Apple Ordered To Pay $8M For Playlist Patents 104
An anonymous reader writes "A federal jury in Texas has decided against Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit and ordered it to pay $8 million to Personal Audio LLC, a patent licensing company (aka troll). The lawsuit started in 2009. Last year Apple's three fellow defendants (Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos) settled. Apple said the patents were invalid and not infringed. The patent holder demanded $84M and will now get about 10% of that amount. Juries in East Texas frequently rule in favor of patent holders. In the same district court Lodsys has already filed four lawsuits. In one of them it targets seven app developers and Apple has moved to intervene. The first two developers were already given a deadline: they must answer Lodsys's complaint by July 21, unless they request an extension."
Didn't Apple ever read the netiquette FAQ? (Score:1)
Re:Didn't Apple ever read the netiquette FAQ? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with patent trolls is, that they're similar but quite different from internet trolls:
* Internet Trolls: They want your attention, to harass you and that you get angry. They achieve this by posting/writing nonsense, half-truths and lies anywhere into the internet. Solution: Ignore them, they might shout louder, but you can still ignore them.
* Patent Tolls: They want your money. They utilize a broken patent system and the courts. Solution: Burn them with fire. Hint: Ignoring them might result in you getting sued and you might lose everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: Burn them with fire.
But then you run the risk of getting charged with arson and/or some sort of murder charge. I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: Burn them with fire.
But then you run the risk of getting charged with arson and/or some sort of murder charge. I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Compared to the cost of litigation it just as well may be.
My mind reels... (Score:2)
M3Us have been around for ages, and playlists generally are really just a special case of programs accepting lists of files as arguments, which is downright ancient. And transferring a set of commands from one computer to a second, more embedded, computer? I'm pretty sure I was FTPing postscript to some HP from back when they knew how to build them proper
Re: (Score:2)
Is this why you can't re-order songs in your playlists in iTunes like you used to be able to?
More cost effective to buy law makers (Score:2)
Instead of wasting silly amounts of money on licences, legal fees and patent portfolios wouldn't it be more cost effective to lobby the law makers to change patent law to mean software couldn't be patented?
Wouldn't that be the fiscal duty of CEOs to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
It would only be fiscally responsible of the CEO to do so if they lost more money due to fighting software related patents than they earn by licensing their own software patents. That means the motivation to eliminate software patents is borne entirely by the smaller companies with little to nothing in the way of a software portfolio, everything to lose if they remain intact, and much less money to fight that system with.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA "Apple recently paid $2 billion for a collection of 4G wireless networking patents from Canadian telecommunications company Nortel in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage in the smartphone race."
It's not just fighting the patent trolls it's about the other costs as well.
Lobbying tends to have much greater return on investment.
Re:More cost effective to buy law makers (Score:5, Interesting)
Large patent-holders are mostly locked in a cold war with one another, lots of needless expenditure; but relatively little blood most of the time, and they get to be superpowers and crush smaller competitors like insects(or buy them out when the smaller competitor discovers that they have something quite innovative; but would need to license 3,000 patents to make it to market...)
Patent trolls, though, by possessing patents; but never doing anything that could infringe on patents(because their only business is patent trolling) disrupt this cushy equilibrium. They are sort of the non-state suitcase bombers with nothing to lose in the patent wars.
Perversely, if we want meaningful patent reform, it might actually be best to applaud and encourage patent trolling as much as possible. As long as 'defensive' patents build up in the arsenals of incumbents, the incumbents have very limited incentive to change things. The lawyers cost money, sure; but the strategic advantage is worth it. Add enough patent trolls to the mix, though, and they'll have to deal with an enemy who has no interest in cross-licensing and friendship, and who has nothing they can threaten...
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls, though, by possessing patents; but never doing anything that could infringe on patents(because their only business is patent trolling) disrupt this cushy equilibrium. They are sort of the non-state suitcase bombers with nothing to lose in the patent wars.
Perversely, if we want meaningful patent reform, it might actually be best to applaud and encourage patent trolling as much as possible.
So... One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter!
Re: (Score:2)
The closest analogy
Re: (Score:1)
Unless said company holds lots of patents or after taking a patent blow is in a field that can begin developing/buying patents itself.
