Patent claim threatens streaming industry

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2130002,00.html' target='_blank'>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t2...2130002,00.html</a><br /><br /></div>The never-ending parade of people holding "I invented this first" signs continues :roll:, and this one could effect Pocket PC users who enjoy watching or listening to streaming content.<br /><br />"Michael Roe, proprietor of the small RadioIO Webcasting station, got a surprise FedEx package this week, containing a notification that he was violating patents owned by a company he'd never heard of. That's not uncommon in the technology world -- the surprise was the scope of the claims. The sender, a company called Acacia Media Technologies, said it owned patents on the process of transmitting compressed audio or video online, one of the most basic multimedia technologies on the Net. <br /><br />Roe, who recently finished fighting an expensive legislative battle over copyright fees for the music his station plays, was flabbergasted. Acacia only wanted three-quarters of a percent of his revenue, but every bit hurts at this point, he said. "It's extortion," Roe said. "It's just another example of someone seeking to extend patents for an old technology to...cover completely new technology. It's absurd."

[pocketpcdude1024]

It's absurd.

Exactly. Patents are corrupt. There is no interest in intelectual rights (as an inventor) but rather trying to use old and vague patents to claim rights to technological standards. :(

Really, I'm surprised it's not Xerox... :wink:

[Ed Hansberry]

You'll be hearing from my lawyer. I have a patent pending on complaining about stupid lawsuits and patent claims. You'll be paying for my kids' education! :lol:

[pocketpcdude1024]

You'll be hearing from my lawyer. I have a patent pending on complaining about stupid lawsuits and patent claims. You'll be paying for my kids' education! :lol:

Pending patents can't be excercised. Only when a patent is approved and after the approval someone infringes on your patent can you assert your legal rights. Ex post facto. :wink:

EDIT: 2p's, 1o! :lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

Pending patents can't be excercised. Only when a patent is aprooved and after the aprooval someone infringes on your patent can you assert your legal rights. Ex post facto. :wink:
Right, but I expect my approval Tuesday, and I can use the date of the filing, not the approval. :D

[Foo Fighter]

Yeah, well I patented message board rants, incessant complaining, nit-picking, and over critical analysis. And I will collect license fees from anyone posting similar material! :P

[pocketpcdude1024]

Yeah, well I patented message board rants, incessant complaining, nit-picking, and over critical analysis. And I will collect license fees from anyone posting similar material! :P

Would it be too much to ask for the patent number? 8)

[Duncan]

Unfortunately this is one company that has done its homework. It has bought up (on the sly) everthing it needs to makes its claim stand up. They appear to genuinely have every patented aspect of streaming within their ownership now. This isn't another 'British Telecom owns hyperlinks' type case.

The only way to stop this one will be to get the laws on patents changed.

[vincentsiaw]

This patent is definately absurd, but anyway, in US people get money even if they sued people over a cup hot coffee.(look at mcdonalds) :lol:

[T-Will]

I wonder if I could patent the right to sue companies that are infringing on my patent to sue companies that infringe on my patent?

Or maybe I should patent the right to sue companies that threaten to sue companies that are infringing on their patent to sue companies which is really my patent to sue companies so in turn I could sue companies that threaten to sue those companies that infringe on other companies patents which is really my patent... :roll:

[pocketpcdude1024]

I wonder if I could patent the right to sue companies that are infringing on my patent to sue companies that infringe on my patent?

Or maybe I should patent the right to sue companies that threaten to sue companies that are infringing on their patent to sue companies which is really my patent to sue companies so in turn I could sue companies that threaten to sue those companies that infringe on other companies patents which is really my patent... :roll:

Now that's fun. :lol:

[Fzara]

I wonder if I could patent the right to sue companies that are infringing on my patent to sue companies that infringe on my patent?

