After $8M victory, Personal Audio sues Apple again over same patent

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Some things should not be patent-able. The state of patent law in this country (and maybe others) is pretty ridiculous.



    I agree, like much of Apple's portfolio.
  • Reply 22 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by redbarchetta View Post


    I agree, like much of Apple's portfolio.



    Saying "much of Apple's portfolio" suggests a good portion, which I would disagree with. Obviously they come up with a ton of innovative ideas. However, I'm sure they have been awarded some that they shouldn't have, like all other tech companies these days.



    I think patents should be granted for hardware design (look, feel, sound), software/code, and innovative concepts (and probably some other things I am not thinking of at the moment). But in this case, patenting the syncing of playlists is silly. Playlists already existed, as did syncing, so no one should be able to patent the syncing of playlists. I mean how many ways are there to do it? Item by item. This is not a stretch or an innovation. It is an obvious progression.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 483member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phoebetech View Post


    Apple is SOOOOO original!



    Let's face it, Apple = Monsanto



    I knew Monsanto, and Apple is no Monsanto.



    When Apple emails people copies of their web page and then sues them for copyright infringement for having their web page on their machines, then it will be similar to Monsanto.
  • Reply 24 of 53
    old-wizold-wiz Posts: 194member
    a commission to the judges and juries in East Texas get from the plaintiffs after a huge award? 5% 10%? Are the juries random or are they simply paid directly by the plaintiffs?
  • Reply 25 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Where did this Monsanto crap come from lately? I have never heard of Monsanto until this week, and I still don't know what they are. But for some reason this is now the third or fourth time I have heard them referenced in an Apple-related discussion in the last few days. What the hell?
  • Reply 26 of 53
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Some things should not be patent-able. The state of patent law in this country (and maybe others) is pretty ridiculous.



    What? and Why, specifically? Is it not new, is it not original? Be specific.
  • Reply 27 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    What? and Why, specifically? Is it not new, is it not original? Be specific.



    See my previous post for specifics. (Post #23)
  • Reply 28 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    I think patents should be granted for hardware design (look, feel, sound), software/code, and innovative concepts (and probably some other things I am not thinking of at the moment). But in this case, patenting the syncing of playlists is silly. Playlists already existed, as did syncing, so no one should be able to patent the syncing of playlists. I mean how many ways are there to do it? Item by item. This is not a stretch or an innovation. It is an obvious progression.



    Absolutely but it's pretty analogous to '647. Pattern recognition software already existed, so did UIs, markup languages, browsers etc. Putting the two together is obvious.



    The problem is that by their very nature the most valuable software patents are the ones that make software developers facepalm. Anything specific enough to be really good is generally fairly easy to innovate around.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Saying "much of Apple's portfolio" suggests a good portion, which I would disagree with. Obviously they come up with a ton of innovative ideas. However, I'm sure they have been awarded some that they shouldn't have, like all other tech companies these days.



    I think patents should be granted for hardware design (look, feel, sound), software/code, and innovative concepts (and probably some other things I am not thinking of at the moment). But in this case, patenting the syncing of playlists is silly. Playlists already existed, as did syncing, so no one should be able to patent the syncing of playlists. I mean how many ways are there to do it? Item by item. This is not a stretch or an innovation. It is an obvious progression.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    See my previous post for specifics. (Post #23)



    Everything is obvious in hindsight. What they claimed was more than just playlists and syncing.



    Quote:

    The first, main claim



    1. A player for reproducing selected audio program segments comprising, in combination:



    means for storing a plurality of program segments, each of said program segments having a beginning and an end,



    means for receiving and storing a file of data establishing a sequence in which said program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said player,



    means for accepting control commands from a user of said player,



    means for continuously reproducing said program segments in the order established by said sequence in the absence of a control command,



    means for detecting a first command indicative of a request to skip forward, and



    means responsive to said first command for discontinuing the reproduction of the currently playing program segment and instead continuing the reproduction at the beginning of a program segment which follows said currently playing program in said sequence.



    It was all of that, in 2001. IMO that is not blatantly obvious at the time. The obvious argument is hard to judge. Look at the case behind the movie 'Flash of Genius'. The arguments made by Ford were basically obviousness give a transistor and a delay circuit and the need for intermittent wipers it was 'obvious' .
  • Reply 30 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Where did this Monsanto crap come from lately? I have never heard of Monsanto until this week, and I still don't know what they are. But for some reason this is now the third or fourth time I have heard them referenced in an Apple-related discussion in the last few days. What the hell?



    Some guy has made it his life's work to keep repeating the meme in the hope that we're stupid enough to believe him. I'm gonna start flagging for ban whenever I see it soon because it's so unbelievably dumb.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
  • Reply 31 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    Everything is obvious in hindsight. What they claimed was more than just playlists and syncing.







