If I were a judge I would toss this patent out. If digital media downloads are an 'obvious' extension of transferring songs to a grand piano, then transferring any binary files is an obvious extension of digital media downloads. The transferral of binary files has probably existed since before the birth of that inventor or that schmuck intellectual property lawyer (oh, I'm sorry, was 'schmuck' and 'intellectual property lawyer' redundant?).
It's a good thing you're not a judge then. A judge waits to see the evidence, and reconciles that with the law before coming up with a decision.
I am sure this would never fly in the end. That is why I the guy sold it to Steve for cheap. But Steve has the lawyers on retainer to push the issue when Universal comes an asking... Like someone else its just another card up their sleave.
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.
If it wouldn't fly, Apple wouldn't have paid for it. Apple having an invalid patent is no better than anyone else having it.
I can fully understand Apple wanting to get a hold of this patent to protect themselves from suits, and if that's the main thrust of what they do, then that's all fine and good as far as I see it. In that case, Apple didn't do anything wrong but I still kind of take issue with the original inventor and lawyer who essentially blackmailed Apple into giving them money over an implied but non-existent situation between the two parties.
But that's why lawsuits were invented weren't they?
Two things about this reek of a particular patent lawyer trying to increase the number of suits involving this patent:
1. The quotes are from the LAWYER, not apple, or even the company they got the patent from. This means the lawyer is hoping for additional litigation involving this patent.
2. The quotes specifically try to incite people into being scared / excited about the potential applications of this patent. Meaning, he wants more clients.
When will we get a congressman that runs partially on the ticket that they UNDERSTAND technology and will not put up with crazy software patents and idiotic DCMA legislation? Oh ya, never.
Noboady seems to have stated the obvious target. Microsoft's Zune. MS agrees to Universal's hardware "tax" as a means to put pressure on Apple. Apple now has a means to go after the Zune music store, and the X-Box video download if they feel inclined to. Take that MS, you start playing dirty and Apple will descend to your level.
Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooly cow. This is the big one, folks. This gives Apple dominion over any media download service. Analysts, start your calculators!!!
Incidentally, who has a link to the cited patent. I have to read this for myself.
Two things about this reek of a particular patent lawyer trying to increase the number of suits involving this patent:
1. The quotes are from the LAWYER, not apple, or even the company they got the patent from. This means the lawyer is hoping for additional litigation involving this patent.
2. The quotes specifically try to incite people into being scared / excited about the potential applications of this patent. Meaning, he wants more clients.
That's inconsistent with the actual text of the article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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 ... [said] "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 ...."
(emphasis added)
This lawyer, Starkweather, may be patting himself on the back (perhaps deservedly so, if he really did help persuade the inventor this was worth patenting), but these two statements pretty clearly say that the patent is now in *Apple's* hands, not his ... otherwise, it would be *he* who would "eventually" be going after everyone for royalties.
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.
The article is tantalizingly vague in that it does not tell us whether Apple is merely licensing the patent, or if they outright purchased the patent. More than likely, the inventor/patent holder will receive royalties and Apple will hold an exclusive license.
This is détente at its finest. I doubt Apple would ever try to enforce this, but it is a wonderful bargaining tool because they can always nonchalantly remind the other party of their strength here.
I'm really surprised by this. It's a BIG patent, even if it has enforceability issues and such. It is quite a bargaining chip and as we know, Apple is not afraid of utilizing its civil liberties in the court system.
Does anyone get the feeling that Starkweather didn't just get a fixed fee for this? With enthusiasm like that he's got to be on a cut!
This could be pivotal. Apple has a problem breaking the status quo not so much with music but with TV & video. Many studios/networks seem to want to go there own way on download services and the fragmentation alone means it's kind of failed before it started - which may have been the purpose of the excercise. Apple could use this patent to leverage their content into iTunes as well (as opposed to chasing royalties) and convince the studios by demonstrative sales.
The final piece in the iTV jigsaw was the deadlock in services, and it looks like it's just been cracked.
It's a good thing you're not a judge then. A judge waits to see the evidence, and reconciles that with the law before coming up with a decision.
Not being a judge I have the benefit of not needing to reconcile the situation with the law (which, in my opinion, has flaws that would need to be remedied before this particular situation could play out more reasonably). Instead I'm free to post the opinions of a relatively, though not extremely, informed citizen.
So yea, that's right, I'm glad I'm not a judge either.
