What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
71 Comments
- alamko1999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51Is patent the new way of getting money in the US?
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35I'm all for this. The more the patent system is abused the sooner it will be revised to something that's actually productive.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24uhh, the patent was awarded in June of 2006, though? MP3 players were on the market like 10 years ago, buddy - can't file a patent that late in the game it seems to me. They're asking for a jury trial, and no jury is going to award money to these guys when they got a patent about the time the 5th generation ipod was coming out.
- jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Are they suing for $1.65 trillion dollars?
- CalgaryTechGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I don't want to pick on our American friends, but please fix your patent laws. These stories are really getting quite boring and stupid. Prior art (I think there was MP3 before June 2006) should nullify this kind of crap.
- spliznork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well, don't single out the Americans. How about the Australians that patented curry (in Australia). I thinks there's a smidge more prior art for curry than mp3's.
- SirGrok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Listen, your average iPod, Zune, or whatever has more than enough power to decode .ogg just fine.
The zune has wifi. The iPod can play back videos.
The power is there, it is just that the companies don't want to embrace ogg. - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Is patent the new way of getting money in the US?"
I'm not sure if this asked rhetorically, so I'll give the real, serious answer. Sadly, YES, it HAS become the new "thing." Honestly. And it's working. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The tip-off for bogus front companies like these is that their mailing address is the same as their lawyer's private law practice address.
- CalgaryTechGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8As I said, I don't want to pick on the Americans. I think that any patent that has prior art should be thrown out. It just seems that lately patents have been granted for stuff that really shouldn't be patentable (is that a word?) anymore. And the lawsuits are brought by companies that don't even have any intention on developing the technology.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The patent process takes years, sometimes even decades. Just because a patent was finally awarded in 2006 doesn't mean it wasn't applied for long before that.
I have several patent applications (not by choice; company policy) pending that probably won't be approved until at least 2010. That's the way it goes. - Sonic84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7lawsuit lotto.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7These trolls need a wikipedia article, if anyone has the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_MP3_Technologies
It seems they don't really exist, apart from picking the name for the sole purpose of making them look legitimate to a jury. - blanham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here is the first portable MP3 player, from 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger_Labs_MPMan_F10
Here is the patent in question:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7065417.html
I just don't see why no prior art came up during the patent application process. - KineticFlow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Good thing that many Korean manufacturers like samsung and iriver consider Ogg support as a mandatory feature
FLAC support would be nice; only a handful of dap support lossless formats. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Another Texan company busted and broke so whats new.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Texas MP3 Technologies" sounds like a ***** name if I ever heard one, created for the sole purpose of patent trolling. As though portable MP3 players didn't exist before 2002, when their patent was filed.
- diw321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If Apple, Samsung, and Sandisk joined together their legal forces, they would become a formidable legal adversary and probably squash the Texas MP3 Technologies "lawyer" and probably scare little companies into not messing with them again.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5While I hate patents as much as the next guy... after reading the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7065417.PN.&OS=PN/7065417&RS=PN/7065417
This patent is a divisional application on top of an older patent. A divisional application "is a separate patent application carved out of a prior pending application and discloses and claims only subject matter originally claimed in the prior application. The divisional application is entitled to a priority or filing date based upon the application from which it has been divided." as quoted from here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9609.html
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the meat of their argument is based off of a patent put together in '97. A ton of both U.S. and foreign patents are referenced dating as far back as 1984 and 1989 respectively (this might not be just a U.S. problem). It looks like they have solid ground to fight on and they are simply pulling a submarine tactic. I can only hope that this opens up some important peoples' eyes about how badly our patent system needs to be revamped.
On the flip side, this gives some credence to companies that patent everything in sight and claim it is solely a defensive portfolio. In cases like this, they can ideally turn around and say "If you sue us for violating this patent, we'll sue you for violating these 200 patents."
Regardless, the system needs to be fixed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ogg might have better quality, but decoding it takes much more resources.
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe in an ideal world. Unfortunately, in cases like this the defendants are more likely to settle for a large sum than let it go to court where they stand to lose 5x more to an unfavorable verdict, thereby rewarding the patent squatte...Uh, I mean plaintiff and encouraging other in-the-toilet companies to do the same in the hopes that they too will hit the jackpot.
- StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It seems to me that for a patent to remain valid, a company should have to show that it is developing and making use of the patent in a positive way. That should screw these patent litigation trolls over. They do no-one any good whatsoever.
- fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7065417&id=g7d3AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,065,417
The patent was filed on January 29, 2002 and the iPod was released as of October 23, 2001. I think we can count the first generation iPod as prior art. The first digital music player in the world was created in 1997 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3_player.
