Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

driven · Mar 7, 2005, 11:32 AM

This patent stuff is getting out of hand. (Well, I thought that back when RAMBUS started their crap ... then SCO annoyed me ... this annoys me as well.)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03...tunes_patents/

Big Mac · Mar 7, 2005, 11:44 AM

Haha. Apple Legal will crush them. Although I am not a patent lawyer, the first patent looks so broad as to be worthless, and iPods don't store audio signals anyway. The second patent may have a bit more merit, but it's essentially describing DRM; I doubt it will fly.

driven · Mar 7, 2005, 11:54 AM

The second one, if it does fly would also impact Microsoft and Real as well, no?

My opinion, if you want to file a patent you should be required to have the plans to actually BUILD something. Not just file an idea and wait for someone else to build it and then sue them. It's preditory at best.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 7, 2005, 12:00 PM

According to the patent's abstract, AAD's concept covers a "music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library". The device includes a "housing, audio input structure... for receiving audio signals, and a data storage structure... for storing audio signals".

Question... how is this different then a traditional jukebox?

The patent just seems ridiculously thin... it would destroy most media players.

Apple Pro Underwear · Mar 7, 2005, 12:23 PM

the judges as of late have been using their discretion in determining the infringement

Big Mac · Mar 7, 2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by driven:
The second one, if it does fly would also impact Microsoft and Real as well, no?

My opinion, if you want to file a patent you should be required to have the plans to actually BUILD something. Not just file an idea and wait for someone else to build it and then sue them. It's preditory at best.

Yeah, I think most people believe that's how the patent process actually works. A lesson of the digital age is patent first, sue later, build never. These types of cases have made me seriously consider shifting career goals toward the field of non-creative patents. If I may be so immodest, I do say that I have a lot of good ideas for improvements to existing classes of software. Perhaps I need to get my thoughts together and take out patents. . .

Superchicken · Mar 7, 2005, 12:28 PM

The first one is dumb, the second one is about software not files. To my knowledge Apple hasn't sold a single app through the iTMS.

Big Mac · Mar 7, 2005, 12:42 PM

Right, the second one discusses digital rights to software downloaded from central servers. In order for it to be applied iTMS, a court would have to blur the distinction between data files and software.

Mister Elf · Mar 7, 2005, 07:55 PM

The first one is a load of bunk; from what I've seen they aren't suing other manufacturers and the iPod was released before they had a patent. The second one, as has been said, covers software and not files. Wonder how much Apple will get from the counterclaim they;re sure to file...