Google Goes On The Offensive Against Troll Armed With Old Mp3 Player Patent
from the Creative-Labs-forcing-its-way-back-into-the-market dept
It wasn't enough that Creative Labs/Creative Technology spent March 24th suing almost every big name in the cell phone business for patent infringement. These lawsuits, all filed in the East Texas patent troll playground, asserted the same thing: that any smartphone containing a music app (which is every smartphone produced) violates the patent it was granted in 2005 to use in conjunction with its mp3 players. "Venue is proper" because smartphones are sold in Texas, even if the plaintiffs are located in California and Singapore, respectively.
That wasn't all Creative Technology did. It also filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission seeking to block the import of smartphones from manufacturers like Sony, LG, BlackBerry, Samsung, etc. under the theory that every imported phone contains patent-infringing software. The ITC has opened an investigation of Creative's allegations, which will at least hold off any potential import blocks until it reaches a decision. The ITC's summary of Creative's patent claims clearly shows how broad the patent's potential coverage is -- and (inadvertently) why it should be invalidated.
The products at issue in the investigation are portable electronic devices, such as smart phones, with the capability of playing stored media files selected by a user from a hierarchical display.Creative Labs started its patent war early, suing Apple back in 2006 for "violating" its patent with its iPods. Apple ultimately settled with Creative for $100 million -- not only encouraging Creative's trolling ways but also moving Apple towards more aggressive acquisition (and defense) of patents, even for something truly obvious like "rounded corners."
Google has decided it's not going to wait around for the ITC or east Texas courts to come to the wrong conclusions. It's gone on the offensive, seeking declaratory judgment that it does not violate Creative's broad patent. Every company sued by Creative on March 24th sells Android phones that contain Google's "Play Music" app. On behalf of its customers (and its own Motorola Mobility, which was also sued), Google wants Creative's BS patent's power neutered.
No version of the Google Play Music app directly or indirectly infringes any claim of the ’433 patent. No third party infringes any claim of the ’433 patent by using the Google Play Music app in other devices. Google has not caused, directed, requested, or facilitated any such infringement, and has not had any specific intent to do so. The Google Play Music app is not designed for use in any combination that would infringe any claim of the ’433 patent. Rather, the Google Play Music app has substantial uses that do not infringe any claim of the ’433 patent.Creative is asking for a substantial payout for something as obvious as selecting and adding songs to a playlist. The claim specified in its lawsuits is this one:
[...]
An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Google and Creative regarding whether the Google Play Music app infringes or has infringed the ’433 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the respective rights of the parties regarding the ’433 patent. Google seeks a judgment declaring that the Google Play Music app does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’433 patent.
The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and adding at least one track associated with the selected item to a playlist.If Google's receives a judgment in its favor, it will at least protect the cell phone manufacturers from having to deal with claims related to its "Music Play" app. For all of those that load their own music apps on their phones (which, again, is all of them), they're still on their own when it comes to fending off Creative's rent-seeking.
The market has changed and left Creative behind. Back when it sued Apple, it at least had a competing mp3 player on the market. Now, it has nothing even remotely related to smartphones, but still thinks it's entitled to a cut of those profits because it made music players once upon a time. And it's so desperate to leech off viable companies that it's willing to abuse more than a friendly district court to achieve its ends.
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: declaratory judgment, mp3 players, patents, playlists
Companies: creative labs, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
East Texas needs to be nuked from space, stupid patents need to be ended, but perhaps the simplest fix would be capping "damages" after oh say 5 years at .000001% & allow them to keep using it.
End the amazing snapping up of patents and lawyers seeking ways to apply them to things seeking payments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's one thing to shake others down when you know you can stack the deck in your favor by simply filing in a certain location, quite another when the playing field is a little more even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But as soon as they did they got right on it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It kept me from moving on to any of their superfluous, overpriced cards after I no longer could use the one I had, just because there were no drivers for it.
I still use a 5.1 Speaker set of theirs that must be more than 10yo at this point. They had good stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2016 @ 8:31pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Funny...
I've got the notebooks with the specs, using a technology that was being touted at the time in Omni magazine where a sugar cube sized piece of organic crystal could store about 12 terabytes of data. What's really funny is that the internet didn't exist at the time, so music would have been purchased at a kiosk in a local mall, would be encrypted per device, locked down by a pin selected by the owner. If the memory was stolen or lost, buy a replacement memory device and all music purchased would be re-downloaded to the new module. The old module would be destroyed if the "thief" tried to use it.
The memory device would have been capable of being used in home stereos, portable music devices, car stereos, etc...
Again, this was back around 1983/1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too Funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too Funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too Funny...
I said mid 1980s, not mid 1990s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Too Funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too Funny...
See, this story is spin to make the Pirate (aka Google) look like the victim, and the PATENT OWNER (aka Creative Labs) look like the bad guy. My, my, my, what a mixed up world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too Funny...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_media_player
They weren't even the first mobile mp3 player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
See, this 'name-slinging' of 'patent troll' doesn't apply when the Creative REALLY IS THE OWNER of the patent. Overly broad? Well, that's the nature of the beast of 'being first to market and patent'. Don't like it? WORK AROUND THE KEYSTONES, don't try to steal them because you are 'BIGGER AND BADDER' than the old guy who was there first. That's 'domination by size'. This is tantamount to Google telling you that they can make you buy X-brand computer or Y-brand clothes, because 'they are the biggest elephants in the room'.
