I patent the human race and every revised or modified version of it.... now where do I sign up for my royalties. Seriously WTF I hope they go bankrupt trying to sue all these other companies trying to get money out of them
Shazam is an amazing thing, so I don't blame these guys for trying to argue they thought of it first, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing at all to me.
The description of their patent idea here: Sounds to me like what they patented was the idea of taking note of the time it was played and on what station so that their "service" (which was presumably never started or even designed yet), can look it up and tell you what it was that was playing. There is really nothing here to suggest that this is really that similar to Shazam, which analyses the song itself, and doesn't care what source it came from or what time it was played.
I noticed that as well. But Shazam, as was pointed out, doesn't seem to do this at all, rather it analyses the actual song itself, and then goes to a database to see if it's correct. That database isn't from a radio station, but one in a computer.
That seems to be rather different.
It could also be why companies didn't bother responding to them in the past.
Exactly. Is there something I'm missing here or are these guys just another money-grabbing bunch of jerks? The description resembles Shazam's functionality somewhat, but even if that's so, there's no reason to go a huntin for all other companies that are even remotely tied to the Shazam service....
Someone more legal minded than me (ie, everyone...) care to take a dig at this one?
Jimzip
If they invented an idea but couldn't get financing for its development, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to defend their patent.
If anything, it's the company who takes their patent for themselves who hould be sued. After all, they had a choice of several different things they could have done instead.
They could have asked for a license.
They could have gone into business with the patent holder.
They could have bought the patent holder.
They could have developed an alternative way of doing the same thing.
That's the way it normally works.
In this case, it seems as though the methods used by Shazam are different enough from what they've patented so that Tune Hunter will lose the case. But without reading the entire patent, and the exact methods by which Shazam works, we don't really know.
Why are some people here so opposed to the idea of licensing patents? This is a very common way of doing business. A person or small company invents something but is not in a position to follow through or market it, and others who are prepared, license it.
Coming up with an idea is simple. So is filing a patent. Delivering a product which works is the hard part. I have some advise for Tune Hunter: retract the lawsuit. You will lose.
Unfortunately, our patent system is so messed up that you can actually just sit around all day making up wild ideas, patent them, never make any effort to bring them to life, and sit back hoping somebody infringes the idea.
WIth that said, I don't think Apple infringes the stated patent.
Again, you can't patent an idea.
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
And Virgil-TB2 has it right too. You can only patent the method of doing something. Not the idea of doing something. Even though the end result might be very nearly the same, the techniques used are entirely different, with this exception: using the internet to store and retrieve the signatures is a method of sorts. That *should* however fail the obviousness test, and the prior art test (internet database search and retrieval has already been done).
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
My fingernail polish clock idea will use microbial robots that align themselves to properly show the time of day. The robots will be networked so the information is correct. It eventually will be shown to be a cause of cancer but oh well.
My fingernail polish clock idea will use microbial robots that align themselves to properly show the time of day. The robots will be networked so the information is correct. It eventually will be shown to be a cause of cancer but oh well.
If you can show exactly how this would work, then you could patent it.
Whether anyone would want to buy it is another thing altogether.
If you read the patent description, it sounds exactly like the Sony eMarker. The Sony eMarker tagged the time at which you heard a song on the radio. When you docked the device to the computer, it went online and compared the timestamps with playlists for your "favorite" radio stations.
The patent that was actually granted is pretty much an exact description of Shazam. And although the patent was first submitted in 2000, it was revised several times and not granted until 2005. Shazam debuted in 2002. It's going to be an interesting court case if it goes forward, since essentially they managed to get a patent on the prior art of someone else after the fact.
