Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Others Sued For Patent Infringement For Appearing Larger Than Life

from the shrink-a-bit,-please dept

Mon, Nov 16th 2009 1:59pm — Mike Masnick

Every time you think you've seen the most ridiculous patent infringement lawsuit out there, you only need to wait a day or two before another, more ridiculous, one shows up. The latest is that Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, the Los Angeles Lakers and the band the Pussycat Dolls have all been sued for patent infringement. Seriously. The patent in question (6669346) is for a very large display system for a performance. Basically, it's for the sort of massive screens used at various concerts (and apparently, some sporting events). Seeing as I doubt that Spears, Timberlake or the Pussycat Dolls built these screens themselves, shouldn't there be some sort of patent exhaustion issue here, where (if there's any actual infringement, which seems questionable enough) the liable parties should be whoever made these giant screesn?

Of course the lawsuit was filed in East Texas, and it's amusing to see the reasoning for this: according to the lawsuit, all of the performers likely had residents from East Texas who attended some of their concerts, and thus it makes sense. As for the Lakers, well, their games are broadcast in East Texas (even if the screen in question is in LA and probably not of much use or concern to those watching at home in East Texas). So, apparently, these days you don't just have to be an innovative company to get sued for patent infringement. You can just be a rockstar or a sports team...

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

Filed Under: big screens, britney spears, concerts, justin timerlake, los angeles lakers, patents, pussycat dolls

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

senshikaze (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:12pm

I have nothing for this. This is just insane.
East Texas should not be allowed to do legal stuff for the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:17pm

Who holds the patent for a very small display system for home performances. Oh?! Nobody? No wonder there is so much competition in the small display system for homes market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:37pm

OMG
When will the stupid patent office hire someone with any intelligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dudu, 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:52pm

Punk!
Punky? Punky-punk!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rinald J Roley, 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:55pm

Pah
What a lot of ignorant children you are. I’ll have you know that I have forgotten more about patents than you show you have learned in all your writings on this site. I have more patent knowledge in my little finger than you have in your entire staff. In fact, this is just my little finger speaking to you, the rest of me has for more important things to do than read sites like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 2:58pm

Re: Pah
Uh, you sir are a goddam IMPOSTER. You know how I know?

Because you don't have a 36 line signature with all of your affiliations and contact information...hoping that someday, someday someone somewhere might want to talk to you....just a little human interaction...please....I'm...just so lonely....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:02pm

Clearly though you have to be innovative to be a patent lawyer or you won't make the grade, and you keep saying patents don't promote innovation !!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:07pm

Britney Spears invented the Jumbotron, don't you people know that? She also has several wonderful inventions in the fields of medical science, high energy physics, and theatrical make-up artistry. Too bad she was too dumb to patent these things. Now any idiot can go to East Texas and claim infringement against this 21st century genius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:07pm

Re: Pah
Dear Mr Roley's little finger,

Please get out of your owner's arse.

Thanks,
The management
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:12pm

Re: Pah
RE: In fact, this is just my little finger speaking to you, the rest of me has for more important things to do than read sites like this.

So why then do you not only read this site but bother to respond? What a tool!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:15pm

Who can be sued for patent infringement
RE: So, apparently, these days you don't just have to be an innovative company to get sued for patent infringement. You can just be a rockstar or a sports team...

It loooks more and more like you only need to be perceived as having money. The reason to sue can be found later on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:46pm

That's the law
Seeing as I doubt that Spears, Timberlake or the Pussycat Dolls built these screens themselves, shouldn't there be some sort of patent exhaustion issue here, where (if there's any actual infringement, which seems questionable enough) the liable parties should be whoever made these giant screesn?

Patent law is very clear on this. It is illegal to even *use* something covered by a patent without authorization even if you didn't "make" it. So if Britney and the others were doing that then they're liable. That's the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:50pm

Re: Pah
Please leave the trolling to the professionals. Thanks. Amateur trolling can never replace honest and competent trolling. I went to school for a reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:52pm

Re: That's the law
The law is stupid. Hey, remember when it was the law to segregate populations based on the color of their skin?

You should always follow the law. To break the precious law is worse than? What? What could it be worse than? I know!

