Comments on: Firm seeks piece of Apple pie via iPod claim

Saying Apple is violating its patents, a Hong Kong company wants 12 percent of profits from iPod and iTunes.

[Rusdude]

Stupid patents

It's pretty sad to see what companies have to (or can) get patents for. Pat-right's patent ("Protection of software again against unauthorized use") looks like a simple user verification system (http://www.pat-rights.com/InternetUserIdentityVerification.html) that's used by a thousands (if not millions) sites out there. If someone doesn't dispute this patent, on basis of prior art, I'd be dumbfounded.

After the Big and Lucrative

I agree, but Pat-right, if they are smart, are not going to go after those thousands or millions of companies using their patented idea. They will only go after the big, lucrative companies that are really worth their time and legal fees.

iTunes is in Trouble... http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/

---

[hadaso]

Nothing new in this "patent"

Border control officer verifies passenger's identity using passport issued by other country.
Merchant verifying customer's id using credit card issued by someone else. Or using driver's license issued by someone else.
Computer verifying user's credentials by refering data to server handling users database.

It's amazing that the process of refering to a third party to verify identity can be granted a patent just because the word "said" is used so many time that the patent examiner just cannot understand what's written!

[Rusdude]

Ditto

It's by far not the most complex patent, but I'd think that if Apple can't get rid of them for chump change, they'll join a few other companies that are being hassled and sue (or counter-sue).

This just might end being like a GIF patent that's just largely ignored.

[pkscout]

I'm going to patent typing

I think I'm going to go ahead and patent my idea for entering data into a computer system via spring loaded sensory devices arranged in a pattern similar to a typewriter. That will make me rich, right?

While this patent does have to do with the exchange of money after the authentication, it was submitted in 1998. There has got to be prior art out the wazoo for this.

Oh, and this patent has to do with downloading *software* after you pay. I would argue even if this patent is valid, the iTunes Music Store doesn't download software, it downloads content. The music file by itself cannot run as an executable. That means to me it isn't software at all.

[Thomas, David]

F-nG RIDICULOUS

Any judge with half a brain would toss this out. Its ridiculous.
You cannot patent something that is common, PLAIN AND
SIMPLE. But then again, who's laws are they basing this suit on?

These kind of suits, that truly have no merit, make me utterly
sick.

[unknown unknown]

Reply

It's a US patent(#6,665,797). So U.S law applies, but the only way to be sure one really has a valid patent is to test in court.

[mortis9]

the mac heads come clean...

nobody complained about the University of California suing Microsoft for over half a billion dollars. They had a concept patent ("a plug-in is something that allows the browser to open an external application"). how f***ing vague is that, and how common indeed. Still they won, yet no one complained 'cause Microsoft is evil. Bullsh*t!!!

What really should be done is fixing the patent office. Patenting broad and vague concepts that the patenting people/company haven't even put into a pragmatic use, shouldn't be legal. I'm ok with patents but nothing like this.

"this patent describes a 'thing' that has two or four or any given number of 'wheels' and can move by means of 'something'". uh huh.

Pat-Rights = More Pond Scum

I took a look at their website, and it is pathetic. It's interesting how the cockroaches come out of the woodwork whenever someone makes money.

[vanox]

Already found an out...

The patent states:

1) The Central Program.

According to the first embodiment, there is provided a central program which being an executable program and can be caused to be executed a) by user by entering its filename in DOS environment, b) by a running program. FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the central program, details are provided as follows:


Anyone else notice the wording... DOS environment? Since Apple doesn't use DOS, this can not apply :)

This is meant as humorous, not really being serious. But you may want to read it yourself:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6665797.WKU.&OS=PN/6665797&RS=PN/6665797

[mortis9]

that's amazing...

you read they entire patent filing and came up with that? are you a moron? don't you think if that were the case, they wouldn't have been in negotiations for two months? i read the patent, and those that was in there somewhere at the bottom, it means nothing. apple needs to get on the ball, find prior art, and move on to the next lawsuit (i'm sure someones eager to sue or vice-versa)