    It was all of that, in 2001. IMO that is not blatantly obvious at the time. The obvious argument is hard to judge. Look at the case behind the movie 'Flash of Genius'. The arguments made by Ford were basically obviousness give a transistor and a delay circuit and the need for intermittent wipers it was 'obvious' .



    So basically you believe that had this company not patented this process and then brought it to market that other companies would not have thought of it? Or do you think that other companies would have thought of it but this company get credit for being first?



    To me, a patent should be for something that no one would have done without the first company doing it. But the patent system seems to be more about which company called dibbs faster on the front seat. If the majority of decent to good tech companies will come up with the same thing or something very similar on their own, then perhaps it should not be patent-able. How you judge this is the problem I suppose. It just seems like patents are given for very vague and very broad ideas. Maybe I should patent the internet before someone beats me to it.
  • Reply 32 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    You do know Einstein's explanation about insanity... right?!



    People on this board thought I was crazy when I spoke about Apple taking Itunes to the cloud and now many are welcoming it....look at my old posts.



    Remember, many thought Einstein was insane (and many still do)....so it really depends on who you talk to!
  • Reply 33 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:

    What they claimed was more than just playlists and syncing.



    Not really. Consider a personal CD player.



    Quote:

    A player for reproducing selected audio program segments comprising, in combination:



    means for storing a plurality of program segments, each of said program segments having a beginning and an end,



    We have a set of tracks on the CD, check.

    Quote:

    means for receiving and storing a file of data establishing a sequence in which said program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said player,



    We have a playlist but the CD player can't modify it or receive a new one.



    Quote:

    means for accepting control commands from a user of said player,



    we have buttons.

    Quote:

    means for continuously reproducing said program segments in the order established by said sequence in the absence of a control command,



    We have a play button.



    Quote:

    means for detecting a first command indicative of a request to skip forward, and



    We have a forward track button



    Quote:

    means responsive to said first command for discontinuing the reproduction of the currently playing program segment and instead continuing the reproduction at the beginning of a program segment which follows said currently playing program in said sequence.



    The forward track button causes us to skip to the next track.



    So yes, all the patent covers that is new is a modifiable storable playlist. The rest of the patent just describes any music player, in such a way that one can't possibly use a playlist on a music player without violating the patent.



    Did playlists exist before 2001? I'm sure musicmatch had them. XMMS had them. In fact I strongly suspect that musicmatch completely covers claim 1.
  • Reply 34 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Not really. Consider a personal CD player.





    We have a set of tracks on the CD, check.



    We have a playlist but the CD player can't modify it or receive a new one.





    we have buttons.

    We have a play button.

    We have a forward track button

    The forward track button causes us to skip to the next track.



    So yes, all the patent covers that is new is a modifiable storable playlist. The rest of the patent just describes any music player, in such a way that one can't possibly use a playlist on a music player without violating the patent.



    Did playlists exist before 2001? I'm sure musicmatch had them. XMMS had them. In fact I strongly suspect that musicmatch completely covers claim 1.



    Excellent post, Sir! Kudos for noticing this parallel. And this leads into another issue I have with patents in that they write them in a confusing manner, much like the tax code, so that they are hard to even decipher sometimes. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I didn't make the same connections as you in relation to CD/music players. They want to keep it confusing apparently.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    And this leads into another issue I have with patents in that they write them in a confusing manner, much like the tax code, so that they are hard to even decipher sometimes. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I didn't make the same connections as you in relation to CD/music players. They want to keep it confusing apparently.



    They're certainly written in a very particular way, it's probably not confusing if you're a patent lawyer though
  • Reply 36 of 53
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    They're certainly written in a very particular way, it's probably not confusing if you're a patent lawyer though



    Agreed.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    nceencee Posts: 857member
    Buy the pricks out, and then fire their asses!



    Of course, with the kind of money they'd have after being bought, they wouldn't care. But one less troll for Apple and others to have to deal with. Of course, then Apple could start suing or collecting royalties ? boy this is confusing.





    Skip
  • Reply 38 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Agreed.



    One thing that they could really tighten up is the whole 'leave your patent to be infringed for a decade and then swoop' business.



    If these guys had contested the patent back in 2001 or 2002 they could have been wiped out in no time because prior art would have been easy to find and there would be plenty of people around able to convincingly explain why this patent was neither novel nor non-obvious.



    10 years later it's far harder - a lot of prior art is lost, the context is lost and it's easy for people to imagine 'it wasn't obvious back then!'.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    Buy the pricks out, and then fire their asses!



    Of course, with the kind of money they'd have after being bought, they wouldn't care. But one less troll for Apple and others to have to deal with. Of course, then Apple could start suing or collecting royalties … boy this is confusing.





    Skip



    They're not publicly traded, Apple can't buy em unless they want to be sold.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    mactoidmactoid Posts: 112member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    They're not publicly traded, Apple can't buy em unless they want to be sold.



    Well, they already seem to be in the business of selling themselves for money, so it's now just a matter of price. Kinda like the Vegas strip on a Saturday night!
Sign In or Register to comment.