Yea but do foreigh fillings have a weight or bearing in the US?
If they were granted the equivalent of a patent lets say for example in Japan, is that patent and filing recognized in the US?
The 1997 filling sounds like it was not enforced until now, not sure it is valid, the 2002 filling (took 5 years) to be finaly accepted and they are trying to enforce it now with previous US art in place.
Not a lawyer, but this does not smell right.
There are various treaties between countries that govern this. In general the great majority of countries will respect the priority dates set in other countries. Submarining of patents is controlled by limiting the time given from the grant in one country to the filing in other countries. This patent likely has a 1997 priority date.
patents need to be defended soon after either they been granted or soon after a device or invention is determined by the patent holder to be infringing on their patent. To my knowledge, failing to defend the patent vigorously, makes it difficult or imposible to defend far into the future.
LOL, I could be wrong, failed law school.
Unlike trademarks this is not generally the case. One reason is that prosecution of patent infringement is very expensive - typically a minimum of $1,000,000 (thank the lawyers) - so that until there is economic incentive to prosecute (i.e. the violator is making enough profit) violators are not typically pursued.
I just read the patent, and frankly, from my understanding of electronics, which is fairly broad, this consists of numerous parts that are not patentable, in and of themselves, or are so broadly defined, so as to be useless.
A patent must describe the device, or process to such an extent, that anyone with the required abilities, and materials can build a fairly exact duplicate.
This app is not that at all. The descriptions are often so vague, that one must have extensive knowledge of the subject to be able to design the various parts themselves.
While many patents are process related, and don't describe the process steps in detail, this seems further removed.
In fairness, I have read several of Apple's patent apps that are every bit as vague. I'm not certain that they are any more valid, if challenged.
The problem is that in recent years the Appeals court that oversees patents has broadened the "obviousness" doctrine to such an extent that patents are being issued that would never have been, before the court was created in the '80's.
The Supreme Court is now involved in a couple of important cases which may roll back much of that laxity.
So after reading the patent, I'm actually more confused as to what they patented. A playback method for MP3? That's kinda strange. Especially since the patent was filed in 2006, and wouldn't they need permission from the creators of MP3 to do anything with the codec? SUE THEM Alcatel-Lucent!!!! SUE THEM!!!!
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
You can't patent an idea. You must patent either a device, or process, based upon that idea. But, the idea itself can be used by others.
An example is the auto level electronic flash. Honeywell invented that. Other manufacturers used its principals, and were properly sued by Honeywell. Honeywell won, and the others were required to pay them a royalty.
While the idea of the auto level electronic flash could have been used by anyone, the patent that Honeywell applied for, and was issued, was so simple, cheap, and effective, than no one wanted to bother coming up with an alternative—but they COULD have. The idea of the auto level electronic flash was not patentable.
In two other cases, patents were issued in error.
Some time ago, someone applied for a patent on swiveling handles for a wheelbarrow. He included all drawings of the handles—and the wheelbarrow to which they were attached.
He was issued a patent for: Wheelbarrow, with swiveling handles.
He tried to sue for royalties for wheelbarrows, and his patent was swiftly negated in court.
A friend of mine patented curved vanes (to more efficently circulate the liquid) for silver recovery units. He was issued a patent for the entire concept of silver recovery units.
Obviously, that couldn't stand either. He had to re-file.
Unlike trademarks this is not generally the case. One reason is that prosecution of patent infringement is very expensive - typically a minimum of $1,000,000 (thank the lawyers) - so that until there is economic incentive to prosecute (i.e. the violator is making enough profit) violators are not typically pursued.
In addition to what you said, patent holders, if they are small companies, or individuals, often wait until the business using the patent has built itself up to such an extent that the suit will bring in far more money than it would have, if it had been attempted right away.
As past income, and profits, are considered to be recoverable, even though the patent holder may have waited until the patent would expire, there is little reason to rush into it.
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
While overall I don't disagree it is usually easy to deal with the current situation if a company is diligent up front in finding applicable patent and negotiating reasonable terms with the owner(s).
As it is reasonably easy to research the patents I would be almost certain the Apple is/was well aware of this patent, at least the 1997 version, and has a strategy in place to address this. It may well be that they expect this to pass muster if challenged in court. We'll see.
