Apple gains control of critical digital download patent
A recent out-of-court settlement between Apple Computer and a Vermont-based inventor has landed Apple the rights to a prestigious software design patent that may allow the company to seek royalties on a broad spectrum of digital downloads.
Michael Starkweather, a lawyer and author of the 10-year old patent, issued a statement on Thursday calling it a "billion dollar patent" that will have affects on the future of the "cell phone, iPod and PDA" industries.
"I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos," he said.
Starkweather, who wrote the patent in 1996 for David Contois of Essex Junction, Vt.-based Contois Music Technology, said the inventor originally didn't show interest in patenting the idea nor did he understand its value.
The initial concept consisted of a desktop computer holding multiple songs with an interface that allowed a hotel guest to select three songs and play them on an electric grand piano.
Realizing that downloading movies was an obvious variation to downloading music, Starkweather broke the patent into three elements; remote music storage, selection of music to download and playing music on a music device.
"Sometimes it's easy to break an invention down to its key components," he said. "That's why patent writing is an art, not a science, and requires creativity."
In June of 2005, Contois asked a Vermont District Court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Apple from further distributing its iTunes software. In a 10-page complaint, which was first reported on AppleInsider, lawyers charged the Cupertino, Calif.-based iPod maker with "copying" and "willfully infringing" on Contois design patent in developing the digital jukebox software.
The suit stated that Contois conceived and developed a computer interface for playing music on an internal or external computer-responsive music device, which he then exhibited at the 1995 COMDEX trade show and the 1996 NAMM music industry trade show. According to the filing, people who were at the time employed by or later became employed by Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software. The suit alleged Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for iTunes.
Specifically, the filing documented 19 interface aspects of the Apple software that it claimed were in direct violation of Contois' patent. The areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
Following a 15-hour negotiating this September, Contois and Apple ended their dispute by reaching an out-of-court settlement. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Michael Starkweather, a lawyer and author of the 10-year old patent, issued a statement on Thursday calling it a "billion dollar patent" that will have affects on the future of the "cell phone, iPod and PDA" industries.
"I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos," he said.
Starkweather, who wrote the patent in 1996 for David Contois of Essex Junction, Vt.-based Contois Music Technology, said the inventor originally didn't show interest in patenting the idea nor did he understand its value.
The initial concept consisted of a desktop computer holding multiple songs with an interface that allowed a hotel guest to select three songs and play them on an electric grand piano.
Realizing that downloading movies was an obvious variation to downloading music, Starkweather broke the patent into three elements; remote music storage, selection of music to download and playing music on a music device.
"Sometimes it's easy to break an invention down to its key components," he said. "That's why patent writing is an art, not a science, and requires creativity."
In June of 2005, Contois asked a Vermont District Court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Apple from further distributing its iTunes software. In a 10-page complaint, which was first reported on AppleInsider, lawyers charged the Cupertino, Calif.-based iPod maker with "copying" and "willfully infringing" on Contois design patent in developing the digital jukebox software.
The suit stated that Contois conceived and developed a computer interface for playing music on an internal or external computer-responsive music device, which he then exhibited at the 1995 COMDEX trade show and the 1996 NAMM music industry trade show. According to the filing, people who were at the time employed by or later became employed by Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software. The suit alleged Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for iTunes.
Specifically, the filing documented 19 interface aspects of the Apple software that it claimed were in direct violation of Contois' patent. The areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
Following a 15-hour negotiating this September, Contois and Apple ended their dispute by reaching an out-of-court settlement. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Comments
So are the movie and TV houses who want to have their own download services.
OOH!
Funny how Wednesday the Universal CEO says he wants part of the iPod sales, and the next day, a story is out letting everyone know who owns the right to profit from "every single digital download".
My guess is Universal & MS, always underestimate the wrath of Steve Jobs when it comes to consumers getting screwed.
My guess is Universal will very, very soon, SHUT the hell up :-)
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
I guess it's not as bad as patenting the peanut butter jelly sandwich
Just for the record the Apple Legal team was up late last night figuring out how to let Universal know that they hold an Ace card.
With the strength of this I doubt they were up very late.
Also, there has to be a lot to this patent that is hidden. Obviously it isn't just a patent on a concept of downloading, I'd like to see exactly what it entails.
I guess it's not as bad as patenting the peanut butter jelly sandwich
Thankfully for the dignity of the human race, that peanut butter and jelly sandwich patent was rejected on appeal
..Also, there has to be a lot to this patent that is hidden...