Why see it like this? Well, having paid between $10,000 and $17,500 for four different patents in my life, and having never sold them, paid to keep them current, and having gained income from leasing rights on them, I see them like you'd see a rental house you own. IT IS MY PROPERTY. You saying 'it serves the better interest' sounds just like 'imminent domain' does to someone getting their own house sent 'into condemnation' just so the rich can have their golf course on your prior property that you wouldn't sell them otherwise.
When you see it for what it is, then you see it is nothing but the rich or powerful stealing under the 'I'm Bigger Than YOU' mandate. Plain, and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
At all.
This isn't some big mean companies stomping on the little guy, this is a company that made a product years back, others did it better, and rather than compete they've turned to shaking down anyone they could for as much as they can. I don't care how good their mp3 player was, they don't deserve to get a cut from every device that has the ability to play digital media(all of them at this point) just because at one point they sold a device that could do something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
Bullshit! As so many others this patent shouldn't have been issued on the grounds that even back then what is covered was obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
If they are so far on the side of the angels, wouldn't they have acted sooner?
If you found someone infringing on your patents would you wait 20 years to file?
And Google is merely fighting back, they aren't the only company targeted.
You almost are a decent shill, but stop pretending that what they claim today was something they created. They wedged a patent to fit something thats been around for a very long time and then had the gall to try block the import of devices to leverage faster settlements. They are trolls no matter what you want to claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
If they are so far on the side of the angels, wouldn't they have acted sooner?
If you found someone infringing on your patents would you wait 20 years to file?"
"...violates the patent it was granted in 2005..."
"Creative Labs started its patent war early, suing Apple back in 2006 for "violating"..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
Thank you! I couldn't figure out what to call that style of writing, and that hits it on the head.
Speaking of descriptive word combos, is there such a thing as an 'anarcho-authoritarian'? Because...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
It should also be noted that this is supposed to be a democracy. As such we ALWAYS have the right to complain about laws we disagree with. The 'nature of the beast' is exactly what we are criticizing here, the laws need to be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Trolling - or First Owner?
For instance large corporations have long been known to start astroturfing campaigns in favor of IP laws. However I don't remember masses of people protesting the streets in favor of IP laws to get our existing laws in place. I do remember big corporations being the ones to push for these laws in order to get them instated, expanded, and extended. I do remember masses of people protesting against things like SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2016 @ 10:21pm
This is yet another example, as if more were needed, why software patents are bad bad bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well lets be truthful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three display screens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three display screens?
The patent can be found here:
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6928433
So, given what it says, does Google's software use three displays to show the hierarchy of music tracks based on categorisation? If not, it's not applicable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
Yeah, you had a good idea one time, but what have you done for us lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
APIs aren't "code"
Application program interface (API) is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications.
An API specifies how software components should interact and APIs are used when programming graphical user interface (GUI) components, larger programs using libraries provided by the language being used, externally provided software / resource platforms such as google maps, google drive, google mail, yahoo finance, amazon cloud and storage.
Without APIs, and without them being "free to use" no software would ever be able to communicate with software from another developer.
Hell, without the ability to use APIs, Oracle wouldn't even exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Imagine if noun/verb/adjective/adverb/subject/object/thing(s)/property of things etc. were copywritable in describing a language? This is what an API is, and for... That they become more complicated with computer code is not the issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quest for Fire: https://youtu.be/p2oX_eLwFXc?t=1h11s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if they do they should have a limited time span.
theres probably prior art,to challenge this .
this covers almost any phone that plays media files .
in the usa being first to invent is not much use unless
you file a patent .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Android phones no longer for sale in East TX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but. but, bb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troubling, in that a they are taking about
1) a tree structure
2) something that is so obvious to anyone that knows anything about programming, or has even glanced sideways at a GUI
I was wondering if they also got patents on displaying other things in tree structure, or if we have other companies out their about to drop a huge set of lawsuits on every internet site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nukes would be thrown at Springfield to test targetting capability before a nuclear war broke out....
If this has ANY basis in reality, can we request that East Texas gets the designation instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel a Verge article coming on
"Google throws Android manufacturers under the bus"....
In breaking news, Google has thrown all Android manufactures under the bus by ONLY defending its "Google Play Music" product in a slam dunk patent lawsuit filed by the creator of computer audio Creative Labs against all Android manufactures.
Google could have chosen to defend all of its manufactures by naming each of the manufacturers products, but instead chose to only defend its own product.
This will have a huge impact on the Android market as now all manufacturers will have to re-think their selection of Android as opposed to other offerings like Windows Phone.
Rumor has it that this huge misstep by Google has led Apple to consider licensing it's product line to offer manufacturers a totally stable, well rounded, inexpensive and patent impervious operating system option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]