Dump MP3 is just part of the solution, I think it's about time Apple start patenting every Apple software and hardware possible and suit or counter suit anyone to make this more entertaining.
Let's keep those hard-nosed lawyers busy, god forbid, they all went to law schools to make tons of money. We have laws so we can suit and counter suit each other for fun, excitement and if nothing else... it makes good news!
I did a quick read of the pattent so maybe I got it wrong, but to me it looks like they patented the idea of a handheld device that plays music and has a menu with foward, back, etc where the music is encoded using MP3 and decoded for play by the device. If I am correct, and this is a valid patent, then all MP3 players including the iPOD, and the iPhone are in trouble.
On the other hand, Apple could just as easily have formed 'patent teams' to invent a variety of ingenious ways they could exploit and patent existing, and up and coming technologies for use with Apple devices and Apple's areas of strength. From personal experience, I've seen time and again larger companies (Apple included) who cannot see the forest for the trees on new technologies and their impact on their business. If I were Jobs, I'd make sure individuals and teams of "skunk-works" outside of Apple were up and running. Immediately. It continues to cost Apple a bloody fortune every time they get forced into some kind of licensing agreement or settlement. Tackling the problem at the bottom would be a heck of a lot cheaper.
Yeah, two can play the game. It's just pathetic that this game has to take place. It's obscene the legal fees for some of these things, and I work at a law firm.
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
I absolutely agree with you - mainly because I also had the idea independently
You should get three years to actually implement your idea in a product put to market or the idea becomes prior art.
I am not up to speed with all the constituents of the mad tsunami of patents that is threatening the delivery of digital music at the moment but I seem to recall there was a biggie in the form of a patent on the very idea of downloading music from a an itunes type store as well as the iTunes interface. Now we have the mp3 player and the encoding of MP3 files.
I actually hope we get a couple more all encompassing biggies emerge soon then even the geriatric legislators will be able to see that the whole patent eco system has become dysfunctional.
Who will step forward in a weeks time to announce that they have a previously obscure patent which covers the whole mobile phone idea?
I am sorry to tell you all this but I happen to have a patent on the idea of breathing and I believe you are all functioning without having obtained a proper license so if you wish to continue breathing you can send your Paypal payments to.....
I absolutely agree with you - mainly because I also had the idea independently
You should get three years to actually implement your idea in a product put to market or the idea becomes prior art.
I don't think that would be fair to independent inventors, or very small companies.
A large number of inventions that are patented are to those folks who do so on their own dime, and have no way to produce the invention.
They often go around to companies in the business their invention would serve, but are turned down. The problem independents find, is there is the "not invented here, by someone who knows the business" aspect.
If after several frustrating years of attempting to persuade companies to take their invention on, and the lack of the financial industry to back these risky ventures, and lacking funds to search the relevant journals, and markets, for infringement, years later, sometimes by chance, the inventor finds their product being produced by someone else after all.
How do you intend to allow for that? My idea has always been to require the inventor make an effort, within his(her) financial means to get the invention produced. After that, nothing more can, or should be expected. But, the inventor still deserves the right to reward, if, and when someone else copies it, or works it out for themselves.
That's what patent searches are for. Large companies employ patent attorneys for that purpose. They should be the ones on the hook.
It's a valid patent, but it's playing dirty and i hope they lose. I also believe that mp3 technology should now be abandoned for obvious reasons, the liscencing bullshit is horrible. I also hope that Microsoft wins its appeal
Dump MP3 is just part of the solution, I think it's about time Apple start patenting every Apple software and hardware possible and suit or counter suit anyone to make this more entertaining.
What makes you think they don't?
This is all just a big game, and the only winners are the lawyers.
Some no-name company buys a patent and think "I can sue everybody". Then everybody else brandishes their patent portfolios and says "OK, and now you will be sued for violating these hundred patents". The lawyers yell at each other, and ultimately decide to settle out of court, usually with little or no money changing hands (except to the lawyers, of course.)
