- cross-posted to:
- worldmews@mbin.grits.dev
- cross-posted to:
- worldmews@mbin.grits.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe someone can EL5 this to me, but having looked at their patents from the other side of the pond, I just don’t get it.
It looks like the patent is a bunch of legal jargon that basically just says something to the tune of “save a key on in memory on a device, then use that key to validate purchases.” And is was granted in the late 2000’s.
How is this not a patent troll? Isn’t this stuff that existed before the patent was granted and an obvious solution that many engineers would easily come to?
What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything. There was a period of time where a lot of patents were granted for “basic idea, but on a computer!” The USPTO stopped doing it and these patents, which should have never been issued, have been systematically invalidated, including most of this guy’s. He’s a classic patent troll suing over patents that were then invalidated.
One of the criteria for whether a patent is valid or not is that it is “non-obvious.” I remember reading about a patent troll who held a patent on a “system for distributing software updates over a computer network.” Which is, forgive the pun, a patently obvious use for a computer network.
People had been talking about buying music and videos online for at least a decade before this guy filed his patents. IANAL (or an engineer) but nothing in the patents seems more detailed than “sell music online, accept money for it, make sure people don’t copy it.” Which boils down to “buy music, but on the computer!” to borrow your phrasing.
What am I missing?
The patent in question, if it’s valid, would have expired several years ago. The fact that it’s everyday technology today is pretty normal considering how fast technology advances. Ordinary toilet rolls were also a patented invention and there’s nothing in the law that says a patent has to a complicated solution to a problem.
iTunes was the first shipping product that ever actually did what’s described in the patent… and the person who ran the iTunes department that “invented” this feature was previously a subcontractor working for the guy who holds the patent - he was literally paid to implement what the patent described and then Apple poached him and he continued the work at his new job without any patent license.
I don’t support patents and never will, but if there was ever a case for clear infringement then this is it. It’s already been to court and apple was found guilty of patent infringement… only to have an appeals court overturn the decision in pretty questionable circumstances.
Wait… what was toilet paper before it was a roll? It’s one of those things you just think always was…
Yesterday’s news papers was popular. Paper in packs also existed. Before that, corn cobs, moss, a sponge on a stick, actual seashells or the left hand to name some.
Specifically three seashells.
The Sears Roebuck catalog was popular
Originally it came in spheres.
The dude couldn’t implement his patent (downloading media with drm that’s unlocked by a key downloaded from a server). He hired others to do it. His business went defunct. Apple hired one of the former employees to work on something similar because of their expertise. Is that patent infringement?
If someone hires a former Facebook employee to work on their social network, is that patent infringement?
If the patent was obvious to begin with, and there is existing prior art, is that patent infringement?
If someone hires a former Facebook employee to work on their social network, is that patent infringement?
No. If that employee then implements features that FB has patented? Probably yes.
The patent was filed in 1999 but wasn’t granted until late-2000s. I dunno what US patent law states but I would have thought it’s back dated to when it was applied.
But I think this all part of the battle because the US patent office has refused to release internal emails that could shed light on all this.
Something fishy is going on and he’s already won some cases.
I dunno what US patent law states but I would have thought it’s back dated to when it was applied.
The US didn’t do things that way until Nov 2000. Patents filed for before then were given a term based on their publication date. So sometimes applicants deliberately tied up their applications with filings and amendments to delay their publication date and give them a bit more time when the patent ca be enforced.
“His friend Simon Morris, the ex-global chief creative officer at Amazon and the man behind Amazon Prime Video”
I wonder why he doesn’t sue Prime Video for selling videos with DRM? After all, he “invented” selling digital goods with DRM, right?
The courts generally don’t like it when you run two identical lawsuits at the same time - it’s a massive waste of limited tax payer funded resources. They would’ve likely postponed a hypothetical amazon case indefinitely until after the lawsuit against Apple had concluded (which hasn’t happened yet, it’s still in the appeals process).
