Apple was sued Wednesday over allegations that its iTunes online music store and iPod music players are illegally using a patented method for distributing digital media over the Internet. Atlanta-based ZapMedia Services Inc. sued Apple in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, accusing the Cupertino-based company of violating two ZapMedia patents, demanding royalties on Apple's sales of iPods and iTunes music, which reached nearly $11 billion last year. The patents in question cover a way of sending music and other digital content from servers to multiple media players, a broad description that could also apply to a wide swath of other companies selling digital media and the devices to play it.
ZapMedia applied for the patents in 1999. One was granted in March 2006, the other on Tuesday. ZapMedia said it met with Apple to discuss licensing, but Apple rebuffed the offer. "When someone takes our vision and our intellectual property without a license after several attempts, we have no option but to protect it through every means available to us," Robert Frohwein, ZapMedia's general counsel, said in a statement. An Apple spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending lawsuits.
View: Full Story on CNN Money
ZapMedia applied for the patents in 1999. One was granted in March 2006, the other on Tuesday. ZapMedia said it met with Apple to discuss licensing, but Apple rebuffed the offer. "When someone takes our vision and our intellectual property without a license after several attempts, we have no option but to protect it through every means available to us," Robert Frohwein, ZapMedia's general counsel, said in a statement. An Apple spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending lawsuits.
View: Full Story on CNN Money
All they think about is money and profit?
All these stupid patent lawsuits, its like they are preventing our future in technology...
And please, quit with the stereotypes. They're totally unnecessary.
gotta love how we all oppose the brown and tell him to shove his patents and eu constitution crap and... Oh no wait, we did sod all, yep sorry self corrected.
Yeah, I agree with you there. I read this morning about an elderly person who rung for an ambulance when his wife collapsed. They got there, then one of them went to get the stretcher, then tripped and fell over on their driveway. Now the guy is suing the couple!
As for this Apple lawsuit, if Apple are using this patented method from ZapMedia, then just pay them for damages and say no more about it. iTunes is huge, so they're not gonna lose much money from the lawsuit, aren't they?
All they think about is money and profit?
Wow clever deduction there Watson.
It's worth nothing here (keeping in mind that I think this lawsuit is moronic) that their patent was only granted in 2006 - not even an whole two years ago unless it was granted early in 2006. If they did indeed approache apple that probably took some time as well, as would the preparations for that approach and time to put together their suit for the district court.
While this is almost certainly an attempt to profit off of Apple's successes, they didn't just wait around - they can't sue until the patent is granted.
If they took the case to Marshall, TX, they don't have a case.
They have a case but I consider them to have just been waiting. If they applied for the patent in 1999 it means that they've had nine years between when they had this concept and now. Do you know of their product? Do they even have one?
Look, it may show that they had the idea but you don't need to wait for your patent to be granted before you can use it. I've seen plenty of products that say "patent pending" - that means that the patent behind the product has yet to be approved, but you're seeing a finished product. A few of my non-erasable pens have that notice on them, just as a quick example.
Another reason why this would be baseless is because the patents were "just" granted. Isn't this essentially a case of prior art by now? If Apple had created its stuff when the patents were already in existence, then sure, Apple may have stolen ideas or they're not properly compensating people. Do people really need to look not only through patents that already exist, but pending patents too? Patent lawyers must make a killing off of this stuff.
Saying that their patents were just recently granted makes it seem like these guys really deserve a chance or had something unfair happen to them. But when you realize the above points it seems a bit more like these are garden-variety patent trolls.
Anyway I ment to say that the patents were applied for in 1999 and just granted in 2006 and last tuesday. that is not waiting.
Oh, nevermind. If it works out for the better for you, then what else matters, right?
Then I'm ignorant. Up to the point a patent is granted ANYBODY can use the same idea, primarily because a) no lockdown b) freedom of someone to coincidentally think of something already thought of.
Using your logic, I could have applied for a patent on breathing ten years ago, meaning you are in breach of it, even though my patent hasn't been granted. You'd better pray it doesn't get granted in your lifetime.
Then I'm ignorant. Up to the point a patent is granted ANYBODY can use the same idea, primarily because a) no lockdown b) freedom of someone to coincidentally think of something already thought of.
Using your logic, I could have applied for a patent on breathing ten years ago, meaning you are in breach of it, even though my patent hasn't been granted. You'd better pray it doesn't get granted in your lifetime.
This might have sounded intelligent had the scenario involved a scientific mechanical breathing apparatus to save lives, but nobody could patent lungs unless they could prove themselves a God. *she said genuflecting and kneeling at the thought of this concept*
Can i sue them too?
