Apple, Samsung, Sandisk sued over MP3

Advertisement (Why?)

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

(2 replies) #1 AfroTrance on 26 Feb 2007 - 21:58

The only thing to say about this is "lol@uspatentsystem"

#1.1 zivan56 on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:18

No kidding, did they even bother checking for prior art?

#1.2 Mr_Mo on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:50

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.

(3 replies) #2 max_ireland on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:06

June 2006??

Bit late with it perhaps?

#2.1 GP007 on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:48

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.

#2.2 MrA on 27 Feb 2007 - 02:09

Quote - (GP007 said @ #2.1)

According to google patent search:

Quote -

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.

#2.3 RAID 0 on 27 Feb 2007 - 03:56

Quote - (MrA said @ #2.2)

You forgot about the Diamond Rio.

(1 reply) #3 Sumeet on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:14

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

#3.1 Lexcyn on 27 Feb 2007 - 00:23

You don't invent things in the U.S.

#4 The_Decryptor on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:22

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.

(1 reply) #5 fear_machine on 26 Feb 2007 - 22:54

I'm going to file a patent for "acting like a retard" and then sue companies like Texas MP3 Technologies for infringing on my patent.

#5.1 GatorV on 26 Feb 2007 - 23:39

lol

It's a shame we can patent things that don't exist and then sue them later! wow

#6 C_Guy on 26 Feb 2007 - 23:09

Another organization short on money.

#7 sin-ergy on 27 Feb 2007 - 01:50

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

(1 reply) #8 black_death on 27 Feb 2007 - 02:54

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.

Last edited by black_death on 27 Feb 2007 - 03:00

#8.1 +mrbester on 27 Feb 2007 - 10:58

...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.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net