That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market
from the welcome-to-america! dept
Hello Spotify. Welcome to America, where if you do anything even remotely innovative, you get sued for patent infringement. Indeed, just a couple weeks after entering the US market (finally), Spotify is being sued by PacketVideo for patent infringement. I knew the name PacketVideo sounded familiar... and then I remembered. A decade ago it was considered one of the hottest startups on the planet for trying to figure out ways to do streaming video on mobile phones (something I noted at the time I thought was not at all compelling -- which I'll admit I was totally wrong on, but that was before the invention of large screened smartphones that we have today). Of course, PacketVideo failed to live up to the early lofty expectations, and last we heard of it, the company was being acquired by DoCoMo for what appears to be a lot less money than it raised over the years.Now, you might claim that perhaps PacketVideo has a legitimate patent claim here. After all, the company has been around for well over a decade and was an early pioneer in streaming efforts. But... the details suggest not so much. The actual patent in question, 5,636,276, is for a "Device for the distribution of music information in digital form." Sound broad? Of course, as the patent attorneys in the audience will tell you, it's not the title of the patent that matters, but the claims. So go read through the claims and try not to gag. What's described is the very generic idea of streaming music. Here's the key claim:
a central memory device which is connected to a communications network and has a databank of digitized music information and, a terminal which is connected to the central memory device via the communications network, the central memory device being equipped with a retrieval module and the said modules having the capability to interact via the communications network in order to order and transmit selectively chosen music information, wherein the selectively chosen music information is organized with a defined format for transmission in a digital music information object, the format including a core and a number of additional layers, the core including at least one object identification code, object structure information, a consumer code and an encryption table and the one or more additional layers including the actual music information, wherein the central memory device has an encryption module for encryption of the music information object before transmission using the encryption table, and wherein the terminal has a decryption module for decryption of the music information object before its reproduction using the encryption table, an interpretation module for interpretation and reproduction conditioning of the music information object as well as an authorization device having identification information for identification of the terminal and of the consumer which is retrievable by the interpretation module and by the decryption module for authorization checking.Now here's the thing. When this patent was filed in 1995, this was not a unique idea. You could have asked any semi-competent engineer how would you build a digital music streaming service, and you would have received a similar general explanation. The problem was never in understanding the various pieces you need to put together. The difficulty at the time was getting enough bandwidth to do this reasonably... and getting any sort of licensing in an era before most label execs even knew what the internet was.
Oh, and let's get to the important part: PacketVideo had nothing to do with this patent. The company just bought it a few years back. There's nothing in this patent that was some amazing breakthrough or key innovation. Spotify is an amazing product, not because of this patent, but because of how it actually executed and built a working product.
Once again, we see patents being used as a tool to shakedown companies who were actually innovative in how they executed, with a ridiculously broad patent that contributed zippo to the actual state of the art.
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: music, patents, streaming
Companies: packetvideo, spotify
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
patent the internet?
I'm going to do a search/replace on that patent converting music to:
- hologram
- 3d printer recipe
- game
- smell
- animal
- person
I'll then have a nice income for life, even once star trek replicators and transporters come into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a developer...
Now that I have a cushy government job and consult on the side, I simply can't afford to be sued for creating a JavaScript/CSS vertical dropdown menu (I kid you not, I received an email saying I was violating a patent for doing that). What happens is that all of the neat ideas that me, and others like me have are simply going to stay in our brains out of fear of having our lives ruined by a parasite suing us in East Texas.
If you give a group of engineers a problem and each one of them comes up with a similar solution guess what...it's not that damned novel! Creators (artistic and technological) need to realize that they are not special little snowflakes and not every idea that comes out of their minds is unique and amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
Problem 1: The U.S. patent system.
Sub-problem: The shakedown racket in East Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As a developer...
Optional problem: Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As a developer...
The bad thing is how drug enforcement in other states means Marshall TX has patent job security.
Get rid of one problem, you will get rid of more down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
Isn't it great how the US are killing the exact thing that put them in the lead? Great job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a developer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent this idea
Oh, wait.