Correct me if im wrong... but thousands of companies do this? and have been for some time.,..
(See, evo_spook? I defend Apple when they're maligned, too.)
(See, evo_spook? I defend Apple when they're maligned, too.)
Thank You but....
"Eastern Texas town?" Marshall,
I dont get it?
(See, evo_spook? I defend Apple when they're maligned, too.)
Thank You but....
"Eastern Texas town?" Marshall,
I dont get it?
Marshall, Texas is the capitol of bogus patent suits because there's a dumb-butt judge there that rules in favor of nearly anyone that brings a suit in front of him. Google "marshall texas patent" and see.
(See, evo_spook? I defend Apple when they're maligned, too.)
Thank You but....
"Eastern Texas town?" Marshall,
I dont get it?
Marshall, Texas is the capitol of bogus patent suits because there's a dumb-butt judge there that rules in favor of nearly anyone that brings a suit in front of him. Google "marshall texas patent" and see.
ah, I can see why this makes it dubious.
If it was a valid claim they would have filed it in their home city rather than IP Patent City, USA.
Ahhh the Apple Way. Why license someone else's technology when you can steal it, implement it, and then act like the innocent one later? Steve will whip out a shiny new toy with a shiny apple logo on it, the crowd goes "oooooooooooo shiny" and everyone forgets all about it.
Lets see, one, its not proven stolen.
2nd, there is stuff that is just logical to do, eg Hierarchal menus, this is common sense, and people shouldn't be able patent common sense stuff, so it could have being developed in tandem, to steal it, they would have had to have knowledge of it.
I don't know if they did, you don't know if they did
Lets see, one, its not proven stolen.
2nd, there is stuff that is just logical to do, eg Hierarchal menus, this is common sense, and people shouldn't be able patent common sense stuff, so it could have being developed in tandem, to steal it, they would have had to have knowledge of it.
I don't know if they did, you don't know if they did
This is pretty much true. You AREN'T supposed to be able to patent an idea, only a method for implementing it. That's why the ViziCalc patent was overturned way-back-when. The company argued it held a patent on cascading calculation of a spreadsheet, but that's really the only way to do it.
Lets say I have invented a toaster that will toast 16 slices of bread at once, I have used existing non patented toaster technology in my toaster, In research I have found that no one has yet designed, built or patented a toaster that does 16 slices at once. I can patent my toaster but not the way it does the actual toasting.
Secondly, The number of people and companies out there that do nothing all day but try to come up with ideas for products that do not yet exist or even improvements to existing products, Then apply for patents on those products with the sole intention of selling that idea with the applied for patent included in the sale to a large company is far beyond anything I would want to try to count. This is a typical business practice and the way probably 80% of our technology is discovered and created. BUT the companies which do this are not all publicly announced incorporations for the simple fact that if someone knows about you it is far to easy to keep track of what you are doing or to find out things that you very much wish to keep secret.
And Finally, I speak of this out of personal experience. I invented, designed, built, patented and marketed a product in the mid 80's. I was promptly approached by a large well known manufacturer with the proposal to purchase my product design and patent. I will not go into detail as to the product or the company involved but will simply say it was an item that did make life much safer for people in the home building and remodeling industry.
Come to find out after the settlement on the purchase of my product it turned out the company did not wish to purchase the idea, the patent, or the design so they could themselves manufacture and market the item. They purchased it for the sole purpose of removing the product from the market as to not have it compete with a similar product which they had recently developed and applied for a patent on and of course were refused the patent as it would infringe on my patent for a far to similar item. By obtaining my whole package they allowed themselves to build their original product using the patent which was originally granted me for my design under the product alteration and improvement stipulation which is part of the patent that basically says the patent remains in tact even if the product changes so much over time that it no longer resembles or functions at it was first documented.
Their product which would be more costly to the public yet could be mass produced for very close to what my projected production cost's would be and make them more money in the long term. It was to them a more marketable product if it did not have competition in the same market base.
I in no way regret the sale of my patent or the idea it covers to that company and still feel "Kudos to them" for watching their own backs in the market place in which they planned to step and eliminating something that would have stopped their market shares from reaching the projected goals set forth in their business plan for that product.
I feel if Apple did not research the technology which they may have and probably did think of them selves to find out if such technology had been patented or even applied for then it is on them to pay damages to the original designer. As far as this company going after others who use the same technology I do believe the article does mention that this patent infringement could be spread over many different companies. In the near future you will probably hear of more law suites in regards to this matter.
OK now I'll stop rambling on and get back to work on my latest ideas!
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.