Microsoft Sued Over Buy From FM Zune Feature, Despite It Functioning Differently Than The Patent

from the nice-work-if-you-can-get-it dept

Tue, Mar 30th 2010 7:58pm — Mike Masnick

Technically, we're told, patents only are supposed to apply to specific inventions, and not general ideas. It doesn't always work that way in practice, of course. AdamR points us to a lawsuit filed by some guy against Microsoft, claiming patent infringement in Zune's "Buy from FM" feature that lets you buy a song that you hear over FM radio. The guy is claiming willful infringement and demanding treble damages, because he apparently wrote Microsoft a letter back in 2006. Of course, there appears to be a pretty big problem with the claim, in that the patents in question (6,463,469 and 6,473,792) appear to describe a process of unlocking music already found on a local harddrive -- which is not how the Zune's feature works.

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: patent, zune
Companies: microsoft

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard Corsale, 30 Mar 2010 @ 8:25pm

FM
My computers rabbit-ears don't get good Internet reception. So the patent also claims that the person has to hear it over FM radio. Someone got some really bad legal advice.

I guess that the trouble with trebles...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ronald J Riley (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:17am
  
  Re: FM
  It is hard to imagine anyplace or anyone giving poorer legal advice than the drivel on TechDIRT.
  
  Ronald J. Riley,
  
  I am speaking only on my own behalf.
  Affiliations:
  President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
  Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
  Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
  President - Alliance for American Innovation
  Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
  Washington, DC
  Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:08am
    
    Re: Re: FM
    "It is hard to imagine anyplace or anyone giving poorer legal advice than the drivel on TechDIRT."
    
    Thanks for being one of the "drivel" you retard.
    
    The only thing larger than your head is your obnoxious signature.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - taoareyou (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FM
      This can't really be guy he is claiming to be. This has to be someone purposefully trying to make the real guy look like a child stomping his feet, with the goal to make IP advocates look like idiots.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NUKE intellectual property, 30 Mar 2010 @ 8:43pm

oh comeone lets have fun
lets just sue people constantly and randomly for YES

EVERYTHING
hey isn't it fun suing people and screaming and yelling and throwing large chairs

YOU TOO can learn how to partake in this wonderful new career.

SEND 9.99 to the following post office box and get your DRMED DVDR today.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2010 @ 9:21pm
  
  Re: oh comeone lets have fun
  You know, that might not be a bad way to alleviate patent laws. Everyone just sue everyone else like crazy for no good reason, turn EVERYTHING into infringement. Someone already has a patent on swinging sideways, I ought to swing sideways on a swing on purpose just so you can sue me, then you can sue me. We can all sue each other over nonsense and hopefully the backlash and court decisions and the cost to our legal system will be enough to substantially alleviate bogus IP lawsuits in the long run.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2010 @ 9:27pm
    
    Re: Re: oh comeone lets have fun
    (to continue)
    
    and hopefully we can take some of our bogus lawsuits all the way up to the supreme court in hopes to set a patent alleviation precedent for future generations to come as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 11:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: oh comeone lets have fun
      50 million monkeys filing infringement lawsuits? Yeah, the odds seem high at least one would percolate up that far.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:14am

"Technically, we're told, patents only are supposed to apply to specific inventions"

Patents do apply to specific inventions but what you see on the surface of a product is does not necessarily have much to do with what is happening internally. It is possible to have very different interfaces for an invention.

On top of this is the fact that Microsoft is repeatedly sued and repeatedly is losing suits. They have repeatedly been subjected to punitive damages for willfulness.

In other words the best explanation for Microsoft's legal problems is that they are a company whose business model is built on systematic infringement of other's inventions.

Ronald J. Riley,

I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Scott Shaffer (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:39am
  
  Re:
  "In other words the best explanation for Microsoft's legal problems is that they are a company whose business model is built on systematic infringement of other's inventions."
  
  Ummm, no. The best explanation for Microsoft's legal problems is that they have alot of money and everyone wants some of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ronald J Riley (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 11:57am
    
    Microsoft Money
    You need to look at how Microsoft is getting so much money and why the courts keep handing Microsoft their head.
    
    Ronald J. Riley,
    
    I am speaking only on my own behalf.
    Affiliations:
    President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
    Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
    Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
    President - Alliance for American Innovation
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
    Washington, DC
    Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Microsoft Money
      Your signal to noise ratio is: 0.328. Try leaving more than a single sentence worth of comment or (preferably) shortening your signature.
      
