• If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• If the invention in question was publicly used in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
  
• If the device, machine or compound in question was offered for sale in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.

[emoeric87]

In other news, I hereby decree that I plan to sue the internet for on charges of copyright infringement!

What is being patent infringed, you ask?! The use of words gathered into sentences to convey information!

I have my rights!!

[David Steuber]

http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,508,789

As you can see, it was applied for in 2007. There is a huge amount of prior art. How the USPTO came to grant this patent is truly amazing. At least the information is there to know who to fire.

[Maximara]

Originally Posted by David Steuber

http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,508,789

As you can see, it was applied for in 2007. There is a huge amount of prior art. How the USPTO came to grant this patent is truly amazing. At least the information is there to know who to fire.

The USPTO is run by clueless morons that make Homer Simpson look like a genius. If we are lucky In re Bilski may end this nonsense.