I find it easiest to think of patents as the nuclear weapons of the business world. Sure, we would likely be better off if we lived in a world where the thought of needing them never came up. A lot of companies and people may wish them all gone. But the patent system is too useful to completely reform for the big players, but just broken enough to encourage non-aggression
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They are already doing so, and that includes Apple. Even so, they can't simply roll over for any patent troll in the hopes that patent reform actually happens.
http://www.patentfairness.org/media/press/ [patentfairness.org]
Coalition for Patent Fairness members include Adobe, A
Re: (Score:1)
Instead of wasting silly amounts of money on licences, legal fees and patent portfolios wouldn't it be more cost effective to lobby the law makers to change patent law to mean software couldn't be patented?
Wouldn't that be the fiscal duty of CEOs to do so?
Coalition for Patent Fairness members include Adobe, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Google, Intel, Intuit, Micron, Oracle, RIM, SAP, and Symantec.
That coalition has no such goal, according to their website. They just want the system to favor them.
Sickening (Score:1)
This kind of stuff keeps a lot of people from getting into business.
Don't ship to Texas (Score:2)
interstate commerce (Score:2)
What about the interstate commerce clause? Can you sell the "used" stuff in Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Interstate commerce clause applies to EVERYTHING according to the SCOTUS. Even things that are only sold locally.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: hit submit instead of continue editing...
It even applies to things that are not even sold at all, for instance a farmer growing grain to feed to his own animals because he could have bought that grain from someone in another state instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the interstate commerce clause?
How would a federal district court in Texas have jurisdiction over a transaction between someone in California and someone in Indiana?
Can you sell the "used" stuff in Texas?
Infringement would not be willful.
Re: (Score:2)
To avoid the jurisdiction of unfriendly district courts in Texas, would it be enough not to allow products to be shipped to Texas?
No. Patent cases are Federal cases and it does not matter much in picking a specific Federal court venue whether a defendant that does business globally and is based in the US has any operations in a particular district. A plaintiff can justify the venue based on their convenience and the expertise of the court, since a company like Apple isn't really hampered by having to get lawyers to someplace like Lufkin TX to argue a case. For matters of clear Federal jurisdiction (i.e. not issues like state and l
Then why do companies sue in Texas? (Score:2)
Patent cases are Federal cases
I agree with this, except that the decisions of the Court of Appeals of one circuit aren't necessarily binding on another circuit.
and it does not matter much in picking a specific Federal court venue whether a defendant that does business globally and is based in the US has any operations in a particular district.
If what you say is the case, then why do so many companies choose to sue in Texas rather than elsewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My idea was not to do business in any jurisdiction whose "juries tend to automatically side with plaintiffs in patent suits." How does a federal district court in one part of the country have jurisdiction over someone who intentionally does no business in that part of the country?
So, your question answers itself. Like it or not, Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries, they are parts of one country.
Making commercial law more uniform was a core aspect of the 3 radical overhauls of US national legal identity: the Revolution, the Constitution, and the Civil War. The period leading up to the Civil War with its dysfunctional legal treatment of slaves can be seen as a demonstration of the intrinsic problems with letting different jurisdictions define the sc
Venue (Score:2)
Like it or not, Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries
I am aware that Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries. But as I understand it, if I do no willful business in Texas, the district courts of Texas lack personal jurisdiction [wikipedia.org], and I can have the suit moved to a different venue whose juries don't always find in favor of a patent holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries
I am aware that Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries. But as I understand it, if I do no willful business in Texas, the district courts of Texas lack personal jurisdiction [wikipedia.org], and I can have the suit moved to a different venue whose juries don't always find in favor of a patent holder.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, you're wrong. Well, mostly. It's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be... so, I guess you're technically right - but in practice, absolutely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do I work around it without going into cryogenic stasis for 20 years while the patents expire?