Or maybe I should patent the right to sue companies that threaten to sue companies that are infringing on their patent to sue companies which is really my patent to sue companies so in turn I could sue companies that threaten to sue those companies that infringe on other companies patents which is really my patent... :roll:

I'm not even gonna try to read or decipher that.
btw, where did you get the Space shuttle Columbia's symbol, on the PDA from? That looks really nice, and I hope to get that.


An excellent example of the patent infringement can be seen with RIM and Palm's little dispute. Unfortunately, RIM had a patent on something similar to Palm's graffiti, so they tried going after Palm for it
(RIM is a dying company, I dont even think they can afford coffee anymore for the employees)

Another great example was RIM going after Handspring for their thumboard, which was similar to RIM's keyboard.
Although it is nice to see the Palm OS hardware manufacturers going after each other, it really is sad how much power "patents" have.

[Kati Compton]

This is almost, but not quite, on the level of the company that had (has?) a patent on using an XOR methodology to allow a cursor to blink.

[Jonathan1]

Can I patent the method of making a patent and then charge so much for the process that no one would bother? :?

What can be said about this company other then they are a bunch of dumb***** I mean if they were EVER serious about this they would have brought this up years ago. But no. Just like the moron who said he had a patent to hyperlinks he waits until its worth millions if not billions. :evil: :twisted:

[CharlesWilcox]

but anyway, in US people get money even if they sued people over a cup hot coffee.(look at mcdonalds) :lol:
Not many people know the facts about the McDonalds' Coffee Case (http://www.brown-szaller.com/q298-2/url), but here we are, amazingly enough, still talking about it almost 9 years later.

http://www.brown-szaller.com/q298-2.htm

I'm not sure why the link won't work. I'm kind of a newbie, but at least I gave it a shot. :D

[ctmagnus]

Hmm... Maybe I'll patent underwear.

[kettle]

I'm going to have to go against the grain on this one and say that I think they actually have a legitimate case on this one.

[Saaby]

I collect flashlgihts. Guess what...it happens in the flashlight industry too.

The company that makes this
http://home.attbi.com/~saaby/y.gif
(Maglight, the flashlight enthusiasts love to hate)

is sueing the company that makes this

http://home.attbi.com/~saaby/x.gif
(Arc Flashlight--www.arcflashlight.com)

Crazy eh? They are both keychain sized, use a AAA battery, and you twist the head to turn them both on. The similarities end there....for starters the Solitare uses a grain-of-wheat bulb. The Arc AAA uses an AAA battery to power a tiny step up circut that gives you 8+ hours of constant ly bright, white light out of a 5mm LED.


I know I sound like an advertisment for them but it's an amazing little hunk of technlogy.


Mag is the Xerox of the flashlight world...they're out to sue any company that hooks a photon-producing device to batteries in a tube...

**BONUS**
Glamor shot of the 2 together. Guess which one is the Arc...yup, the smaller, brigher one with better runtime

http://home.attbi.com/~saaby/z.gif

[daS]

Not many people know the facts about the McDonalds' Coffee Case (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm/url), but here we are, amazingly enough, still talking about it almost 9 years later.
Well the site for the ambulance chasers that you provided had lots of missing images, and a design that shows why lawyers shouldn’t be webmasters. So I couldn’t find any information about the McDonalds case on it. But I do know that the apologists for the tort lawyers talk about the fact that the coffee was too hot. :roll: Sorry, but I couldn’t care less if the coffee was boiling in the cup. You put it between your legs, you accept responsibility for the consequences. But today, lawyers are sucking the life out of people and companies to line their own pockets. :evil: And that goes for these ridiculous business process patents, which are just another case of legal extortion. :twisted: It’s time for real reform so that the legal system starts protecting the public instead of benefiting the scumbag lawyers that feed off of everyone else.

