"The company is demanding 12% of gross sales from Apple's iTMS and is giving Apple 21 days to accept what Pat-rights is calling "a reasonable license fee."

HA HA HA --- man, I needed a good laugh today. I got your fee right here buddy!

"intends to file," not "intends on filing"

Certainly no prior art on a device that takes in, stores, and plays back audio. Sheesh.

Sounds like with that generic of a patent filing they may as well sue everyone that produced or produces a digital music player

"The music jukebox includes a housing, audio input structure on the housing for receiving audio signals, audio output structure on the housing for outputting audio signals, and a data storage structure in the housing for storing audio signals,"

This reads like it defines a tape recorder, more so than a digital music device.

Yeah it sure does. Technically the iPod does not receive audio signals. it receives data that can be reproduced into audio signals

Bottom line is the patent process is a mess and this is simply greed trying to take a bite out of someone elses efforts.
I wonder if they'd bother if the whole thing had never taken off

Quote

Guest wrote:
"The music jukebox includes a housing, audio input structure on the housing for receiving audio signals, audio output structure on the housing for outputting audio signals, and a data storage structure in the housing for storing audio signals,"

This reads like it defines a tape recorder, more so than a digital music device.

This patent description: "The music jukebox includes a housing, audio input structure on the housing for receiving audio signals, audio output structure on the housing for outputting audio signals, and a data storage structure in the housing for storing audio signals" covers ALL mp3 players in the entire universe. I wonder if M$ is behind this, hhhmmmm..., ala SCO vs. Linux.

What a way to make money in the western world! You can be rich by just filing a patent for an idea, whether it's yours or others, as long as you patented it first. By patenting it, you take the ownership that other people or company entitled with.

My 2 cents.

haven't computers done this for decades?

didn't Edison do this about 100 years ago?

when did the patent process become a mindless rubber stamp?

If you can't join 'em, sue 'em!

The patent describes an analog jukebox, not a digital one. The concept is to receive, store, and then playback audio signals. Audio signals are analog, not digital. Therefore the entire precept of their device is incorrect.

The iPod receives and stores digital data files, which are then played back as audio using a translation program. This is nothing like what is described by the patent.

I smell opportunistic, bottom dwelling fee mongering lawyers

I do believe ipods were here 1st.

Those lawsuits are a joke.

And we aren't talking your average "well it's cheaper to settle for X than have lawsuits" company, we're talking The Wrath of Steve here.

According to CNet, the first mass-market MP3 player was sold beginning in late spring 1998, well before this unknown company's patent *application* in 2000. http://news.com.com/Bragging+rights+to+the+worlds+first+MP3+player/2010-1041_3-5548180.html
If it went to market in spring '98, then it would have been announced before that point, so most likely this "Advanced Audio Devices LLC" (formed in 1997) didn't even exist when the first MP3 player was being actively developed.

Peter Keller should know that the concept of a juukebox has been around since the advent of 78rpm records. I wonder what Wurlitzer might have to say to hime?

As for Pat-rights, they claim their "patent" on a DRM is bein infringed, but they pplan to file a "copyright infringment" suit. Am I the only one missing this?

lol lol lol lol lol

The patent was applied for in 2000, ipod was released sometime around then, but i dont think until late 2000 if not 2001. basically all mp3 players up to that point used removable media, like smartmedia or compact flash. the patent describes data storage INSIDE THE HOUSING, like a hard drive, which the ipod uses.

it would be interesting to see if apple applied for a patent on the ipod or not, and if it was denied and why.

and this kind of thing has been going on for years. its not necessarily who comes up with the idea, its who officially claims the idea first. kind of how companies register domain names (which is free by the way) and then sell them to whoever wants them.

Same CNet article (linked in previous comment) refers to the first hard drive-based player, also in 1998. It was produced by Compaq.

quote: "when did the patent process become a mindless rubber stamp?"

Who is running the patent office? This isn't the first general patent I've heard of...

Quote

FlipFriddle wrote:
Sounds like with that generic of a patent filing they may as well sue everyone that produced or produces a digital music player

This is pure evil B.S. A company that does nothing and goes nowhere with their patents just waits for someone to succeed. Then they sue. Why not sue them when they first invent the product? Cause your F.O.S!

Quote

fartheststar wrote:

Quote

FlipFriddle wrote:
Sounds like with that generic of a patent filing they may as well sue everyone that produced or produces a digital music player

My thoughts exactly.

Has the patent system gone haywire?

Btw, is there a law against suing without good basis?

So...am I the only one wondering this?

If Pat-Rights is suing because of DRM, shouldn't everyone who includes DRM in their products be affected as well?

Isn't Janus the same thing...a DRM scheme?

Not paying for intellectual property and breaking the agreement with Apple Corps that Apple Computer would not enter the music business is going to force iTunes to shut down. Sorry stockholders but you're going to get burned. What's going to be really funny is that iPod users won't have a decent online music store that works with their closed propriety iPod.

Ok, who bet Reality Check would post after so many others? Come on now, pay up your bets. I personally had him in the first 5 post, but my man was a little slow today and must have been surfing, ah hem, "other sites" while using his 10 hours of free NetZero time.

Man, the party can start now that RC is in the house!!!

Better dump your shares, iLemmings. Everyone knows that RC's Apple stock predictions are always right on the money. Or not...

On a Mac and you will see who is propriatary. You can't get there from here. iTunes is open to Windows users and Mac users. There isn't another online store that provides for both. So who is the closed system. With iTunes you can do exactly the same things on either platform.

""The music jukebox includes a housing, audio input structure on the housing for receiving audio
signals, audio output structure on the housing for outputting audio signals, and a data storage
structure in the housing for storing audio signals," the filing said."

Among other things, that describes a computer. Their patent suit is a sham.

"The patent holding company claims Apple has not patented its Fairplay technology and that for that reason it must be using its patent."

Yeah, that's good thinking. Apple hasn't patented Fairplay, so they must be using MY patent! Their only hope is a settlement, because they'd be laughed out of court.

"Not paying for intellectual property"

Apple has no legal obligation to pay those morons.

"and breaking the agreement with Apple Corps that Apple
Computer would not enter the music business is going to force iTunes to shut down. "

Apple Computers has faced Apple Records before, and it's never forced them to do discontinue anythining. They're still called Apple, they're still in business, and their computers can still synthesize music.

"What's going to be really funny is that iPod users won't
have a decent online music store that works with their closed propriety iPod."

All iPods support MP3 and WAV formats. They can't be either closed or propriety when they support the two standards in digital audio. Think your lies through alittle better.

Reality Check is, in fact, Steve Ballmer. No-one else in the computer business has this ability to look facts so squarely in the face and then state the exact opposite. Even the Jobsian RDF is no match for the Blindness of Ballmer.

Oh, and Reality Check is actually an anagram of "Hey! Check lice!" (sort of nit-picking, if you get my meaning)

Apple is decent and won't run a indecent onLine music shop. They will close iTunes down instead.

I am a fool but I want to eat the Apple. If you are Mr. Ballmer, would you help me.

http://www.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=8686&messageID=175067&start=-1

It sounds a great idea.

But there is something wrong in it...I think it should be amended as "we eat", not "I eat' or "he eat".

Reality check, do you agree ?



BILL.

Have you gotten your terminology mixed up? Patents and copyrights are completely different animals. If Pat-Rights holds a patent and is (or will be) filing suit on it, what is the copyright infringment you mention? Is Pat-Rights also making a copyright claim? Or does the reporter think the two terms mean the same thing?