That idea will never take off. People will complain. Why? Because only freetards would want free printers (or even low cost ones). Everyone already does complain about this business model. So it proves the point: only freetards would want free printers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent this idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent this idea
CueCat figured out the hard way that if you give away hardware, the community will figure out how to hack it and re-purpose it. In the process they'll cut you out of the lifecycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent this idea
Spoiler:
!@$#(*$@HP@#$()@$()@*$()@#$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for embedding the patent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Generic" claim?!?
Here, let me break it down for you, and let me remind you that each and every element of the claim must be read on for it to constitute infringement:
1. A device for the distribution of music information comprising:
a central memory device which is connected to a communications network and has a databank of digitized music information and,
a terminal which is connected to the central memory device via the communications network,
the central memory device being equipped with a retrieval module and the said modules having the capability to interact via the communications network in order to order and transmit selectively chosen music information,
wherein the selectively chosen music information is organized with a defined format for transmission in a digital music information object,
the format including a core and a number of additional layers,
the core including at least one object identification code, object structure information, a consumer code and an encryption table and the one or more additional layers including the actual music information,
wherein the central memory device has an encryption module for encryption of the music information object before transmission using the encryption table, and
wherein the terminal has a decryption module for decryption of the music information object before its reproduction using the encryption table,
an interpretation module for interpretation and reproduction conditioning of the music information object as well as an authorization device having identification information for identification of the terminal and of the consumer which is retrievable by the interpretation module and by the decryption module for authorization checking.
People, please don't just take what's said in the article at face value; read the claim yourself and decide if it's really the "very generic idea of streaming music." Now, there may be significant prior art to this patent, or it may be obvious in light of that prior art, but I would not call it broad patent on the "very generic idea of streaming music."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
1) List out the steps you would take to implement streaming music.
2) Compare it to the list above.
3) Spot the differences.
Or maybe it's you who doesn't understand how patents work, yet go around declaring all patents "broad and trivial" and the patent system "broken." Sound about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
--------------------------
1. A device for the distribution of music information comprising:
a central memory device (DATABASE/SERVER) which is connected to a communications network (INTERNET) and has a databank of digitized music information and (MUSIC STORAGE),
a terminal(CLIENT) which is connected to the central memory device (SERVER) via the communications network (INTERNET),
the central memory device being equipped with a retrieval module (DATABASE) and the said modules having the capability to interact (SERVER PROGRAM) via the (INTERNET) in order to order and transmit selectively chosen music information (CLIENT REQUESTS),
wherein the selectively chosen music information (DATABASE QUERY RESULT) is organized with a defined format (JSON/XML, MUSIC STREAM) for transmission in a digital music information object (HTTP RESPONSE),
the format (JSON/XML, MUSIC STREAM) including a core and a number of additional layers,
the core including at least one object identification code (SONG/SESSION/USER ID), object structure information (RESPNSE FORMAT?), a consumer code (USER ID?) and an encryption table (PUBLIC KEY?)a nd the one or more additional layers including the actual music information,
(CHECK ANY WEB API, THEY WILL CONTAIN ALL THIS IN SOME FORM, IN FLICKR's CASE IT WILL BE A PHOTO URL INSTEAD OF MUSIC)
wherein the central memory device (SERVER) has an encryption module (PRIVATE KEY) for encryption of the music information object (SERVER RESPONSE) before transmission using the encryption table ("SSL/HHTPS"), and
wherein the terminal has a decryption module (AGAIN, PUBLIC KEY) for decryption of the music information object before its reproduction using the encryption table,
an interpretation module (MEDIA PLAYER/WEB BROWSER) for interpretation and reproduction conditioning of the music information object as well as an authorization device (WEB BROWSER/"SSL/HTTPS") having identification information for identification of the terminal (SESSION/USER ID) and of the consumer (USER ID) which is retrievable by the interpretation module (COOKIE) and by the decryption module for authorization checking.
--------------------------
So, the way I read it, a server has a database of music which has some server program running on top of it. This server program can get requests from the internet, and handle them to query the database send back data to the client. The client runs some software to display the chosen song, decrypt the music, and play the music. The software includes a way of identifying the client. The communication between the client is encrypted.