Of course, I do realize that there are a few attorneys that are not the typical bloodsuckers, so if a lawyer is reading this, the above may not apply to you. Just like there must be someone selling refilled inkjet cartages that doesn’t try to fill my emailbox with SPAM. :roll:

[Weyoun6]

This makes me wonder if some company will patent "one entity sending and reciving data from another" This is getting really ridiculous. Patents are so generic they can apply to almost anything.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Yeah, well I patented message board rants, incessant complaining, nit-picking, and over critical analysis. And I will collect license fees from anyone posting similar material! :P
I guess that patent would force all of us to only listen to the "Foo"-point-of-view, eh? :wink:

[thenikjones]

This makes me wonder if some company will patent "one entity sending and reciving data from another" This is getting really ridiculous. Patents are so generic they can apply to almost anything.

You can't patent something after it's common knowledge ("prior art"), you have to do it first. Different countries have differing attitudes to them - the Japanese patent everything, Europe is pretty lax and the USA is in-between. The problem is that it is VERY difficult to find out if an area you are interested in has been patented. Obtaining a patent is sufficiently expensive that an independent inventor probably can't afford to, and he/she needs the protection the most :evil:

In my experience, a lot of the fault for patents being too broad/generic is down to the system - a patent laywer/attorney is an expert on the patent system, not the area where the patent is being sought, and the method for filing patents is so obscure that searching to see if the technology is already patented is very difficult. Also, patents need to be applied for specifically for each country of interest, there is no such thing as a "world patent".

[dh]

Didn't Al Gore invent streaming media?

[kettle]

Hey Saaby, I'm actually bidding on a new Inova X5 at ebay right now.

[daS]

This makes me wonder if some company will patent "one entity sending and reciving data from another" This is getting really ridiculous. Patents are so generic they can apply to almost anything.

You can't patent something after it's common knowledge ("prior art"), you have to do it first. ...
I agree that’s the way it’s supposed to work. The problem (at least here in the USA) is that people ARE getting patents for things that have prior art, or the patents are so broad that they should be unenforceable. But just as it can be prohibitively expensive for an individual to go through the patent process, it’s also expensive to fight a patent in court. Some people and their attorneys have made an industry out of getting ridiculous patents, then charging licensing fees that are just a little less than what it would cost to fight the patent in court (assuming you could be guaranteed a win) so people pay this extortion because it’s cheaper than fighting it. :evil:

The problem with a patent like the one that started this thread is not just the prior art, but that it’s way too broad. If someone develops a specific compression technique, that of course, should be protected by patents. However, to say that someone can patent the very idea of using any compression on a data stream – that’s not an invention! It used to be that you couldn’t patent the use of an old idea to a new application. Unfortunately, while the patent office used to be able to understand what a “safety razor” was, they can’t understand what a compression algorithm is. So they just issue patents for virtually any technical process and dump it on the courts to sort out if the patent should have been issued in the first place. We have patents for impossible inventions - such as a method for guaranteed loss-less compression of any data – impossible since if it was applied recursively it should allow you to extract the original data from a single bit. 8O We also have patents for ideas (which used to not be patentable) such as the infamous one given to the son of a patent attorney (naturally) for a method of swinging sideways on a playground swing! Now that kid’s dad can teach him the ethics of lawyers by showing how he can charge every other kid in the country $0.10 each for a lifetime license to play the way they always did before and who’s going to spend the money to prove the patent was bogus in court? :? Like all other areas of the law, the system has been hijacked by lawyers who use it as yet another money grab! :evil:

[dmkozak]

This patent is definately absurd, but anyway, in US people get money even if they sued people over a cup hot coffee.(look at mcdonalds) :lol:

Gosh, I thought the facts were different than what you posted and the appeal was upheld. Maybe I shouldn't actually read the cases. It only confuses me when reading these kind of posts.

[pocketpcdude1024]

Didn't Al Gore invent streaming media?