Comments
If I were a judge I would toss this patent out. If digital media downloads are an 'obvious' extension of transferring songs to a grand piano, then transferring any binary files is an obvious extension of digital media downloads. The transferral of binary files has probably existed since before the birth of that inventor or that schmuck intellectual property lawyer (oh, I'm sorry, was 'schmuck' and 'intellectual property lawyer' redundant?).
It's a good thing you're not a judge then. A judge waits to see the evidence, and reconciles that with the law before coming up with a decision.
I am sure this would never fly in the end. That is why I the guy sold it to Steve for cheap. But Steve has the lawyers on retainer to push the issue when Universal comes an asking... Like someone else its just another card up their sleave.
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.
If it wouldn't fly, Apple wouldn't have paid for it. Apple having an invalid patent is no better than anyone else having it.
But that's why lawsuits were invented weren't they?
Oh. That's not why? Damn... sure fooled me.
1. The quotes are from the LAWYER, not apple, or even the company they got the patent from. This means the lawyer is hoping for additional litigation involving this patent.
2. The quotes specifically try to incite people into being scared / excited about the potential applications of this patent. Meaning, he wants more clients.
When will we get a congressman that runs partially on the ticket that they UNDERSTAND technology and will not put up with crazy software patents and idiotic DCMA legislation? Oh ya, never.
Hooray for endless litigation. Cuz, you know, its not like Universal has anything better to do with its time and money like, uh, make music.
There's a word for all of this, and that word is: ricockulous.
Incidentally, who has a link to the cited patent. I have to read this for myself.
Two things about this reek of a particular patent lawyer trying to increase the number of suits involving this patent:
1. The quotes are from the LAWYER, not apple, or even the company they got the patent from. This means the lawyer is hoping for additional litigation involving this patent.
2. The quotes specifically try to incite people into being scared / excited about the potential applications of this patent. Meaning, he wants more clients.
That's inconsistent with the actual text of the article:
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 ... [said] "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 ...."
(emphasis added)
This lawyer, Starkweather, may be patting himself on the back (perhaps deservedly so, if he really did help persuade the inventor this was worth patenting), but these two statements pretty clearly say that the patent is now in *Apple's* hands, not his ... otherwise, it would be *he* who would "eventually" be going after everyone for royalties.
Incidentally, who has a link to the cited patent. I have to read this for myself.
See comment #17.
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.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
The article is tantalizingly vague in that it does not tell us whether Apple is merely licensing the patent, or if they outright purchased the patent. More than likely, the inventor/patent holder will receive royalties and Apple will hold an exclusive license.
Anything else?
See comment #17.
I just now got to read it, and I see no problem with it.
If it wouldn't fly, Apple wouldn't have paid for it. Apple having an invalid patent is no better than anyone else having it.
Not ture and invalid but possibly valid can cost a lot to show its invalid. More than what it may benefit Universal to get a dollar from every iPod.
I'm really surprised by this. It's a BIG patent, even if it has enforceability issues and such. It is quite a bargaining chip and as we know, Apple is not afraid of utilizing its civil liberties in the court system.
It's a good thing you're not a judge then. A judge waits to see the evidence, and reconciles that with the law before coming up with a decision.
Snap!
This could be pivotal. Apple has a problem breaking the status quo not so much with music but with TV & video. Many studios/networks seem to want to go there own way on download services and the fragmentation alone means it's kind of failed before it started - which may have been the purpose of the excercise. Apple could use this patent to leverage their content into iTunes as well (as opposed to chasing royalties) and convince the studios by demonstrative sales.
The final piece in the iTV jigsaw was the deadlock in services, and it looks like it's just been cracked.
McD
Snap!
Snap yourself, Wilco.
If you want to make a comment, do so!
Snap yourself, Wilco.
If you want to make a comment, do so!
I stand by my "snap".
I stand by my "snap".
Brave of you.
It's a good thing you're not a judge then. A judge waits to see the evidence, and reconciles that with the law before coming up with a decision.
Not being a judge I have the benefit of not needing to reconcile the situation with the law (which, in my opinion, has flaws that would need to be remedied before this particular situation could play out more reasonably). Instead I'm free to post the opinions of a relatively, though not extremely, informed citizen.
So yea, that's right, I'm glad I'm not a judge either.
I stand by my "snap".
To which I must retort with "crackle and pop" to you sir!