Apple loses court battle over downloadable playlist patent

Apple currently is involved in a number of court battles but this week the company was on the losing end of one of them. According to Bloomberg, a federal jury is awarding $8 million to another company that claims Apple violated its patents based on downloadable playlists. The company is Texas based Personal Audio LLC, a patent licensing company. It filed a lawsuits against Apple in 2009. It claimed Apple violated two of its patents that were based on  "an audio player that can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list."

While Apple claimed that it was not using Personal Audio's patents, a federal jury in Texas disagreed and awarded the $8 million to Personal Audio. The company had originally asked for $84 million. There's no word if Apple will try to appeal the jury's decision. There's also no word if Personal Audio might try to file lawsuits against other companies that offer media players with similar features.

Apple's court battles this week included being on the losing end of a judge's decision not to put a injunction against Amazon.com for its use of the "Appstore" name for Amazon's Android download store. On Friday, Apple filed a cease and desist order against another company, GetJar, for using the term "app store" for its long running software download service. GetJar has already proclaimed it has used the term "app store" for some time to describe its business and plans to fight Apple over the term.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's back to school plan is being beaten by Apple's

Next Story

Google has no plans to kill Blogger brand name

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"an audio player that can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list."

lol

LaP said,
"an audio player that can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list."

lol


yeah, this. pure retardation.

wait a minute the lawsuit was filed in 2009 how come it's taken 3 yrs to get a verdict, that's ridiculous what ever happened to the right to an fair and Speedy trial

Athlonite said,
wait a minute the lawsuit was filed in 2009 how come it's taken 3 yrs to get a verdict, that's ridiculous what ever happened to the right to an fair and Speedy trial
That only applies to Criminal law.. And it also only applies if a side want it (Sometimes both the defence and prosecutors would like a lot of time before a trial.. )

But as I said, it doesn't apply to non-criminal law. That takes as long as it takes, and when dealing with big companies, expect it to take years.

ILikeTobacco said,
a patent on downloadable playlists? thats retarded. another example of a patent that should have never been granted

Why? Intellectual property involves hard work. Just because YOU think it's a stupid invention doesn't make it so. Have you ever developed software?

KingCrimson said,

Why? Intellectual property involves hard work. Just because YOU think it's a stupid invention doesn't make it so. Have you ever developed software?


Remind me where in my post I said it was a stupid invention. Oh right, I didn't. I said being able to patent it is stupid. This patent should never have been allowed. This patent means that in a time when more and more of our everyday use of a computer gets put into a cloud, we can't even download our music playlists.

And I develop software. Its my career and my company would never patent something like this. It is unethical. How would you like it if someone showed up and said I have a patent here to downloading email attachments? Nobody else is allowed to do it. Not only that, it is a company that has never been heard of and isn't using it at all. You speak of hard work and yet you don't even recognize that Apple is using this "magical idea" that is really just a common sense concept and because some no name company is sitting on an unused patent, consumers get screwed. The only work done by that company is applying for a patent. Apple developed the idea.

To recap in very specific terms so you can understand it: This patent = stupid. What was patented = useful. The only people that lost out = consumer.

This is not a lose for only Apple. This means nobody will both messing with being able to download a playlist.

KingCrimson said,

Why? Intellectual property involves hard work. Just because YOU think it's a stupid invention doesn't make it so. Have you ever developed software?

For almost every playlist "format", it's just a PLAIN TEXT list of song names with the full UNC directory name.

And a plain text list of songs is NOT patentable, so there must be more fire behind this smoke somewhere.

What's with all the patent battles recently?

Now I see why we can't get better products on the market - the companies are far too busy suing each other...

Tpiom said,
What's with all the patent battles recently?

Now I see why we can't get better products on the market - the companies are far too busy suing each other...


Companies are too busy suing eachother because its the only way to make money in the current economy apparently

Tk1917 said,

Companies are too busy suing eachother because its the only way to make money in the current economy apparently

You realize a company typically has thousands of employees, right? It's not like all the engineers stop, grab a coffee, and attend the court hearings. I'm pretty sure a big company like apple has the ability to sue while doing other things...

ManMountain said,
Just wait a few seconds. That's Apple just recouped the $8 million

i wonder how much they paid for legal fees to try and stop this