No, no, that was the Internet. :lol:

[CharlesWilcox]

Not many people know the facts about the McDonalds' Coffee Case (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm/url), but here we are, amazingly enough, still talking about it almost 9 years later.
Well the site for the ambulance chasers that you provided had lots of missing images, and a design that shows why lawyers shouldn’t be webmasters.

http://www.brown-szaller.com/q298-2.htm

I added the correct link to my prior post and here as well. Not sure what I did wrong there, but hey.

I wholeheartedly agree with personal responsiblity, and I am not an apoligist. One would expect to get an uncomfortable 1st degree burn from coffee spilt in the lap (risk expected and accepted)... One would not expect to spend a week in the hospital in which doctors were required to perform skin grafts (there is not a reasonable expection of that kind of risk). Additionally the hype around that case was because of the size of the judgement. 2.?? Million. The judge reduced it to $480K, still a big chunk of change, but McDonalds has settled similar matters (coffee burns) out of court for more money than that. My original point was just to say that people have an (incorrect??) perception of what that case was all about after 9 years. I guess it just struck me as odd that the award reduction, if it was even reported at the time, doesn't stick out in anyone's mind. :?:

[ctmagnus]

You can't patent something after it's common knowledge ("prior art")...

Darn, there goes my underwear plan. :( And I could've been rich, too! Everyone (most people, at least) wears underwear.

[PetiteFlower]

The McDonald's case SOUNDED frivolous because of the way it was presented in the media, but even prior to reading that link I had known the facts and also agreed that it was a legitimate case. Yes, it was dumb to put the coffee between her legs, but if she'd spilled it on her hand the injury would have been just as bad.....it was about McDonalds serving coffee at a temperature high enough to cause those kinds of injuries, which is a legitimate cause for suit.

This patent thing is actually a lot shadier. The company in question here noticed that they had SOME of the patents that would be needed to make a claim to this technology and another company had the rest, so they bought the other company. They definitely did their homework; if Virgin Records thought they had a legitimate claim then there must be something to it, since they DO have the money to fight a patent battle. So they DO have a legitimate claim and people are probably going to end up paying them, but they way they went about it was way shady IMO.

Maybe it would be better if they stopped allowing patents to be owned by companies and instead they could only be owned by the person who did the inventing. Of course then the company couldn't make money off of something that they paid the developer to invent so that wouldn't really work either.

[daS]

I wholeheartedly agree with personal responsiblity, and I am not an apoligist. One would expect to get an uncomfortable 1st degree burn from coffee spilt in the lap (risk expected and accepted)... One would not expect to spend a week in the hospital in which doctors were required to perform skin grafts (there is not a reasonable expection of that kind of risk). Additionally the hype around that case was because of the size of the judgement. 2.?? Million. The judge reduced it to $480K, still a big chunk of change, but McDonalds has settled similar matters (coffee burns) out of court for more money than that. My original point was just to say that people have an (incorrect??) perception of what that case was all about after 9 years. I guess it just struck me as odd that the award reduction, if it was even reported at the time, doesn't stick out in anyone's mind. :?:
Well actually, I was afraid to say that I did know the facts without checking first. But now that you have confirmed what I remember, I still think it’s a case that shows the absurdity of our system. :silly: Yes nearly half a million bucks being paid because someone did something to themselves is outrageous! Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t know in advance the extent of the injuries I would cause myself by spilling coffee on myself. But I do know that it’s hot and if I squeeze a Styrofoam cup between my legs there’s a chance I will hurt myself. I, me myself, not the company that sold me the coffee! :oops: Yes, I do recall that the lady’s case was based on the coffee being far hotter than necessary and therefore dangerous. However, as I said before, when I get coffee, I assume it’s hot, I assume it’s boiling hot - I don't know the difference. I don’t think it’s the restaurant’s responsibility to anticipate every stupid person’s actions and take preemptive actions like regulating the temperature differently.