This is the definition of a web service to stream media, or any kind of information. Youtube, Flicker, Twitter, Facebook, and anyone else with a public API all use exactly this method to run thier services. The patent lacks anything specific enoguh, in my opinion, to warrant novelty. The only thing I see that seems novel is the encryption table. I'm no expert in encryption, but it sounds an awful lot like pulic/private key encryption used almost every where. Some(all) of the listed API's offer secure,encrypted HTTPS connections. But still, the table may actually be novel. But who knows? They don't seem to go on about the specifics of how the table work, which might be worth patenting, even though at the end of the day, encryption is just math.
There are a multitude of ways to implement this, and my example was only for a web browser. Not once do they mention the specificities of the invention to differentiate it from one development platform to another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
Finally!! Someone who read the claims! You, sir, have no idea how rare you are on the Internet!
Your analysis is spot on, except for a couple of places, one of which is actually the key point of the patent (DRM):
... the format (JSON/XML, MUSIC STREAM) including a core and a number of additional layers, ...
I suspect they mean an MPEG-type file format (the "layers" is a hint.)
... and an encryption table (PUBLIC KEY?)a nd the one or more additional layers including the actual music information,
I'm no cryptography expert either, but the "encryption table" is not just a key, but a sequence of numbers required to decrypt each word of the encrypted music information. A key would be used to generate that sequence of numbers. I guess sending the key itself would make it a very easy to break DRM scheme.
As such, the rest of your analysis is correct, only the encryption/decryption parts change. For instance, the encryption table probably cannot be construed to be SSH/HTTPS.
The patent lacks anything specific enoguh, in my opinion, to warrant novelty.
It's not the specifics that constitute novelty, but the complete combination of elements in the claim.
The only thing I see that seems novel is the encryption table.
Bingo. The patent is about DRM, as mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, and that is why this piece is in there. Remove this, then it is a generic claim on streaming music.
But still, the table may actually be novel. But who knows? They don't seem to go on about the specifics of how the table work, which might be worth patenting,
You are right, they are vague about it, and that may be an invalidating factor. They mention "pixel-matrix cryptography", but I have no idea what it is. Unless they can prove to the court that a person of ordinary skill could read the patent and re-implement it from scratch, they have enablement issues.
even though at the end of the day, encryption is just math.
Yes, and practical applications of mathematics is patentable. This patent is not on the mathematics, but an application of that math to apply DRM to streaming music.
There are a multitude of ways to implement this, and my example was only for a web browser. Not once do they mention the specificities of the invention to differentiate it from one development platform to another.
True, but that is the purpose of patents. They provide protection to the over-arching implementation without being hindered by interchangeable details. Patents are deliberately written up as broad as prior art allows so that a competitor cannot avoid infringement trivially, by, say, using RTP/UDP/IP instead, of HTTP, or coding in Java instead of Python.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
I still feel that this patent is too general, since it basically lays out how anyone would stream something from a server. I think it's bullshit that in theory, packet video is the only company allowed to stream music using the method laid out here. It's pretty much the standard/naive approach to the problem. Very obvious and apparent to anyone in the field if they thought about it, even in the 90's.
If the DRM is the main point of the patent, why not patent just that? Why have such a broad patent? I understand from the business point, you want as much to be yours. But the only novel thing here is the DRM. I know nothing of patent law, really, but if I was the issuer I would have only granted a patent on the encryption method. Even though, again, I personally don't understand how applied math can be patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
That's my point actually: since the main claim contains the element of applying DRM to streaming music, it is a patent on DRM on streaming music. The claims are the only part that enforce what a patent covers. It is not as broad as the title, abstract or the article would have you believe.
They legally cannot use this to sue someone simply for streaming music. They can try, but if it ever goes to court, the Judge will smack them down hard for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Unfortunately, litigation is very expensive, and many companies force settlements simply with the threat of lawsuits. That is one of the biggest problems that needs to be fixed.