I did a quick read of the pattent so maybe I got it wrong, but to me it looks like they patented the idea of a handheld device that plays music and has a menu with foward, back, etc where the music is encoded using MP3 and decoded for play by the device. If I am correct, and this is a valid patent, then all MP3 players including the iPOD, and the iPhone are in trouble.
I hope I got it wrong.
There's no right or wrong anymore, haven't you heard? 8)
It's either 1. go to court and fight it out or 2. settle outside of court.
patents need to be defended soon after either they been granted or soon after a device or invention is determined by the patent holder to be infringing on their patent. ]
LOL, I could be wrong, failed law school.
You are wrong. A patent remains valid whether it is defended or not, as long as you continue to pay the maintenance fees. You lose the right to get royalties from past infringement if you ignore it for a certain number of years (google "patent laches"), but you can still demand licensing terms for current infringement and, if the current infringer refuses, file a lawsuit against him demanding that he either cease and desist using your patented technology or license it.
Regarding foreign inventions, the U.S. is signatory to WTO/WIPO treaties requiring that it grant priority rights to inventions patented by other signatories of those treaties, so if the first portable mp3 player was invented in 1997 by a guy in Taiwan, it doesn't matter that he waited until 2002 to actually file for a patent in the United States. As far as time limits are concerned, the only time limit is that a patent be applied for within one year of the invention being publically disclosed (either via publication of the invention in a public forum, or public delivery of the invention to paying customers).
As far as patents protecting small inventors, most patents are assigned by their inventors to their employers as part of their contract of employment, thus inventors rarely profit from patents. Very few independent inventors ever manage to successfully obtain money from large corporations that have infringed upon their patents, because said large corporations have infinitely deep pockets for fighting lawsuits. According to one intellectual property attorney that I consulted, few individual inventors have even made enough from their patent to pay the fees required to file for a patent. The best that an individual inventor nowdays can do with a patent is sell it for a few thousand dollars to one of these "patent enforcement" sharks... but it's the "patent enforcement" shark (generally an attorney who doesn't have to pay attorney fees because he's his own attorney) who makes money off the patent, not the individual inventor. In short, patents no longer protect individual inventors, if they ever did. The patent regime set up in the 1790's when inventors were lone people working in their own workshops and corporations were unknown other than a few heavily-regulated canal companies simply doesn't work in today's day and age of gigantic corporations that have been given the same rights as individuals despite having far more resources than individuals and no individual accountability on the part of their owners.
Comments
Does Alcatel-Lucent know???
Maybe they will sue SigmaTel!
One can only hope.
Yea but do foreigh fillings have a weight or bearing in the US?
If they were granted the equivalent of a patent lets say for example in Japan, is that patent and filing recognized in the US?
The 1997 filling sounds like it was not enforced until now, not sure it is valid, the 2002 filling (took 5 years) to be finaly accepted and they are trying to enforce it now with previous US art in place.
Not a lawyer, but this does not smell right.
There are various treaties between countries that govern this. In general the great majority of countries will respect the priority dates set in other countries. Submarining of patents is controlled by limiting the time given from the grant in one country to the filing in other countries. This patent likely has a 1997 priority date.
patents need to be defended soon after either they been granted or soon after a device or invention is determined by the patent holder to be infringing on their patent. To my knowledge, failing to defend the patent vigorously, makes it difficult or imposible to defend far into the future.
LOL, I could be wrong, failed law school.
Unlike trademarks this is not generally the case. One reason is that prosecution of patent infringement is very expensive - typically a minimum of $1,000,000 (thank the lawyers) - so that until there is economic incentive to prosecute (i.e. the violator is making enough profit) violators are not typically pursued.
A patent must describe the device, or process to such an extent, that anyone with the required abilities, and materials can build a fairly exact duplicate.
This app is not that at all. The descriptions are often so vague, that one must have extensive knowledge of the subject to be able to design the various parts themselves.
While many patents are process related, and don't describe the process steps in detail, this seems further removed.
In fairness, I have read several of Apple's patent apps that are every bit as vague. I'm not certain that they are any more valid, if challenged.
The problem is that in recent years the Appeals court that oversees patents has broadened the "obviousness" doctrine to such an extent that patents are being issued that would never have been, before the court was created in the '80's.