      As to where they get their money and why they keep having their heads handed to them, that is obvious. In many cases, they get their money by using their market heft to push products which implement concepts patented by other inventors. They get their heads handed to them because they have obviously violated these patents. In many cases, they violate unapologetically.
      
      The issue with this case, however, is that they are not violating the patents at all because the functionality of the Zune is not covered by the patents in question.
      
      So, when you say "Microsoft always steals patents" and the reply is "Yes, they often do, but not this time", it is an invalid reply to state "Yes, but they steal patents!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 31 Mar 2010 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  I assume by your signature ad your comments that you have actually looked at the patent in question and understand how this feature works on a Zune.
  
  So, to start with, he seems to have patented an idea. Can you show me the actual invention if you disagree?
  
  Next, the way the Zune feature works looks significantly different.
  
  Finally, this seems to be a hard sell on the obviousness test given there was prior art for identifying music being played. Do you disagree?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- taoareyou (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  I love the irony of stating that you are speaking on your own behalf followed immediately by list affiliations where you state you are President/Important. Well done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't forget the dead guy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 31 Mar 2010 @ 5:41am

"treble damages"? I hope this wasn't a pun on FM radio's sound quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude, 31 Mar 2010 @ 5:42am

MShit's patent tactics
After I filed my patent app years ago I went on and presented the subject at 2 major international technical conferences

MShit Research Phd folks were there, as usual, a lot of them

They go to all technical conferences, read and openly discuss all technical papers, and develop those ideas into their products, knowing all the way that there is corresponding patent application waiting for PTO approval

But when asked about whether they read patent app at uspto.gov (which has a lot more details than conference paper) they suddenly become numb and deaf

AS one Mshit research PhD told me: "Our corporate legal counsel told us not to read any patents or patent applications so we do not read them"

You reap what you sow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 7:27am

Funny how neither RJR nor his drunk persona Angry Dude manage to actually...explain how this patent makes sense/applies to MS.

But I suppose that's normal for shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 8:31am

One would think that if you want to convince someone of your argument or help them see things from your point of view, you would construct well-formed arguments supported with some amount of evidence or logic behind them.

What is odd is RJR is content with submitting low/no-content posts that complain about "drivel". Isn't that what a no-content post with an obnoxious signature is? If you absolutely have to use a signature, try this: Count the words in your post and count the words in your signature. If the length of the signature is longer than the content of your post, your post is more noise than signal.

On the actual topic, I don't see how this could go through. Yes MS infringes on patents, but in this case, it looks like the functionality described by the patents and the functionality of the Zune are different. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I prefer to dislike them for things they have actually done wrong.

Doesn't it make more sense to assess things on a case-by-case basis than to unilaterally hate MS even in cases when they're not at fault?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 11:03am

"I love the irony of stating that you are speaking on your own behalf followed immediately by list affiliations"

How about telling us who you are and what your affiliations are? Then your comments might have some credibility.

Ronald J. Riley,

I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- angry dude, 31 Mar 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  Let me guess...
  
  He's probly one of Mikey's reincarnations on this site
  
  Mikey has many clones here
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 6:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Such eloquence. I pity the poor man that must engage in any argument with you. Simply and breathtakingly amazing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 6:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    [citation needed]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re:
  I find it amusing that you think *you* have any credibility whatsoever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 11:43am

What about Apple?
Apple has the tag feature which sounds exactly like what microsoft is getting sued for. Where is Apple's lawsuit in all of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
staff, 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:51am

cautious
"Technically, we're told, patents only are supposed to apply to specific inventions, and not general ideas. It doesn't always work that way in practice, of course."

That is the way it works. No one can sue a party for infringement unless based on analysis of the claims and the purported infringing use leads counsel to conclude the purported infringer is indeed infringing. Otherwise, you set yourself up for counter suit and possible sanctions. As you might imagine, plaintiffs are very cautious before filing suit. Sounds like you don't understand the claims at issue or the purported infringing activities of the defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re: cautious
  Sounds like you, as usual, manage to write an entire paragraph that says nothing while not actually pointing out why Mike is wrong, aside from "you must be wrong, because I said so!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]