Murder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:57pm

Re: That's the law
Really? So if you purchase a product from some manufacturor whose product infringes on a patent you are liable as well? If true it is absurd because it makes the end consumer guilty do to the actions of a third party. Can some of you lawyer types weigh in on this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smoove Moove, 16 Nov 2009 @ 3:59pm

I am quite happy to see that these patents are being brought into the light. So that more and more people can finally see how poo-ass retarded they are and we can get us some fixin' in this system!

truly yours,
some guy on the internets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nullbull (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:16pm

From stem to stern
The patent, the jurisdiction argument, the supposed innovation... this entire situation reeks of the need for patent law reform.

If it isn't big pharma or big content seeking extensions into the next eon, it's people like this patenting stuff they never built and never will. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:16pm

Grammre Naiz
I just love my "giant screesn".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kingster (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:17pm

Re:
Poo-ass? Huh. That's a new adjective to add to my Techdirt dictionary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bigpicture, 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:28pm

Re: OMG
The will to be stupid is a very powerful force, but there are always alternatives.
- Lois McMaster Bujold

This is Google's quote of the day today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kingster (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: That's the law
Check out that stupid rule here:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_271.htm

It's not only the manufacturer and end-user... It's all the middle-men too. Frigging whacked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Beall (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re: Re: That's the law
So if I take a picture of you with a camera that infringes a patent then you are guilty of voilating the patent? They did not use the screen then venue did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: That's the law
So if you purchase a product from some manufacturor whose product infringes on a patent you are liable as well?

Yep.

If true it is absurd because it makes the end consumer guilty do to the actions of a third party.

Legally, the manufacturer is still liable for *their* infringement. You're liable for *yours* (i.e. using the infringing product). In fact, you don't even have to buy it to be liable, just use it. You could do "due diligence" and hire a patent attorney to check out everything before you used it (patents, licenses, etc.), but that still wouldn't be a guarantee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kingster (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's the law
The user of the camera is guilty, and if I own the camera, and you use it, you're guilty too, because I made it available to you to use the infringing tech.

That said, the venues do not (except for maybe in the case of the Lakers) own the system, the band/touring company own the system. But it's doubtful that they own them - merely have leased them.

All that said, it's still stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis Quid Pro Quo, 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:34pm

Re:
Yes. Nor should any Texan be allowed to be President for the foreseeable future.

Well actually, I mean never.

Never never.

Never Again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's the law
Hey, good idea - this could be a money making operation. Better patent that business method before anyone else does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:35pm

Ummm, I think I'll stop going to all sporting events - because, you know - I dont want to be sued just because I might appear on their big screen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Corbin, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:34pm

Re: Re:
Dude.. you just won 12 cents.. I said, I'm sending that guy all the money in my left pocket. Thats 12 cents.. send a forwarding address :)

+1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:41pm

Obviously this is brought by a reformer of the system. The way it was brought to high profile people .. well it just smells like a publicity stunt.

good on him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
icepick314, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:44pm

how about giving back Texas back to Mexico?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 9:56pm

Re: That's the law
Patent law is very clear on this. It is illegal to even *use* something covered by a patent without authorization even if you didn't "make" it. So if Britney and the others were doing that then they're liable. That's the law.

Indeed. But it's a dumb part of the law. Which is why I was suggesting it *should be* different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 11:19pm

Re: giant screesn?
giant screesn? lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 3:42am

you should do a xmas top ten 'tenuous excuses for sueing in East Texas'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 17 Nov 2009 @ 8:20am

How about "Top Ten Reasons For Sueing East Texas? ^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 17 Nov 2009 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Pah
Don't forget the part about speaking only for himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyanid Pontifex (profile), 17 Nov 2009 @ 5:34pm

I'm surprised that they didn't sue the Dallas Cowboys for their enormous display screen at their new stadium. Oh, wait, the East Texas court might not go for that one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
byteme, 17 Nov 2009 @ 7:13pm

I'm going to patent the business method of patenting obvious things and methods, then frivolously suing companies that have already been using these things/methods for years.

Then, when companies like this file their frivolous patent suits in East Texas, I'll file a patent suit against them. I'll get their money and strike a blow against these patent mongers at the same time! Everyone wins!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Madeline, 12 May 2010 @ 2:59am

Agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]