After his case with Apple is over, if he wins that case, then he can privately talk to Amazon and try to reach a settlement that doesn’t involve any court cases.
I though the American system made the loser pay government costs. At least with criminal charges for people who do small crimes and they’re made in debt or whatever.
Not to be cynical but there is absolutely no way the US is finding against Apple. I would be extremely shocked if they lost.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Liquid Audio Inc was a US software company based in Redwood City, California. Formed in 1996, Liquid Audio developed a major standard, multiple software clients, and a client/server media distribution system for streaming and downloading audio on the Internet. Along with RealNetworks’ RealAudio (on the RealPlayer), Liquid Audio was one of the two emerging online audio standards in the 1990s. The company’s founders – Gerry Kearby, Robert Flynn, and Phil Wiser – focused on professional audio quality and copyright security to differentiate the offer. The company was a pioneer in enabling copy-restricted media distribution, working closely with record companies and publishing rights agencies such as ASCAP, BMI, The Harry Fox Agency, in the United States, and various other agencies around the world.
Does anyone have the link to the patent?
Edit: here are the US patents
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,334,720 ('720 Patent); 8,033,458 ('458 Patent); 8,061,598 ('598 Patent); 8,118,221 ('221 Patent); 8,336,772 ('772 Patent); and 7,942,317 ('317 Patent)
You can look up Smartflash v. Apple to find plenty of coverage. There’s a lot more to this story than just a patent fight.
Racz made his fortune inventing a method of mixing hot and cold water - he created a global company selling taps all over the world and eventually sold it (the patent expired a long time ago, and AFAIK it’s now the standard technology used by all tap companies). Perfect example of patents actually working as intended. His next invention and business was supposed to be in the music industry, and he partnered with a company called Gemplus to fill in gaps in his expertise - especially software R&D.
The head of R&D at Gemplus left the company and started working for Apple. Where he built all of the same stuff that he had been working on with Racz. We’re talking really fundamental technology here - such as DRM to keep the record labels happy which was obviously required otherwise the whole business wouldn’t work at all. Racz had lined up partnerships with major record labels and some of the biggest pop stars in the world and it all collapsed when iTunes came along with all the same stuff.
Short on time but they’re identified early on in this decision:
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Smartflash_LLC_v_Apple_Inc_No_20161059_2017_BL_62739_Fed_Cir_Mar_Paywalled
Sorry, it loaded without a paywall when I originally found it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
He presents an intriguing figure: a credible, established British inventor who first gained wealth and success in the 1980s, but clearly bruised and angry after years of a David v Goliath dogfight that now dominates his online reputation and leaves onlookers questioning whether Racz or Apple is in the right.
What gave him a “new lease of life” was patents for the tech that were first lodged in 1999 and granted nearly a decade later, teeing up a huge court battle that is still playing out as he targets $18bn in damages.
When he sold his tap business, Avilion, he pursued the digital download market, just as Napster upended the music industry with illegal filesharing.
His blood boiled as he saw late Apple boss Steve Jobs “soak up the praise” for a series of products marrying hardware and software in the way Racz claims he first devised, starting with iTunes in 2003.
Racz’s latest tussle is with the US Patent Office, which he is suing for refusal to disclose uncensored emails and documents related to his intellectual property.
Away from his legal pursuits, he is a backer of Regent Sounds, a musical instrument shop in central London’s Denmark Street once used by the Rolling Stones as a studio and which engaged in its own tussle with the landlord behind the huge development by media venture Outernet.
The original article contains 1,019 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
Imagine a world where this sort of medical innovation was shared freely, with everyone benefiting from it.
4 hours old, 15 upvotes and 1 downvote for a comment referring to this as a medical patent.
This isn’t about the Masimo lawsuit and the Pulse Oximeter. This is a lawsuit about iTunes, DRM, and a plaintiff that smells a lot like a patent troll.
Come on y’all. Just give the article a cursory glance.
deleted by creator