The Supreme Court is now involved in a couple of important cases which may roll back much of that laxity.
We'll see what happens.
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
You can't patent an idea. You must patent either a device, or process, based upon that idea. But, the idea itself can be used by others.
An example is the auto level electronic flash. Honeywell invented that. Other manufacturers used its principals, and were properly sued by Honeywell. Honeywell won, and the others were required to pay them a royalty.
While the idea of the auto level electronic flash could have been used by anyone, the patent that Honeywell applied for, and was issued, was so simple, cheap, and effective, than no one wanted to bother coming up with an alternative—but they COULD have. The idea of the auto level electronic flash was not patentable.
In two other cases, patents were issued in error.
Some time ago, someone applied for a patent on swiveling handles for a wheelbarrow. He included all drawings of the handles—and the wheelbarrow to which they were attached.
He was issued a patent for: Wheelbarrow, with swiveling handles.
He tried to sue for royalties for wheelbarrows, and his patent was swiftly negated in court.
A friend of mine patented curved vanes (to more efficently circulate the liquid) for silver recovery units. He was issued a patent for the entire concept of silver recovery units.
Obviously, that couldn't stand either. He had to re-file.
Unlike trademarks this is not generally the case. One reason is that prosecution of patent infringement is very expensive - typically a minimum of $1,000,000 (thank the lawyers) - so that until there is economic incentive to prosecute (i.e. the violator is making enough profit) violators are not typically pursued.
In addition to what you said, patent holders, if they are small companies, or individuals, often wait until the business using the patent has built itself up to such an extent that the suit will bring in far more money than it would have, if it had been attempted right away.
As past income, and profits, are considered to be recoverable, even though the patent holder may have waited until the patent would expire, there is little reason to rush into it.
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
While overall I don't disagree it is usually easy to deal with the current situation if a company is diligent up front in finding applicable patent and negotiating reasonable terms with the owner(s).
As it is reasonably easy to research the patents I would be almost certain the Apple is/was well aware of this patent, at least the 1997 version, and has a strategy in place to address this. It may well be that they expect this to pass muster if challenged in court. We'll see.
How many companies hold patents to the MP3 format?
I have only one conclusion.
Dump MP3!
Let's keep those hard-nosed lawyers busy, god forbid, they all went to law schools to make tons of money. We have laws so we can suit and counter suit each other for fun, excitement and if nothing else... it makes good news!
I hope I got it wrong.
On the other hand, Apple could just as easily have formed 'patent teams' to invent a variety of ingenious ways they could exploit and patent existing, and up and coming technologies for use with Apple devices and Apple's areas of strength. From personal experience, I've seen time and again larger companies (Apple included) who cannot see the forest for the trees on new technologies and their impact on their business. If I were Jobs, I'd make sure individuals and teams of "skunk-works" outside of Apple were up and running. Immediately. It continues to cost Apple a bloody fortune every time they get forced into some kind of licensing agreement or settlement. Tackling the problem at the bottom would be a heck of a lot cheaper.
Yeah, two can play the game. It's just pathetic that this game has to take place. It's obscene the legal fees for some of these things, and I work at a law firm.
I hope that eventually patents take a form more like trademarks. You either use it (or make vlaid attempts to use it) or lose it. Having an idea isn't enough if you can't figure out how to implement/produce it or simply don't want to impose the tme and expense to market it.
I absolutely agree with you - mainly because I also had the idea independently
You should get three years to actually implement your idea in a product put to market or the idea becomes prior art.
I am not up to speed with all the constituents of the mad tsunami of patents that is threatening the delivery of digital music at the moment but I seem to recall there was a biggie in the form of a patent on the very idea of downloading music from a an itunes type store as well as the iTunes interface. Now we have the mp3 player and the encoding of MP3 files.
I actually hope we get a couple more all encompassing biggies emerge soon then even the geriatric legislators will be able to see that the whole patent eco system has become dysfunctional.
Who will step forward in a weeks time to announce that they have a previously obscure patent which covers the whole mobile phone idea?
I am sorry to tell you all this but I happen to have a patent on the idea of breathing and I believe you are all functioning without having obtained a proper license so if you wish to continue breathing you can send your Paypal payments to.....
