Apple gains control of critical digital download patent

AppleInsider.com (excerpt) ^ | November 30, 2006 | Kasper Jade

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

A recent out-of-court settlement between Apple Computer and a Vermont-based inventor has landed Apple the rights to a prestigious software design patent that may allow the company to seek royalties on a broad spectrum of digital downloads.

Michael Starkweather, a lawyer and author of the 10-year old patent, issued a statement on Thursday calling it a "billion dollar patent" that will have affects on the future of the "cell phone, iPod and PDA" industries.

"I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos," he said.

~ snip ~

[Swordmaker]

But, but, but, I was downloading music files from the Wrong Number BBS way back in the early 1990s... how can this bozo patent existing art?

I can certainly understand why Apple may have purchased this patent... to avoid getting sued for something they were doing well before the Bozo's lawyer wrote the patent description... PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Swordmaker]

Seriously, this is another example of patent over-reaching. Software patents should be for really creative ideas, not merely something that is as obvious as downloading a music file from one computer to another.

[Spktyr]

Although, at the time, it may not have *seemed* so obvious...

That said, this *might* cripple Microsoft's Zune further. Not that it needs help to be crippled.

[Spktyr]

It should also be mentioned that this patent gives Apple a big bludgeon to use against the music companies that will try to screw it out of its' pricing model, as well as competing music stores.

"If you don't sell with us, you won't sell with anyone, because WE own the patent."

[SunkenCiv]

a lawyer and author of the 10-year old patent

if that isn't the biggest red flag I've seen in ten years, I don't know what is. ;')

[Swordmaker]

Although, at the time, it may not have *seemed* so obvious...

All it takes to invalidate a patent is to demonstrate "prior art" which is evidence that the same thing was either already being done or even described in literature.

As I pointed out, I downloaded music files in the early 1990s... both .WAV files and MIDI files... which would have been essentially the same as the idea of downloading these player piano instructions. That is prior art.

As far as downloading video files is concerned, the Video Toaster was released for the Amiga 2000 in October of 1990... and video files were downloaded from computer to computer at that time... again Prior Art.

Apple itself developed a device for downloading video from another computer. The Apple Interactive Television Box was a set-top box developed by Apple Computer in partnership with British Telecom. Prototypes of the unit were tested in parts of the United States and Europe from 1994 to 1995, but the product was cancelled shortly thereafter, and has never been mass produced or marketed.

All of this prior art predates the 1997 patent application for the patent in question.

This patent should never have been granted.

[Tribune7]

But, but, but, I was downloading music files from the Wrong Number BBS way back in the early 1990s... how can this bozo patent existing art?

And do you really believe he is the "author" of it?

[Question_Assumptions]

While I probably (without knowing all of the details) agree that this patents shouldn't have been granted, I'm sure that Apple's lawyers looked at all of the prior art and knew what they'd done in the past and if they felt confident it was a slam-dunk that they'd win, I'm sure they wouldn't have settled out of court. I suspect there is something more specific to this patent that has some signficance.

[antiRepublicrat]

It should also be mentioned that this patent gives Apple a big bludgeon to use against the music companies that will try to screw it out of its' pricing model, as well as competing music stores.

Patent wars actually being used to help the consumer? That'll be a new experience. We know there's been immense pressure by the RIAA to jack up iTunes prices for years. The RIAA is backing Zune because the entire Zune model is centered around bringing income to the RIAA instead of giving the consumer what he wants. Patents as a way to stave off the RIAA's greed? I almost like it.