What a stupid question. Why not ask "How do I get around this annoying law-of-physics" or "How do I become badass like keanu reeves?". You're not capable of doing either, because you don't realistically have the power to do any of that. It's out of your reach, and complaining and whining isn't going to help. Neither is voting in right-wing, crazy-ass, uninformed politicians. Which you americans seem to do every 8-12 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If software patents cannot be worked around within the United States, the only remaining option is to leave the United States. Have you any tips for United States citizens on qualifying for a job (and hence a work visa) in what you appear to call "the civilized world"?
Heh, couldn't string two thoughts together into a single post? Or did this brilliant response come to you after you'd hit the submit button?
But no, I have no advice for you getting out of the states. I'm happy with you living down there, making car parts and working at mcdonalds and paying a disproportionate amount of tax so that big corporations can get huge tax breaks and exploit everyone not intelligent enough to get an education, some decent skills and leave.
... but if you were able to figure out I w
Re: (Score:2)
If software patents cannot be worked around within the United States
That's awfully hyperbolic. It might even be called utter bullshit.
Apple has hundreds of millions of customers. They just got dinged for about 1 hour of their net earnings (or about 15 minutes of their gross revenue) to cover their liability in this case. It sucks that they have to bother, but they are arguably the juiciest target for such cases these days and it's costing them a tiny piece of their huge gushing flood of cash. Venue selection only really works for patent trolls suing very large companies
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries
I am aware that Indiana and Michigan and Alaska and Texas are not different countries. But as I understand it, if I do no willful business in Texas, the district courts of Texas lack personal jurisdiction [wikipedia.org], and I can have the suit moved to a different venue whose juries don't always find in favor of a patent holder.
Well, let's start by staying factual: EDTX juries do not always find in favor of patent holders. They just lean that way more than most other places, and the docket is less clogged there (or at least it used to be... ) than in many other places.
But your comparison to a case against you in a state district court is radically different than the case at hand, and is tangential to your original suggestion about the scope of patent decisions. Patent cases have their own particularly well-defined (and relative
Re: (Score:2)
Making commercial law more uniform was a core aspect of the 3 radical overhauls of US national legal identity: the Revolution, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
You do realize that the driving push for the settlement of america was a radical overhaul in commercial law as related to personal legal identity?
... oversimplifying much?
You know that the main reason for the introduction of the printing press was a radical overhaul of commercial law?
You know that the war in iraq (both of them) were fundamentally based on commercial law?
gawd
Re: (Score:2)
Making commercial law more uniform was a core aspect of the 3 radical overhauls of US national legal identity: the Revolution, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
You do realize that the driving push for the settlement of america was a radical overhaul in commercial law as related to personal legal identity? You know that the main reason for the introduction of the printing press was a radical overhaul of commercial law? You know that the war in iraq (both of them) were fundamentally based on commercial law? gawd ... oversimplifying much?
Not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent cases are Federal cases
I agree with this, except that the decisions of the Court of Appeals of one circuit aren't necessarily binding on another circuit.
True, and in some circumstances a decision only applies to a specific judicial district. However, the sorts of cases where decisions only apply to a particular district or circuit are usually involving questions of law, rather than questions of fact. Questions of fact in civil cases such as patent cases are almost never subject to serious appeals. It would be unworkable to require plaintiffs to prove that a defendant violated
TEXAS (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh boy, here we are again. All I had to read was
A federal jury in Texas has decided against Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit
It's too early on a Monday to go any further; I think I just might be sick to my stomach if I do.
emphasis mine
Re: (Score:2)
Filing copyright under US rules. Filing patent infringement in Texas. Have you ever wondered why many companies have offices in Delaware, where they all curiously file for Chapter 11?
Everyone look for the local rules that will be better to them. How is that news? The actual news is that Apple didn't have a patent for playlists.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual news is that Apple didn't have a patent for playlists.
I don't disagree; from a strictly doing business today standpoint.
But if you sit back and read that slowly it describes to me, in an abstract way, exactly what is wrong with the patent system. A patent on listing something? Really? I just don't see how it furthers the arts and science in our society.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Apple is already in a crusade for suing people for their "App Store" trademark, for GUI patents and some more, which, as you said, is also ridiculous.
It's a catch 22, should the legal system rule in favor of the small "troll" company or the large "bully" corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
So now we know the computers in Star Trek will never be a reality. Because these guys have a patent on a machine responding to "Computer, here is the list of songs I would like to hear..."