That's why it's so easy to "violate" a patent, no one will tell you until you actually make something out of whatever it is that may be patented.
Remember a dollar on ever ipod sold to date is only 67,000,000. It could quickly cost as much trying to defend oneself from a lawsuit from Apple about this. So Universal will shut up.
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
Are you being hyperbolic or hysterical? Really... Calm down, sit down and RTFA.
Realizing that downloading movies was an obvious variation to downloading music, Starkweather broke the patent into three elements; remote music storage, selection of music to download and playing music on a music device.
Translation: iTunes Store, iTunes Store and the iPod.
Ta-Da!
Also, there has to be a lot to this patent that is hidden. Obviously it isn't just a patent on a concept of downloading, I'd like to see exactly what it entails.
That's why it's so easy to "violate" a patent, no one will tell you until you actually make something out of whatever it is that may be patented.
It's my understanding that all patent are on file for anyone to inspect and get copies to study. It's public knowledge once it's patented, which is why some companies rely on keeping it a trade secret, and patenting only if necessary. As long as everything is well documented, a company can prove it was first with the idea if it becomes necessary to apply for a patent.
If I'm not mistaken, once you apply for a patent, your application is available to the public, which makes it vulnerable. Not all patents are granted, and everyone knows what you tried to patent.
I guess it's not as bad as patenting the peanut butter jelly sandwich
And if you're an Austrailian man, patenting the wheel.
A recent out-of-court settlement between Apple Computer and a Vermont-based inventor has landed Apple the rights to a prestigious software design patent that may allow the company to seek royalties on a broad spectrum of digital downloads.
Following a 15-hour negotiating this September, Contois and Apple ended their dispute by reaching an out-of-court settlement. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
(Bold Italics mine)
Uh............,
They may just have a license or an agreement to use the tech. The "Vermont-based inventor" could still and probably does retain the rights to the patent and will be cashing in from others.
Nothing about this reads exclusive rights to the patent or the patent has traded ownership, etc.
I mean, I have removed it :P
It's my understanding that all patent are on file for anyone to inspect and get copies to study. It's public knowledge once it's patented, .... If I'm not mistaken, once you apply for a patent, your application is available to the public, which makes it vulnerable.
Close, but not quite. First, rules vary by country. In the U.S., yes, patents that have been *issued* are publically available: visit http://uspto.gov and follow links for "Patents". The *timing* of such publication, however, varies. When working with the corporate lawyers for my first patent application (back in '95), they said there was a simple difference in publication rules: in Europe, the application was published more or less immediately upon filing, whereas in the U.S., it wasn't published until (and unless) the patent was granted - typically 3 to 5 years later. On my most-recent filing (Jan, '06), the team then (different lawyers, different company) said it had gotten, um, more nuanced (a.k.a. confusing), and that the rules in Europe and the U.S. were converging.
Also, the applicant (more often the applicant's employer
Anyway, as to the case at hand, it's patent #5,864,868. Here's the abstract:
A computer system and method for controlling a media playing device. The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accessed or selected piece of media. In one embodiment there is a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical music. Another embodiment allows the user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to a selected music category. Another embodiment allows a user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to the selected music composer or artist.
Go here to read the full patent.
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
This is a design patent, not a method patent. The author patented a certain configuration of visual elements for some purpose. Thus, Apple doesn't have a patent on downloading or selecting the music, only the manner in which it's done (certain menu organizations, placements, etc).
This seems like the sort of patent Apple likes to have so they themselves don't get sued, and to provide a counter-suit in the case they get sued for some other patent infringement. I highly doubt Apple is going to go after anyone over this patent in the absence of other mitigating circumstances.
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
Good rant.
But, it's not the fact that something was done in some way in the past. That has little to do with it. a patent is not allowed for an idea, but rather, an expression of that idea.
HOW this is done is the basic of the patent. By downloading a file that is a song is different than downloading that same file in a manner that can be used by different devices without having to do anything with that file, other than to play it.
In other words, people can be doing something in a poor way. When someone comes up with a much better way do do it, that may be worthy of a patent.
"Patent writing is an art not a science"... man oh man, that is exactly what makes it so hellishly scary.
I also got a chill when I read the AI article. I love Apple, but patents in general have gotten out of hand. I don't care how much I love Apple, even they shouldn't have this sort of power over technology (if it's true that they gained control over the patent, it actually holds true weight, yadda yadda).