This is the actual patent claim as it was granted in 2005:
Quote:
1. A process of identifying music comprising:
a) providing a portable communication device to be used by a consumer;
b) a service provider providing a music identification device having a database of prerecorded musical works;
c) the consumer recording a segment of music that is audible to the consumer in a location remote from the music identification device using said portable communication device;
d) the consumer transmitting said recorded musical segment from said portable communication device into a central processing unit of the music identification device;
e) the music identification device analyzing and comparing said musical segment to the database of musical works;
f) the music identification device identifying at least one closest match;
g) the music identification device generating database information regarding said at least one closest match; and
h) the music identification device transmitting the database information regarding said at least one closest match to the consumer.
Why are some people here so opposed to the idea of licensing patents? This is a very common way of doing business. A person or small company invents something but is not in a position to follow through or market it, and others who are prepared, license it.
I think the question about a lot of these patents is more whether these ideas/inventions are truly new and not just obvious extensions or progressions of previous ideas or old ideas applied to new areas. (I know its a fine line to have to draw.)
But according to the article this sounds as simple as "I don't have some info (radio station, song, etc), I'll note it and when i have access to the information I'll look it up."
Is this really different then a post it note to remind myself to do something?
Edit: The information Booga provided sounds more like Shazam, but in many cases arguments still hold. What constitutes a patentable idea/implementation aren't there any limits to obviousness.
The description of their patent idea here: Sounds to me like what they patented was the idea of taking note of the time it was played and on what station so that their "service" (which was presumably never started or even designed yet), can look it up and tell you what it was that was playing. There is really nothing here to suggest that this is really that similar to Shazam, which analyses the song itself, and doesn't care what source it came from or what time it was played.
From the patent...
"An alternate embodiment provides the listener with convenient means to record a segment of the music in which he/she is interested. The recorded music segment is played back into an apparatus which can identify the song based on the play back and provide the user with information on the identified song such as title, singer or artist, composer, producer, etc., and provide related purchasing information."
Rocket shoes, banana cameras, touch screen dildos, spring loaded beer, invisible gum, computers for dogs, french fry gardens, fingernail polish clocks, solar powered lifeguard robots. These are all things I came up with off the top of my head in 5 seconds, imagine how rich we could be some day if we hold the patents long enough!
I already have patents pending on touch-screen dildos and spring-loaded beer, and I'll thank you to keep your grubby thoughts OFF my intellectual property.
So what is the process of searching this information? I am a small iPhone developer, and came up with a few ideas. I would hate to bring an app to market only to find that someone had patented the concept.
The patent that was actually granted is pretty much an exact description of Shazam. And although the patent was first submitted in 2000, it was revised several times and not granted until 2005. Shazam debuted in 2002. It's going to be an interesting court case if it goes forward, since essentially they managed to get a patent on the prior art of someone else after the fact.
This is the actual patent claim as it was granted in 2005:
Ah. That's why I said that without reading the actual patent, we can't come to a conclusion.
From this reading, it looks as though they may have a case.
The way it works the process stops upon the patent application. If they changed the patent as technology caught up to them, it would depend on the exact timing of when the revised app was submitted.
I think the question about a lot of these patents is more whether these ideas/inventions are truly new and not just obvious extensions or progressions of previous ideas or old ideas applied to new areas. (I know its a fine line to have to draw.)
But according to the article this sounds as simple as "I don't have some info (radio station, song, etc), I'll note it and when i have access to the information I'll look it up."
Is this really different then a post it note to remind myself to do something?
Edit: The information Booga provided sounds more like Shazam, but in many cases arguments still hold. What constitutes a patentable idea/implementation aren't there any limits to obviousness.
If your extension adds something new to a patented device or process that significantly adds to, or changes the final result, you could get a patent for that. It's perfectly valid.
Your description of the patent isn't what it needs to be. It's the description of exactly how it's done that receives the patent.
There can be dozens of valid patents on how to get the same results, if each patent was a description of a different way to do it, and each wasn't obvious (to the average worker in the field) at the time they applied for the patent.
With hindsight, most things seem to be obvious. And that's the problem with forum arguments about things like this. Once the idea is out, many people think it's obvious. That doesn't mean it was.
Comments
... touch screen dildos...