And these patents will be extended well past the 24th century.
EU hopefully shields us (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
internet (Score:2)
There is this wonderful invention, called the internet. Should try it one day.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Tron was a documentary? :)
customs (Score:2)
There is this wonderful invention, called the internet.
If an EU manufacturer sells a physical device containing a copy of patented software to a customer in the US, the patent holder can (and often does successfully) request that the shipment get stopped at the US border.
inducement and implied warranties (Score:2)
So, you ship physical devices that don't have any software installed on them, and customers are free to download the software from anywhere via the Internet.
If a company recommends a source of infringing software, it induces infringement. If a company fails to recommend a source of necessary software, it has failed to fulfill an implied warranty of merchantability.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you not just sell a EU and US version of your product, that conveniently can run the same software, but sold with a different feature set? If the user chooses to download the EU version of the software with it's naughty patented playlists and rudimentary data structures then that's their problem.
What US feature set? (Score:2)
Could you not just sell a EU and US version of your product, that conveniently can run the same software, but sold with a different feature set?
Playback for three major codecs (MP3, WMA, AAC) is patented, and I know of no store that sells Vorbis downloads of major label recordings. So if even the most basic features are patented, what would the US version be capable of? If nothing, then the manufacturer has failed to fulfill an implied warranty of merchantability.
Ubuntu (Score:2)
But we aren't speaking about physical goods, but software. Just look at Ubuntu, they're located in South-Africa, so they don't give a shit about the mpeg* software patents. All they asl is that if you don't have licenses for the patents then click cancel. You can bet most US users don't have licenses and still click "ok".
On the other hand Red Hat doesn't host codecs in their repository, so the media players they ship won't work out of the box; I spent quite a bit of time getting them work, but I just gave u
Software Center doesn't geolocate (Score:2)
You can bet most US users don't have licenses and still click "ok".
If worse came to worst, the patent holders could sue any U.S.-based mirror that includes the patented parts of Ubuntu. Or they could sue Canonical for not adding a geolocation feature to the default install of software-center that discovers whether a license is required at the place of installation.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans will have to realize that if they don't take a stand and vote for sensible politicians, then their own qualities of life will suffer. I have no sympathy for them. In a democracy, there's no one to blame for a bad government than the people that voted for them. Of course, whether America really is a democracy or a 'free country' is an open question.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, whether America really is a democracy or a 'free country' is an open question.
On paper it is, but in practice it isn't. Any candidate for U.S. federal office not approved by the movie studios gets no positive coverage on TV news or other news outlets with the same corporate parent as a movie studio.
Re: (Score:2)
By boat?
How do you say Green Card in en-GB/fr/it/de/es? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does:
http://webshop.ffii.org/ [ffii.org]
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-app-developers-need-to-know-about.html#jurisdiction [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Replace your law firm _immediately_. They're not competent.
Yes, the EU has software patents, they just don't call them that. You get them in through mechanisms that looked to me (a non-lawyer) kind of like US business method patents, but that's too much of a simplification. When you're interviewing new legal firms, have them talk you through their process for European software patents. It's not that complicated, and only a little more expensive than the US. It's been a couple years, but I think the numbers
Glass House, throwning stones... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have zero sympathy for these tech companies. Apple, MS, Sony, all of them troll those waters, and sue each other as often as they can. The actually seem to want to protect this and continue this practice. So when one of the big guys that file 1000's of these things each and every YEAR, actually get boned by some little troll somewhere, I can't exactly get too worked up about it. They built the house, they get to live in it.
Re:Glass House, throwning stones... (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Large companies have been assembling software and process patent portfolios for years, either to threaten their competitors or to defend (via countersuit) against patent claims from competitors. But the landscape changes completely when trolls with nothing to lose can sue based on some patent they picked up for a few bucks. Hey, big companies, wake up and smell the coffee: your strategy just doesn't make sense any more.
So ratchet up the pain, trolls. Go for it! I call for more pain. "Pain, Captain." Intense pain. The faster big tech companies wake up to a dismal future of slow death, the faster they'll wake up their trained congresscritters to invalidate the whole ugly, stinking mess. Guys, I'm sorry that your billion-dollar patent portfolio suddenly becomes a zero-value patent portfolio; but it's either that, or you can have your lifeblood sucked out by trolls.
