Hong-Kong company wants 12% of profits from iTMS, iPod

monkeyastronautmonkeyastronaut
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
I came across this note:



http://news.com.com/Firm+seeks+piece...3-5602764.html



Now everyone wants a bite from this Apple. I hope this matter gets settled. I'd hate to see something like this complicate Apple's ability to keep lowering/maintain competitive iPod prices.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Attorney, Mr. Joseph J. Zito, demanding Apple a reasonable license fee, 12% of gross sales of iTunes music tracks and iPods, and Apple will have to accept it in 21 days. Mr. Zito is a well-experienced patent counsel, and has actively engaged in intellectual property litigation in District and Appellate Courts.



    BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!



    1st: What in the hell do iPod sales have to do with licensing a technology that doesn't even involve iPods?



    2nd: 12% Gross? That's like, 4 X the profit margin.



    Even if Apple loses, there is no way a judge will award those types of numbers. Jesus, as if licensing "one click" wasn't bad enough.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    1st: What in the hell do iPod sales have to do with licensing a technology that doesn't even involve iPods?



    I believe the relationship is the one that gives Pat-rights an especially absurd set of starting demands so they can give something up and have the remaining demands, which are still absurd, look reasonable by comparison.

    Quote:

    2nd: 12% Gross? That's like, 4 X the profit margin.



    The article says 12% of profits, not gross. Still way too much, as I consider anything over 0% of nothing too much here.

    Quote:

    Even if Apple loses, there is no way a judge will award those types of numbers. Jesus, as if licensing "one click" wasn't bad enough.



    The irony is that Apple's DRM itself is a part of the current insane IP landscape. Insanity v. Insanity -- and it's the lawyers who are the only winners.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    d.j. adequated.j. adequate Posts: 476member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by monkeyastronaut

    I came across this note:



    http://news.com.com/Firm+seeks+piece...3-5602764.html



    Now everyone wants a bite from this Apple. I hope this matter gets settled. I'd hate to see something like this complicate Apple's ability to keep lowering/maintain competitive iPod prices.



    Wait, the patent is for making me type my name and password in order to buy stuff on-line? Who isn't violating this patent. I'm pretty sure Napster and Wallmart make you enter a password to identify yourself as well.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    d.j. adequated.j. adequate Posts: 476member
    http://www.pat-rights.com/InternetUs...ification.html



    Yep, according to this they have a patent on any username and password verification system on the net. Holy crap is this a stupid patent, if Apple settles I'd be amazed. They could sue anyone. Who is putting them up to sue Apple? According to this, MSN in it's entirety would fall under this patent.
  • Reply 5 of 5
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    This one may be brain dead simple for the courts. Did ANYONE else on the in the world use username/password for ID verification before the patent was originally filed? If the answer is yes then the patent is invalid as it does not show an advance of the art which requires special skill or knowledge.



    Oh wait a sec, UNIX was doing that back in the mid-70's. Can we say BS case? The iTunes case is pretty nice too considering iTunes was in the field for about 3 years BEFORE the jukebox patent was filed. They are cherry-pick patenting existing technology too.
Sign In or Register to comment.