Holy shit, I love it!!
maybe even solar powered touch screen dildos... think about it!
no, wait.............. solar powered, touch screen with music identifier built in... just call it Shazoom!
Shazam is an amazing thing, so I don't blame these guys for trying to argue they thought of it first, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing at all to me.
The description of their patent idea here: Sounds to me like what they patented was the idea of taking note of the time it was played and on what station so that their "service" (which was presumably never started or even designed yet), can look it up and tell you what it was that was playing. There is really nothing here to suggest that this is really that similar to Shazam, which analyses the song itself, and doesn't care what source it came from or what time it was played.
I noticed that as well. But Shazam, as was pointed out, doesn't seem to do this at all, rather it analyses the actual song itself, and then goes to a database to see if it's correct. That database isn't from a radio station, but one in a computer.
That seems to be rather different.
It could also be why companies didn't bother responding to them in the past.
... touch screen dildos...
Holy shit, I love it!!
maybe even solar powered touch screen... think about it!
no, wait.............. solar powered, touch screen with music identifier built in... just call it Shazoom!
<Edna Krabappel>HAH! </Edna>
Exactly. Is there something I'm missing here or are these guys just another money-grabbing bunch of jerks? The description resembles Shazam's functionality somewhat, but even if that's so, there's no reason to go a huntin for all other companies that are even remotely tied to the Shazam service....
Someone more legal minded than me (ie, everyone...) care to take a dig at this one?
Jimzip
If they invented an idea but couldn't get financing for its development, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to defend their patent.
If anything, it's the company who takes their patent for themselves who hould be sued. After all, they had a choice of several different things they could have done instead.
They could have asked for a license.
They could have gone into business with the patent holder.
They could have bought the patent holder.
They could have developed an alternative way of doing the same thing.
That's the way it normally works.
In this case, it seems as though the methods used by Shazam are different enough from what they've patented so that Tune Hunter will lose the case. But without reading the entire patent, and the exact methods by which Shazam works, we don't really know.
Why are some people here so opposed to the idea of licensing patents? This is a very common way of doing business. A person or small company invents something but is not in a position to follow through or market it, and others who are prepared, license it.
Coming up with an idea is simple. So is filing a patent. Delivering a product which works is the hard part. I have some advise for Tune Hunter: retract the lawsuit. You will lose.
You can't patent an idea.
Unfortunately, our patent system is so messed up that you can actually just sit around all day making up wild ideas, patent them, never make any effort to bring them to life, and sit back hoping somebody infringes the idea.
WIth that said, I don't think Apple infringes the stated patent.
Again, you can't patent an idea.
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
Again, you can't patent an idea.
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
And Virgil-TB2 has it right too. You can only patent the method of doing something. Not the idea of doing something. Even though the end result might be very nearly the same, the techniques used are entirely different, with this exception: using the internet to store and retrieve the signatures is a method of sorts. That *should* however fail the obviousness test, and the prior art test (internet database search and retrieval has already been done).
Again, you can't patent an idea.
You start with an idea. But you must come up with a viable way of implementing that idea. That's what is patentable, not the idea itself.
My fingernail polish clock idea will use microbial robots that align themselves to properly show the time of day. The robots will be networked so the information is correct. It eventually will be shown to be a cause of cancer but oh well.
My fingernail polish clock idea will use microbial robots that align themselves to properly show the time of day. The robots will be networked so the information is correct. It eventually will be shown to be a cause of cancer but oh well.
If you can show exactly how this would work, then you could patent it.
Whether anyone would want to buy it is another thing altogether.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-eMarker/dp/B00004WIMW
http://tinymicros.com/wiki/Sony_eMarker
http://www.bricklin.com/emarker.htm
On the other hand, Shazam actually analyzes and compares the sound from the song with some sort of database of songs.
