Copy Protection Patent Holder Demands Twelve Percent Of iTunes' Revenue
from the good-luck-with-that-plan dept
Not even sure where to start with this one. Someone who owns a patent on a copy protection technique is apparently claiming that Apple's iTunes offering is in violation, and therefore, he deserves 12% of all of the revenue from iTunes. He's obviously hoping for a good chunk of change in a settlement, but maybe this is just one more argument why companies shouldn't bother with copy protection. It just gets them all messed up in patent lawsuits. Darn those intellectual property laws... oh wait, that's what they were trying to protect with the copy protection in the first place. Of course, next thing you know, we'll find out that someone claims the patent on offering non-copy protected music files.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
sounds like the original Circuit City Divx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if this guy weren't greedy and had a valid pa
Suppose people who held software and algorithm patents routinely charged .01% instead of 12%? They'd still make a lot of $$, and the poeple who make products could afford to license a dozen patents (or more) in a product.
Nonetheles I'm against software patents, as they are awarded far too stupidly. (And I was involved in one of the earliest attempts to patent software, in 1970.)
- the Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if this guy weren't greedy and had a vali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]