Apple, Samsung, Sandisk sued over MP3

Over the weekend it became known that Texas MP3 Technologies plans to take on Apple, Samsung Electronics, and Sandisk with a patent-infringement lawsuit filed on February 16 in Marshall, Texas. In the complaint, Texas MP3 Technologies alleges infringement on U.S. patent number 7,065,417, which was awarded in June 2006 to multimedia chip-maker SigmaTel and covers "an MPEG portable sound reproducing system and a method for reproducing sound data compressed using the MPEG method." Just over a month later SigmaTel said that it had sold the patent to a Dallas-based patent licensing agency because "we believe it will be difficult to design around these patents and have a commercially viable player". SigmaTel said it had retained international rights to the patent and has insulated its customers from any legal action associated with the patent. Whether Texas MP3 Technologies, which is asking for a jury trial, is the Dallas-based company that bought the patents from SigmaTel or whether it acquired them from somewhere else is unclear. It should be noted that in the complaint, Texas MP3 Technologies listed an address in Marshall, Texas.

Link: Forum Discussion
News source: InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iZeit 1.7.4

Next Story

Sony chops Price on Blu-ray Player

16 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

let's go over this:

an MPEG portable sound reproducing system - it plays sound from an unspecified MPEG format and it's considered portable.

-What do they mean by MPEG? There are many MPEG formats, this doesn't even say if its an MPEG audio or video format, it could mean playing the audio from an MPEG movie!

-Reproducing means producing a concurrent time, but lets assume it means "playing".

-What is the definition of portable?


and a method for reproducing sound data compressed using the MPEG method - basically the same thing a second time but without the portable

-The exact same points

-Repetition is bad

-But aparently I cant even get a patent unless I say the same thing over and over

-But aparently I cant even get a patent unless I say the same thing over and over

-But aparently I cant even get a patent unless I say the same thing over and over


I think the US patent office is a little too generous with patents noawadays if they give out patents based on: "it plays (unspecified) MPEG files ('portably' )" maybe this is why every company is suing every other company.

...and in response, Apple, Samsung and Sandisk (along with anybody else who has had anything to to with MP3 since 1996, including our old friends Frauenhofer) file suit against SigmaTel and Texas MP3 Technologies for their own infringement against patent, attempted profiteering, misrepresentation and general ****-taking. That weight of companies should be enough to bury these scumbags.
In a follow-up move, they should then sue the Patents Office for being a waste of space and a provider of frivolous lawsuit claims.

step 1: set up shop
step 2: file a patent on technology currently in use by major companies
step 3: sue the bejesus out of everything
step 4: profit

Just MPEG ehh?

MPEG compressed audio has been around for ages, the spec i can find was published in 1996 (which includes MP3)

And if it's very generic, and just covers "MPEG audio", then AAC is covered by it as well.

How do you prevent yourself from infringing a patent, when the people patent it after you have released your product for a few years?

That's when they finally got it from the patent office, but when did they file for it? With so many patents placed each year alone, it takes forever for them to look over it, this could've been filed years ago, before the MP3 player market took off.

GP007 said,
That's when they finally got it from the patent office, but when did they file for it? With so many patents placed each year alone, it takes forever for them to look over it, this could've been filed years ago, before the MP3 player market took off.

According to google patent search:
Patent number: 7065417
Filing date: Jan 29, 2002
Issue date: Jun 20, 2006
Inventors: Kwang-su Moon, Jung-ha Hwang
Assignee: SigmaTel, Inc.
Primary Examiner: Xu Mei
Attorney: Toler Schaffer, LLP

The iPod was released in 2001. The Creative Nomad before then. Both should count as prior art and hence the patent should be void.

MrA said,

According to google patent search:
The iPod was released in 2001. The Creative Nomad before then. Both should count as prior art and hence the patent should be void.

You forgot about the Diamond Rio.

Indeed. As far as I know you can take patent on genes in the us!
So even though you have the genes in your DNA, it is not yours.