I absolutely agree with you - mainly because I also had the idea independently
You should get three years to actually implement your idea in a product put to market or the idea becomes prior art.
I don't think that would be fair to independent inventors, or very small companies.
A large number of inventions that are patented are to those folks who do so on their own dime, and have no way to produce the invention.
They often go around to companies in the business their invention would serve, but are turned down. The problem independents find, is there is the "not invented here, by someone who knows the business" aspect.
If after several frustrating years of attempting to persuade companies to take their invention on, and the lack of the financial industry to back these risky ventures, and lacking funds to search the relevant journals, and markets, for infringement, years later, sometimes by chance, the inventor finds their product being produced by someone else after all.
How do you intend to allow for that? My idea has always been to require the inventor make an effort, within his(her) financial means to get the invention produced. After that, nothing more can, or should be expected. But, the inventor still deserves the right to reward, if, and when someone else copies it, or works it out for themselves.
That's what patent searches are for. Large companies employ patent attorneys for that purpose. They should be the ones on the hook.
Dump MP3 is just part of the solution, I think it's about time Apple start patenting every Apple software and hardware possible and suit or counter suit anyone to make this more entertaining.
What makes you think they don't?
This is all just a big game, and the only winners are the lawyers.
Some no-name company buys a patent and think "I can sue everybody". Then everybody else brandishes their patent portfolios and says "OK, and now you will be sued for violating these hundred patents". The lawyers yell at each other, and ultimately decide to settle out of court, usually with little or no money changing hands (except to the lawyers, of course.)
I did a quick read of the pattent so maybe I got it wrong, but to me it looks like they patented the idea of a handheld device that plays music and has a menu with foward, back, etc where the music is encoded using MP3 and decoded for play by the device. If I am correct, and this is a valid patent, then all MP3 players including the iPOD, and the iPhone are in trouble.
I hope I got it wrong.
There's no right or wrong anymore, haven't you heard? 8)
It's either 1. go to court and fight it out or 2. settle outside of court.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY, BOYS? C'MERE SO I CAN REFRESH YOUR MEMORY...
patents need to be defended soon after either they been granted or soon after a device or invention is determined by the patent holder to be infringing on their patent. ]
LOL, I could be wrong, failed law school.
You are wrong. A patent remains valid whether it is defended or not, as long as you continue to pay the maintenance fees. You lose the right to get royalties from past infringement if you ignore it for a certain number of years (google "patent laches"), but you can still demand licensing terms for current infringement and, if the current infringer refuses, file a lawsuit against him demanding that he either cease and desist using your patented technology or license it.
Regarding foreign inventions, the U.S. is signatory to WTO/WIPO treaties requiring that it grant priority rights to inventions patented by other signatories of those treaties, so if the first portable mp3 player was invented in 1997 by a guy in Taiwan, it doesn't matter that he waited until 2002 to actually file for a patent in the United States. As far as time limits are concerned, the only time limit is that a patent be applied for within one year of the invention being publically disclosed (either via publication of the invention in a public forum, or public delivery of the invention to paying customers).
As far as patents protecting small inventors, most patents are assigned by their inventors to their employers as part of their contract of employment, thus inventors rarely profit from patents. Very few independent inventors ever manage to successfully obtain money from large corporations that have infringed upon their patents, because said large corporations have infinitely deep pockets for fighting lawsuits. According to one intellectual property attorney that I consulted, few individual inventors have even made enough from their patent to pay the fees required to file for a patent. The best that an individual inventor nowdays can do with a patent is sell it for a few thousand dollars to one of these "patent enforcement" sharks... but it's the "patent enforcement" shark (generally an attorney who doesn't have to pay attorney fees because he's his own attorney) who makes money off the patent, not the individual inventor. In short, patents no longer protect individual inventors, if they ever did. The patent regime set up in the 1790's when inventors were lone people working in their own workshops and corporations were unknown other than a few heavily-regulated canal companies simply doesn't work in today's day and age of gigantic corporations that have been given the same rights as individuals despite having far more resources than individuals and no individual accountability on the part of their owners.