The complaint (Scribd) was submitted on Wednesday in the Southern District of California and claims that Spotify violates a patent for a "device for the Distribution of Music in Digital Form."
I bet this patent is incredibly vague and obvious, and could have been thought up by any amateur in this field (The field being distribution of digital media? How can you patent that?)
Granted I've never studied law, but this patent is from 1997 and describes a physical device on the user end, not a computer application, which doesn't really seem applicable to Spotify. I guess the interaction between the server and device could be a patented concept, but how long do patents like that exist and hold up in court?
And how can they be suing for damages if nobody has ever heard of PacketVideo? Will our patent system fail again?
I dont really like these types of lawsuits, but at least here the company suing is actual creating a similar product. My problem with it is if the patent is just a vague idea, or if its more technical and Spotify copied their setup for streaming.
I also think Spotify might be sleezy. They say invite only but I went to the site and put in my email and got a reply right away. The quickness and ease of getting the invite makes me wonder if its all just a PR scheme. Make it seem more exclusive so the users feel special when they get that invite.
Its pretty nice though, decent selection of music. Complements Pandora very nicely. If I know exactly what I want to listen to, I use spotify, if I dont I use Pandora. Either way I am not paying a cent for music now.
[citation][nom]svdb[/nom]You should not be able to patent software, period.Copyright protection yes, like for books, music and film, but patents no.[/citation]
Patenting software is fine, if its your idea. If it wasn't possible then everyone would just rip off Windows and sell it.
I am fine with patents when the company uses the product/technology and offers it to be licensed at a decent rate. But when they do this, just sit around and wait for someone to use the same idea then sue its BS.
A patent should only be applicable if the owner is using it and not just sitting on it.
The tech industry moves too quickly for the traditional patent platform. Some of these patents need to have a speedy expiration date. Many times we have found that there are numerous different ways to accomplish the same goals. However, there's usually only one best way to do it. Many people from many walks of life can follow their similar research and development paths, all coming to relatively the same conclusion, yet whoever "gets there first" gets the patent. This is unfortunate, especially for those who drew up their diagrams on a bar napkin, and mailed it in first (with considerable amount of cash attached).
"device for the Distribution of Music in Digital Form."
So... Next up they will be filing similar lolsuits against iTunes and then the creators of ARPANET. I hate patent trolls, but I say the-more-the-merrier until legislators finally fix the broken patent laws throughout the world.
[citation][nom]Gadubos[/nom]Very common nowadays! Listen to this if you want to learn about it.NPR Podcast.http/www.thisamericanlife.org/ra [...] nts-attack[/citation]
everything you get from the media is biased, never ever trust what you hear from the media as the abolute truth when they do not argue both sides of the story as well as an independant 3rd perspective.
i can usually catch the flaws in rush, beck, colbert, stewart and even npr's claims and arguements most of the time within 5 minutes of listening.
here's an example in the comment (peanut gallery) section that blows nprs arguements, claims and perspective out of the water.
I disagree with the premise of this article. How does a valid patent stifle innovation? True innovation would be developing something new, and thus not covered by some previous invention anyway. You can argue that patents may limit the availability of consumer demanded products using patented features. However, patents actually push innovation. Many times work-arounds are more beneficial - or more thought out - than the previous patented subject matter. And, patents make it much EASIER for the little guys to get into the market. None of the big companies are pushing for stronger patent protection (from which they benefited when growing). The patent system is expensive and isn't perfect, but it doesn't need a drastic overall.
Also, I would like to point out that the author is misleading the reader on what patent number 7,222,078 is ACTUALLY protecting. The quoted language is just the abstract. The issued CLAIMS that define the protection cover much narrower subject matter. If the claims in this patent are "utterly ridiculous," then no shake down would occur. Few defendants would roll over on a clearly invalid patent. (Edit comment)
Mr. Parrish's lack of research & in his opinion; would have us villify wireless communications companies and networking companies even based on that little tidbit of abstract patent description language.
next time don't just copy and paste some one else's story before getting all the facts, the truth, and the whole truth before commiting libel and facing a defamation suit by PacketVideo.
i'm sick and tired of hearing the whine and cry of people who don't have a clue in what they're talking about when it comes to patents and how they think the 'system' which was thought out by people much smarter then the whiners IMO.
"Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." - U.S. Constitution Article 1. Section 8.
written by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, (both inventors themselves) and signed by none other then George Washington himself. (for all you bigots of the patent system you probably hate the constitution of the united states also) http/www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/uspatent.htm
Why don't we just take the patent one step further and say that they patened the "device for the Distribution of DATA in Digital Form." Since all data is inherently digital they would essentially have a patent over all devices that connect or interconnect any kind of electronic device that transmits data. Music is just a form of data and all data can be interpreted as music when applied to the right translating program. The music may be incomprehensible but it is still music. Just like the legality of this patent is incomprehensible but it is still "legal".
You should not be able to patent a concept only the devices or code or application related to a concept. Like you can patent an ipod, and its OS, but you cant patent icons, vertically scrolling menus and battery meters that display available live in bars instead of precentages.
i know it's not very popular or intuitive, but vertically scrolling menus and battery meters should be patentable, because someone had to come up with them before they existed, hence it was innovation.