And, let's not forget that the rest of the world (ahem China ahem) will blithely ignore all of this nonsense. Because their engineers are unencumbered by legions of lawyers, they will innovate us into the Stone Age. I hate to be melodramatic, but this is a national security issue for the USA. Software patents will sink us. They really will.
Errr, no. (Score:2)
Now let's be fair .. (Score:2)
.. Apple has been also doing its share of patent trolling, eh? Granted, they do produce some pretty functional and shiny hardware, fully plug and play, but they are not saints and they do employ armies of lawyers for the sole purpose of "Sued you! Now your shit is mine!"
Zoom out a little bit, and both of them (Apple and Personal Audio LLC) seem like trolls fighting over something that is not theirs. Playlists? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
The generally accepted definition of "patent troll" is a company that doesn't produce any products and whose revenue is entirely from licensing and litigation. You may not like what companies like Sony and Apple do with their patents, but they are not patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nullsoft should sue them both. I was making playlists in WinAmp before OSX even existed, much less the iPod.
I'm sure that really hurt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't most of /. solidly against "just the cost of doing business" payments as punishment?
Or (since this is a stupid patent, like most software patents are) paying off extortionists and trolls?
Intentional delayed patent enforcement as defence? (Score:2)
I can't remember the term for it, but isn't there a patent defence if the patent holder intentionally delays attempting to enforce a patent to maximise damages that invalidates the patent?
Given the patent was filed in 1996, and this sort of functionality started to appear in audio apps in early 2000, it would seem like a prime candidate for this defence...
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember the term for it, but isn't there a patent defence if the patent holder intentionally delays attempting to enforce a patent to maximise damages that invalidates the patent?
No, you're only prevented from receiving damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement. If your patent is granted in 2000, someone starts infringing that patent in 2002, you become aware of the infringement in 2004, and you file a lawsuit in 2011, you're only entitled to damages for 2002-2004.
Re: (Score:2)
How could they justify that? "Your honor, we were simply doing all necessary due diligence to ensure that we were not bringing a frivolous lawsuit befor
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of the doctrine of laches. I've never heard of it being successfully used though.
ridiculous claim (Score:2)
patent law is killing infotech innovation. i recommend folks check out Connections, a wonderful television series from PBS where the lineage of one invention to the next is traced, sometimes in surprising ways. lawyers suck, but patent lawyers are especially damn-worthy.
Re: (Score:2)
http://thetvdb.com/?tab=series&id=78875&lid=7 [thetvdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's originally from the BBC [wikipedia.org], which is a television channel that shockingly exists outside the USA and is thus unknown to the civilized world.
Taking it to the jury, (Score:2)
Juries in East Texas frequently rule in favor of patent holders.
Juries frequently rule in favor of the plaintiff.
You could say the same for any case that goes to a jury verdict.
If you can't persuade a judge that you have a factual argument worth presenting to a jury you have no business being in a trial court.
Kill patent trolling (Score:1)
EULA Prohibition of East Texas? (Score:2)
I was just wondering something. If you specifically were to put terms in your EULA that prohibits the use of the software if you are in East Texas, would you then be able to (most likely) successfully argue that East Texas is not the appropriate venue if you are sued for patent infringement?
Filed in 1995 (Score:2)
The patent is truly innovative (for 1995).
The fact that it's only being enforced now doesn't necessarily mean they're patent trolls. It probably means that the patent sat forgotten in some large portfolio, unused for a long time, until these guys bought up a bundle for cheap and re-discovered this one.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent isn't really very innovative. Most of what's covered in the first patent is simply the exact same control scheme available on CD players at that time (skip forward, back, change the order of tracks) except with digital audio files on a computer. I don't know if it should fail for prior art, but it should definitely fail for obviousness. Even worse is the fact that they're not really patenting a particular invention, they're patenting the very idea of skipping forwards and backwards in a list o
Follow the jurors (Score:2)
New proposal for dealing with patent trolls (Score:2)