One of the companies being sued need to fight to get this patent invalidated - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ok, did a little more work....
http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaGetTp?Pg=tpid&Search_Nm=Texas%20MP3%20Technologies%20&Button=search&Search_ID=32020260025
They were "chartered" on July 26, 2006. They have no real business but being a patent troll. - SSCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Vinyl, Thats what the new format should be. It has the best sound that just can;t be reproduced digitally.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would say that Sigma tel versus broadcom and some other companies have a quite heated battle for smaller cheaper chips that decode more formats and with less power. I doubt the real patent is as broad as the article makes it sound... if the patent was granted in 2006, then it had to be applied for no sooner than 2002/03... thanks to the new 3 year application time, the basics of ipods and such should be safe.
More than likely this is about a chip maker jilted selling off something to "punish" it's former customers for switching teams to a new chip maker... it's very common in the industry and always makes a mess. - StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"On the flip side, this gives some credence to companies that patent everything in sight and claim it is solely a defensive portfolio. In cases like this, they can ideally turn around and say "If you sue us for violating this patent, we'll sue you for violating these 200 patents.""
But in this case it looks like the plaintiff is not a technology company, they're a patent litigation company. They don't do anything useful with the patents, they just sit on them and sue other people for daring to use them. Therefore they're not going to produce any technology that infringes other people's patents until someone patents patent litigation. - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the problem with this patent is that because it was filed in 2002, there is a wealth of prior art - and no one seems to have noticed at USPTO.
- SirGrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@stealthgear
While I agree that FLAC is awesome in its fidelity, it is very impractical for an mp3 player (the topic of this digg).
FLAC is HUGE, which is no problem for my 1.2 TB at home, but when it comes to my 8GB Zen, it just doesn't make the cut (also because it isn't supported, but that is irrelevant. I wouldn't use FLAC on an 8GB player if I could). - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Assuming of course they hold the original patent for mp3.
- aerogant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, filed in 2002 and the only reference to 'prior art' is PCs. It sounds like maybe they had no idea there were MP3 players prior (assuming they didn't do it on purpose). I'm even more suprised no one else found this patent and submitted 'prior art' for it. Makes me think patents are useless if no one is looking them up to use them, at least I thought patents were there to allow people to share with out worry of being exploited.
- fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They have no company website, nothing comes up on search except for stories about the lawsuits, and I've never heard of them. Having lived in Texas all my life, and a technophile, I would have thought that I would have heard something about the company.
- au071, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The patent office must be full of morons.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7what retard awarded that patent in 2006 when MP3 players have already been around for 8 years or so.
once the lawyers have all the money maybe they will start eating each other. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"patents take "a long time" to get... it was probably filled Many Many years ago... not last year like you said."
RTFP (patent). It was filed in 2002. - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the same retard who didn't know the Diamond Rio was first made around 1998. (the filing date is 2002, so prior art needs to come from 2001 or earlier.)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We have moore's law on our side for that.
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interestingly the patent specifically covers Flash memory - the IPod isn't prior art at that point. However - Diamond was selling their Rio flash players (supported MP3 etc.) certainly in the 2000-2001 timeframe - over a year of public disclosure would usually more than blow the chances of filing a patent on the uniqueness of the subject.
- russianmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe this is another Alcatel-Lucent patent type scrap?
- greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geekee: They don't. Fraunhoffer holds the patent on the MP3 format and the encoding method. It is also an ISO standard.
The patent in question is on players, not the format they play. - brothermatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i disagreed at first fascfoo, but your clever use of all caps convinced me in the end.
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Date of disclosure of art is the date that matters - patent filing date happens years after that initial filing.
- greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is patent law, not copyright law. There is a *HUGE* difference in US law.
- fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Direct link: http://google.com/patents?id=g7d3AAAAEBAJ
- hydrokool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a government job. What do you think?
- greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@soccerboi00: the integer Vorbis decoder is extremely efficient, and doesn't require much more in the way of resources than MP3. it does require more, yes, but it *that* much more.
also: there is a difference between Ogg and Vorbis. Vorbis is the audio codec. Ogg is the container format. the proper name is Ogg Vorbis. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Is patent the new way of getting money in the US?"
New?? Patents have been the sole reason for investing in companies since their beginning. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is an obvious example of how the patent system doesn't work. A patent issued in 2006 covers technology that existed and was implemented years before it? Are filed patents EVER researched?
SigmaTel Shyster: "Here is a patent application I want for an electronic device that can play digitally encoded MP3 music files."
Patent clerk: "You mean you want to patent the iPod. Its an electronic device that can play digitally encoded MP3 music files"
SigmaTel Shyster: "Um....no...its nothing like what an iPod does?" (Crosses fingers behind back)
Patent clerk: "OK, as long as you say so, I trust you, that's all the proof I need that this is an original innovation that has never been implemented! Here is your patent. Next...."
SigmaTel Shyster: "Woohoo!" - Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@devindotcom
"US patent 7,065,417, which was awarded in June 2006 "
RTFA
patents take "a long time" to get... it was probably filled Many Many years ago... not last year like you said. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well they are being sued over an MP3 "Player", not the MP3 format itself. Even so, it's still *****.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is