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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
What is being patent infringed, you ask?! The use of words gathered into sentences to convey information!
I have my rights!!
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.
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.