Even though, again, I personally don't understand how applied math can be patentable
It's a very nuanced problem, and IMHO, even the courts are not sure how to explain it. The thing is, patent law is meant to protect inventions with practical, useful results, and mathematics can be applied in many ways to get practical, useful results. The problems are in defining where the mathematics part ends and the practical part begins for the purposes of patenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
Then why even include streaming music in the patent application?
And I hope that a judge really would call this out as frivolous.
The DRM method though really is never decribed beyond an 'encryption table', so I wonder if Spotify is actually infringinh then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
Well, if your patent is on "DRM on streaming music", your claim has to mention "streaming music" somewhere... If you try to frame a claim for "DRM on streaming music" without the "streaming music" part, you'd have a claim on "DRM", which is just a generic, broad claim on DRM!
For the same reason, the rest of the patent also includes language about music streaming, i.e. to provide context for the relevant details.
It's also possible they tried to claim the broad idea of "streaming music" but got narrowed down to the DRM aspect while getting it through the PTO.
The DRM method though really is never decribed beyond an 'encryption table', so I wonder if Spotify is actually infringinh then.
True, it's rather vague. This means that 1) unless someone with a background in cryptography can read it and go, "Oh, I know how to do that," the patent is potentially invalid; and 2) depending on how Spotify protects their streams, they very well might not be infringing.
Unfortunately, they must balance the cost of litigation with the damages the patent-holder is asking, and may well settle. Yeah, it's messed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
And the result is what we have here. A marketing requirements document has been converted into patent speak. Where is the actual invention?
"This patent is not on the mathematics, but an application of that math to apply DRM to streaming music."
In other words my (music) bits are more important and special than your (data) bits ??? DRM on ERMapper terrain data files is not covered but DRM on music is?
Where is the actual invention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
I agree that it is a part of the problem, but not all of it. There has to be some breadth to prevent trivial bypassing, but where do you draw the lines? Ideally, it has to be drawn by humans, and so the answer is, "in court... if this gets litigated". Unfortunately, litigation is so expensive and slow that this is not a scalable approach.
A marketing requirements document has been converted into patent speak. Where is the actual invention?
Well, the actual invention is in the claims, and the claims have to be a lot more specific than marketing requirements document... but yeah, it can still end up being pretty broad.
In other words my (music) bits are more important and special than your (data) bits ???
Kind of... Your language made me think of this: look up this essay called "What color are your bits?" It's a very rough analogy but gives an idea of how the law looks at data as opposed to us geeks.
DRM on ERMapper terrain data files is not covered but DRM on music is?
This one is simple. Yep: If "ERMapper terrain data" or any GIS files are not mentioned in the claim, it's not covered. Claims are pretty specifically interpreted that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
Eh, which "introductory paragraphs" are you referring to here? The only places in the patent document itself where I find DRM mentioned are in the titles of a number of subsequent patents referring this one from 1995, but nowhere in the original claims. While it's certainly the case that the "encryption table" was intended as a component in some DRM scheme (the "consumer code" hints in this direction), I don't see the patent being limited to that particular application. Thus it's not a patent on streaming music with DRM, but a patent on streaming music with encryption.
Now, I agree with your assertion that this patent may not be quite as broad as the article suggests, but it's still fairly broad. I actually think it's good that the claims don't mention DRM, because I view that not as a technical concept, but as a legal construct that really can't be "implemented" due to fundamental aspects of information theory (which say you can't control how any information is dealt with once you have sent it to an untrusted recipient). All encryption does is to prevent third parties from eavesdropping on the stream and enjoying its contents, and it won't even do that if the decryption key is distributed in an unsafe manner or can be obtained by other means.
While I'm far from an expert on cryptography, I think I understand it a little better than I understand U.S. patent law, but I don't consider an "encryption table" a meaningful explanation of the algorithm used. If that part of the claim is considered significant, then essential information seems to be missing here (or perhaps it's elsewhere in the documentation; I haven't read all of it).