This is the actual patent claim as it was granted in 2005:
1. A process of identifying music comprising:
a) providing a portable communication device to be used by a consumer;
b) a service provider providing a music identification device having a database of prerecorded musical works;
c) the consumer recording a segment of music that is audible to the consumer in a location remote from the music identification device using said portable communication device;
d) the consumer transmitting said recorded musical segment from said portable communication device into a central processing unit of the music identification device;
e) the music identification device analyzing and comparing said musical segment to the database of musical works;
f) the music identification device identifying at least one closest match;
g) the music identification device generating database information regarding said at least one closest match; and
h) the music identification device transmitting the database information regarding said at least one closest match to the consumer.
Why are some people here so opposed to the idea of licensing patents? This is a very common way of doing business. A person or small company invents something but is not in a position to follow through or market it, and others who are prepared, license it.
I think the question about a lot of these patents is more whether these ideas/inventions are truly new and not just obvious extensions or progressions of previous ideas or old ideas applied to new areas. (I know its a fine line to have to draw.)
But according to the article this sounds as simple as "I don't have some info (radio station, song, etc), I'll note it and when i have access to the information I'll look it up."
Is this really different then a post it note to remind myself to do something?
Edit: The information Booga provided sounds more like Shazam, but in many cases arguments still hold. What constitutes a patentable idea/implementation aren't there any limits to obviousness.
The description of their patent idea here: Sounds to me like what they patented was the idea of taking note of the time it was played and on what station so that their "service" (which was presumably never started or even designed yet), can look it up and tell you what it was that was playing. There is really nothing here to suggest that this is really that similar to Shazam, which analyses the song itself, and doesn't care what source it came from or what time it was played.
From the patent...
"An alternate embodiment provides the listener with convenient means to record a segment of the music in which he/she is interested. The recorded music segment is played back into an apparatus which can identify the song based on the play back and provide the user with information on the identified song such as title, singer or artist, composer, producer, etc., and provide related purchasing information."
Rocket shoes, banana cameras, touch screen dildos, spring loaded beer, invisible gum, computers for dogs, french fry gardens, fingernail polish clocks, solar powered lifeguard robots. These are all things I came up with off the top of my head in 5 seconds, imagine how rich we could be some day if we hold the patents long enough!
I already have patents pending on touch-screen dildos and spring-loaded beer, and I'll thank you to keep your grubby thoughts OFF my intellectual property.
The patent that was actually granted is pretty much an exact description of Shazam. And although the patent was first submitted in 2000, it was revised several times and not granted until 2005. Shazam debuted in 2002. It's going to be an interesting court case if it goes forward, since essentially they managed to get a patent on the prior art of someone else after the fact.
This is the actual patent claim as it was granted in 2005:
Ah. That's why I said that without reading the actual patent, we can't come to a conclusion.
From this reading, it looks as though they may have a case.
The way it works the process stops upon the patent application. If they changed the patent as technology caught up to them, it would depend on the exact timing of when the revised app was submitted.
I call "Air" - with a capital A
And you sir have violated my patent that describes how to violate patents - you owe me $Texas ... yes, Texas with a dollar sign!!!
Pay up ...
I think the question about a lot of these patents is more whether these ideas/inventions are truly new and not just obvious extensions or progressions of previous ideas or old ideas applied to new areas. (I know its a fine line to have to draw.)
But according to the article this sounds as simple as "I don't have some info (radio station, song, etc), I'll note it and when i have access to the information I'll look it up."
Is this really different then a post it note to remind myself to do something?
Edit: The information Booga provided sounds more like Shazam, but in many cases arguments still hold. What constitutes a patentable idea/implementation aren't there any limits to obviousness.
If your extension adds something new to a patented device or process that significantly adds to, or changes the final result, you could get a patent for that. It's perfectly valid.
Your description of the patent isn't what it needs to be. It's the description of exactly how it's done that receives the patent.
There can be dozens of valid patents on how to get the same results, if each patent was a description of a different way to do it, and each wasn't obvious (to the average worker in the field) at the time they applied for the patent.
With hindsight, most things seem to be obvious. And that's the problem with forum arguments about things like this. Once the idea is out, many people think it's obvious. That doesn't mean it was.