Yes, we still talk about it years later because, like the O.J. trial, it shows how our legal system has been abused. And because we see the stupid warnings on every coffee cup telling us the obvious: the coffee is hot! 8O The case that’s unfortunately talked about less, is the small ladder manufacture that went out of business. I think it was on 60 Minutes many years ago that I saw the last company president showing the one of the ladders his grandfather made together with the last model they sold. They had identical construction, but the newer one was covered everywhere with stickers warning you of every danger they could think of: don’t stand above this step, place on level ground, don’t go up and down backwards, etc., etc., etc. Still, they had to close the company because they could no longer afford the liability costs! :cry:

Litigation attorneys have convinced people that there’s never such a thing as an accident only an opportunity to profit – someone is always to blame, and that someone is always the someone with the deepest pockets to pick. :x It's becoming the same with patents. Many are sought, not to protect an inventor but as an opportunity to shake down legitimate companies for unearned rewards.

[T-Will]

Patent #6,352,353
This patent is on any device which allows people (or animals) to communicate with each other.

Communicating devices include computers, telephones, cell phones, cordless phones, satellite phones, walkie talkies, ham radios, CB radios, satellites, the internet, pen and paper, envelopes, U.S. Mail, UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express, typwriters, word processors, sticky notes, notepads, telegraphs, MSN Messenger, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, AIM, Excite Messenger, Trillian, computer monitors, vocal chords, mouths, eyes, sign language, braille, hands, telephone wires, T1 lines, ISDN lines, the atmosphere, space, TV, satellite dishes, cable, IRC, mIRC, TCP/IP protocal, VOIP protocol, keyboards, thumbboards, character recognition, character recognizer, Transcriber, FITALY, on-screen keyboards, Jot, Graffiti, Graffiti 2, LCD screens, email, POP protocol, SMTP protocol, streaming video, streaming audio, Pocket PC's, Palms, Palm Pilots, Handsprings, Casio Pocket Viewers, and any other communication device.

I'm going to sue the whole world for using my invention! :twisted:

[T-Will]

Has anyone patented Earth yet? Or does Jesus hold the patent to that? Or does he only have the patent on our souls? &lt;>&lt; :wink:

[daS]

The McDonald's case SOUNDED frivolous because of the way it was presented in the media, but even prior to reading that link I had known the facts and also agreed that it was a legitimate case. Yes, it was dumb to put the coffee between her legs, but if she'd spilled it on her hand the injury would have been just as bad.....it was about McDonalds serving coffee at a temperature high enough to cause those kinds of injuries, which is a legitimate cause for suit.

Sorry, but the McDonald’s case was outrageous and it has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the presumption that adults can’t take responsibility for their own actions. When I was a child, my parents would blow on my hot chocolate and test it to make sure it didn’t burn me. When I became an adult, I gladly took the responsibility of protecting myself. I don’t want or need companies or governments to be my mommy and daddy! But the lawyers see to it that I have no choice. During the mad cow hype, most restaurants refused to serve beef medium rare. If I asked for it that way and am willing to take the risk myself, why should it be their problem? But it was because they had to assume that they would get sued if they didn’t protect me from myself! Now it’s not possible to get coffee on your way to work that is hot enough that it will still be hot by the time you get to the office. It’s sad that every day the general public loses a little tiny more of our quality of life so that a few people and their lawyers can make a buck. :cry:

[Janak Parekh]

Sorry, but the McDonald’s case was outrageous and it has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the presumption that adults can’t take responsibility for their own actions.
Maybe, but take a look at this link (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html). It goes to show nothing's simple anymore. ;)

All I can say is, thank goodness I'm not addicted to coffee. :D

--janak

[daS]

Sorry, but the McDonald’s case was outrageous and it has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the presumption that adults can’t take responsibility for their own actions.
Maybe, but take a look at this link (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html). It goes to show nothing's simple anymore. ;)

All I can say is, thank goodness I'm not addicted to coffee. :D

--janak
Yes, I read the link (and the previous one) and yes it is simple: First I should point out - I’m sorry that the lady spilled coffee on herself.