But if actually any kind of encryption would satisfy this claim, then it's quite broad, and it has nothing to do with DRM. As for whether it covers SSL/HTTPS streams, I suppose that may depend on whether the client ("consumer") is authenticated, and not merely the server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
It doesn't call it "DRM" (maybe the term didn't exist then?) but this is what the Introduction says (emphasis mine):
It is thus an object of the present invention to create a device and an information object of the type mentioned initially which allow the present-day options of digital information and computer technology to be utilized and, at the same time, on the one hand simplify the distribution for the consumer with improved service and, on the other hand, ensures effective protection of the copyrights.
I agree that the "encryption table" element is not very descriptive, and it might be an invalidating factor. They explain it very briefly in the spec. What it comes down to is what a cryptographer will make of it. From my limited understanding, only certain cryptographic methods use encryption tables as an implementation detail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
It is "generic" in that it isn't tied to a specific device or machine, but that is allowed in patent law. It's supposed to protect the inventive aspects without letting competitors trivially bypass infringement by simply, say, porting it to a different language or different CPU architecture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Generic" claim?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Generic" claim?!?
Keep in mind that in order for a patent to be infringed, each claim must be infringed (otherwise the work does not embody the invention).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about other streaming services?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about other streaming services?
On the other hand, and more cynically: Spotify being a foreign company and these being local, PacketVideo may view it as the weakest of the bunch and an ideal "starting point."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What engineers were thinking in 1995 is totally irrelevant. On the first page of the patent it shows that it has Foreign Application Priority to a patent filed in Germany in April of 1994. For someone else to have gotten this patent in the US they would have to prove they had the idea a year before the foreign priority date which brings us to April 1993. (35 USC 102(b) http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm )
Now here is the thing. It is unfortunate Spotify is being sued, but but maybe you should learn a little bit more about patents before you go off on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I need to try and find my copy and send it to spotify as prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So I got the date wrong... and that means I don't understand patents?
Uh... right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Process Patents Suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact I'll probably be sued for this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great radio show about the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tldr; I don't like Spotify
first of all, it's not insanely expensive, but it's too expensive for me considering I wouldn't even have the time to listen to half that music, and I'm just as happy listening to fewer songs that I only have to pay for once, not monthly, especially since some of the bands I like didn't have all their music on Spotify, just a single album. also, their "unlimited" service package doesn't include using it on your phone, you have to pay extra to use the app on your mobile phone.
second, the ads on it are terrible. I've used Pandora for a while and now I pay for it so there are no ads (mostly to support a service I like) but the ads never bothered me, they were short and moderately infrequent. on Spotify I got ads after 4 songs, then another 4 and I couldn't not listen to them. the ad was a clip from a song by the band LMFAO, whom I find unpleasing to the ears, and when I muted my computer so I wouldn't have to bleed from my ears the ad paused, with no was of resuming it manually. I literally had to listen to it at an audible volume for the ad to continue playing it.
I only got to the second ad figured maybe it wouldn't be so frequent, or there was some fluke on the last ad, or the other ads wouldn't be so offensive to my ears. but at the second ad being the same as the first, after the same number of songs, I closed the Spotify program and decided never to use it again. maybe I had a misleading first time use of the service, but first impressions are important, and they not only failed to impress, they offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tldr; I don't like Spotify
People have different tastes. End of story.
"it's too expensive for me"
Don't pay for it then. Use the free version of subscribe to a different service. Your choice.
"second, the ads on it are terrible"
Never heard them, but again nobody's forcing you to use it.
"I've used Pandora for a while and now I pay for it so there are no ads"
You have the same choice with Spotify. Also, it's worth remembering that Spotify's reputation comes mainly from Europe, where we're not allowed to use Pandora.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@20 that is very general
YOU REALIZE thats most of the ea , bioware /crap going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the plus side, the phrase "the actual music information" lacks antecedent basis in the claim. This claim is ambiguous and should be invalidated under 35 USC 112. That's not to say it will be, that will be up to a judge.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2173_05_e.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, there are a few different pieces here which are open for attack. One is the "layered music object" is exactly what ID3 does for an MP3 file: provide a combination of music and other information packaged in a separable way. Another is that the patent calls for the "central memory device" to have an "encryption module" that encrypts the music object. Now if I were designing a music streaming system (which I actually did, albeit long after this patent was filed), I would store the music object already encrypted, so the central memory device would not have an encryption module. Likewise I would not include an encryption table in the music object, but rather store an object identifier, which I would then use to communicate with a separate license server in order to retrieve a key for decrypting the music using a pre-agreed algorithm.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think a lot of this case will come down to exactly how Spotify has implemented DRM and who is already licensing this patent. If Apple and Rhapsody and Pandora have already licensed it, then most like Spotify will too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah! One For Me
I'm going to call a win for me in the Mobile TV column. I always knew people would want to watch it, but not pay $15/mo for it.