But I’m also sorry to read about other facts in the case: I’m sorry that her lawyers were able to find one QA manager in a company the size of McDonalds to say that they knew the coffee was hot. I’m sure that you could also find someone in a similar position at the company to say it was too cold, too dark, too acidic, too anything else. :? I’m sorry that McDonalds was faced with a jury that could not get past their very real and very deserving sympathy for an old lady in order to deal with common sense and personal responsibility. I’m also sorry that the facts in this case didn’t include the amount of money paid to the attorneys on both sides (especially the amount paid in the secret settlement.) I’m sorry there is a publication called Liability Week! 8O

[Fzara]

The McDonalds case was intriguing. Hotter than normal coffee, gets McDonalds in trouble. Who woulda knew

[Mark from Canada]

It's bad enough that too many patents are being granted, but the worst thing is that they allow companies to wait and sit while something similar to their patents is becoming mainstream - and then act.
There should be a law that you have longest three months time to fight a patent infringement once the other companies process/product has become public.
It used to be that you got the patent protection in exchange for publicly laying out how your thing works.
In reality now you can just sit back and wait until somebody invents something similar on their own, wait for them to sell it and have profit and make it public - or just give it away for free - and then go after them because you weren't able to do anything with the technology yourself.

[pocketpcdude1024]

Patent #6,352,353
This patent is on any device which allows people (or animals) to communicate with each other.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but patent #6,352,353 is for "Grape-type light bulb strings" :lol:

If you don't believe me, see for yourself! (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,352,353.WKU.&OS=PN/6,352,353&RS=PN/6,352,353)

[Janak Parekh]

Why do people ignore my posts? Am I invincible? Janak! What have you done!
Huh? I don't think you're invisible... I looked through the thread three times, and saw a post about the RIM patent stuff. People tend to be almost randomly selective when they respond to posts... I don't think they're taking it out on you ;)

daS: Re McDonald's - I'm not saying the verdict is right... I was just pointing out some more information. Unfortunately we're in a gray area when it comes to personal responsibility (not about coffee, but about more subtle hazards), and we're moving more and more to the ligitation side than in the past. I don't think that's going to change until there's some legal reform (such as, in losing cases the plaintiff pays legal fees, a la a variety of European countries).

--janak

[daS]

I don't think that's going to change until there's some legal reform (such as, in losing cases the plaintiff pays legal fees, a la a variety of European countries).
Well we certainly agree here. Too bad the litigation attorneys have the politicians in the back pockets - so that probably won't happen unless we fight back like in Atlas Shrugged. :evil:

[Janak Parekh]

so that probably won't happen unless we fight back like in Atlas Shrugged. :evil:
... or until the collapse of civilization. It sounds like a generic answer, but I'm being pretty serious. There's no reason to believe our political entities will last forever; previous generations ultimately failed or changed... the notion of "collapsing under our own weight" is probably with merit.

--janak

[daS]

so that probably won't happen unless we fight back like in Atlas Shrugged. :evil:
... or until the collapse of civilization. It sounds like a generic answer, but I'm being pretty serious. There's no reason to believe our political entities will last forever; previous generations ultimately failed or changed... the notion of "collapsing under our own weight" is probably with merit.
Well I’m a bit more optimistic than that! Western democracies are the first in history that have truly given power to common citizens. Sure there are corrupting powers, but I think we’ll last longer than civilizations of the past. Actually, I came up with a brilliant idea for creating true equity and peace in the world. The problem is that my patent for it is still pending. :P

[T-Will]

Patent #6,352,353
This patent is on any device which allows people (or animals) to communicate with each other.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but patent #6,352,353 is for "Grape-type light bulb strings" :lol:

If you don't believe me, see for yourself! (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,352,353.WKU.&OS=PN/6,352,353&RS=PN/6,352,353)

Yeah, I noticed that...funny! I was wondering if someone would actually look up that patent number. :D