Here's where you and I were in 2004:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20041122/160109.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of other markets where you dont get this kind of racket going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zappa "invented " it just as much 1983
http://www.zappa.com/whatsnew/news/FZ-Proposal/
Well...does it??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Music Connection connection
The SIDplayer format consisted of a three row by two column "encoding table" which specified the length of the musical data (in bytes) of the three available musical voices. The musical data for each of the three voices followed immediately the "encoding table", and at the end of the musical data was a final field (i.e., "layer") comprised of textual information about the music encoded in Commodore's PETscii character format.
The only distinction between the service provided by Q-Link's "The Music Connection" and the technology described by the '276 patent is that the musical data was "encoded", not "encrypted". The distinguishing characteristic between "encoding" and "encrypting" being whether or not the information required for decoding/decryption is publicly available. That is to say, if I encode some data and only provide certain people the appropriate information needed to unencode then it can be claimed that I have "encrypted" that data. However, if I perform that same encoding and then share with everyone the means by which the data can be recovered, then I have not technically "encrypted" the data, but merely "encoded" it.
Had Quantum Link chosen not to use the publicly known encoding specified by SIDplayer's published .mus file format but instead kept the encoding methodology to themselves, then their encoding would have properly been able to claim that the data was "encrypted" and their "Music Connection" service would have implemented *every* aspect of the technology described the first claim of the '276 patent -- and done so half a decade before that patent was applied for.
So what the examiners at the USPTO are basically saying is that "keeping information secret" is a patentable concept in and of itself -- not "how" the information is kept secret, merely that it is. I.e., if someone invents a new kind engine and tells everyone how to use it, five years later someone can be granted a patent for that same engine, but with the added "technological improvement" of NOT telling people how to use it.
Whether information is encoded or encrypted is determined merely by the decision of who is to receive the decoding information, this decision is by no means "technology" -- let alone patentable technology -- and the '276 patent should never have granted because the actual technology it described had already seen widespread public usage and was reported in nationally published magazines such as COMPUTE!.
Note: many BBSes of that basic timeframe also offered similar music services and may have predated Q-Link's offering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bare bones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reject spotify
the one that makes the service an injustice: the Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM). Users ought to reject Spotify because of this.
Spotify's aim is to convince people that they don't need to have their
own copies of music -- that they can do their listening under the
total control of a company. And the company has control through DRM.
This is not to excuse software patents. They are not limited to
malicious features like this one; they can cover any software idea
whatsoever. They endanger free programs and proprietary programs; they
endanger programs that try to serve the user as well as programs that
try to abuse the user. That is why I've campaigned against software
patents for 20 years. But don't say that Spotify, a service predicated
on controlling users through DRM, is an "amazing product"!
Readers can join our campaign against DRM at DefectiveByDesign.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reject spotify
Whatever you think of Spotify, it's a RENTAL service. You don't own any of the music, and that's made abundantly clear. One of the natural trade-offs of this is that you're not allowed to copy the music. Which is OK because you don't own it. The main reason why DRM is so odious is because it restricts access to the things you own. You don't own the music you access with Spotify, but you can access more than most people would ever be able to buy.
Your efforts are appreciated, and DBD was, I believe, very helpful in getting DRM removed from bought music via iTunes, etc. But, there are more important battles to be fought than DRM on music you haven't bought. Direct your efforts against DRM on movies, ebooks or games, on regional restrictions, on region codes and DRM on DVDs and Blu-Rays. When DRM on rented music is the most important thing you have to fight, the world will be a far better place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]