“Little-known Texas MP3 Technologies is taking on Apple, Samsung Electronics, and Sandisk with a patent-infringement lawsuit,” Martyn Williams reports for IDG News Service.
“The suit, which came to light over the weekend, was filed on Feb. 16 in Marshall, Texas. The eastern Texas city is fast becoming one of the leading locations of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. thanks to speedy trials and juries that more often than not find in favor of the plaintiff,” Williams reports.
“In the complaint Texas MP3 Technologies alleges infringement on U.S. patent 7,065,417, which was awarded in June 2006 to multimedia chip-maker SigmaTel and covers ‘an MPEG portable sound reproducing system and a method for reproducing sound data compressed using the MPEG method,'” Williams reports.
Williams reports, “Just over a month later SigmaTel said that it had sold the patent to a Dallas-based patent licensing agency because it believed the agency would be better able to take advantage of its potential value.”
Read the full article here.
My freakin’ heck. That’s all I have to say.
Please, juries, make these spurious “for profit” patent suits stop! Nail the plaintif with court costs at the least…. Sheesh!
We are Marshall is taking on a whole new meaning.
The new way of doing business.
1) File a generic patent.
2) Wait for someone to get successful from previous years of research and development.
3) Sue the successful business for millions or billions.
4) Repeat from step 1.
Just pathetic.
I’ll bet they’re just PRAYING for an out of court settlement, too.
Apple, please do mess with Texas.
I bought a Coca Cola from McDonalds, and a few hours after I drank it I pissed myself.
Who do I sue? Coca Cola or McDonalds?
MW: money!
In 1899, then Patent Commissioner, Charles H. Duell reportedly announced that “everything that can be invented has been invented.”
He wasn’t EXACTLY correct in that assertion. He SHOULD have said,
“Everything that can be patented has been patented.”
. . . by some idiot who didn’t have the sense to develop the idea and/or bring it to market.
Please, someone, ANYONE, send these infernal patent attorneys to Hell and leave them there!
When M$ gets nailed by Patent Trolls everyone cheers
When Apple gets sued, everyone hisses.
Hmmm. Double standard anyone?
I don’t get it. How could Apple have stolen or profitted from this company’s patent when they had been doing their thing for years before that fact? Patent theft or infringement comes from the knowing copying of an existing patent; the two items are related in time by patent issuance, and then infringement, not infringement and then patent issuance.
I for one welcome our new patent infringing overlords!
How to make money from patents:
(1) Hire an engineer away from the competition
(2) Have them write a patent related to the work they did at their previous employer.
(3) Get it granted with the USPTO (easy step).
(4) Sue the competitor into oblivion.
Inspired by MathFox at Groklaw
Didn’t SigmaTel have some components in the iPod anyway? I thought the wheel was their’s.
I would like to see a legal challenge against the Patent Office for incorrectly granting a patent that is clearly retrospective and now in common use. It ought to be a legal requirement for Patent applications to prove they actually invented whatever it is and that it is not a pre-existing invention.
Then sue the pants of the lawyers for screwing it all up in the first place.
Secondly, this lot claim to have reserved all international rights, there is no such legal status. Patents must be applied for in each and every jurisdiction where Patent protection is required. I know because I hold 2 patents in the UK and had to file separately in the US, Canada, and Australia and have recently been able to file a group filing under European law that covers EU countries. There is no international protection for patents.
@Jim –
No, you don’t get to sue Coca Cola *or* McDonald’s.
They get to sue you. Because, you know, they jointly patented the process of ‘beverage processing, nutrient extraction, and waste liquid expulsion from a biological entity’ (#7,065,418) late last year. And don’t let them catch the rest of you pissing, either.
I think Apple is paying for these friv. suits for publicity.
They should change the patent laws to read the following:
‘A patent can ONLY be valid if the company who owns the patent brings a product out into the market’.
That would stop all these patent leachers in one go!.
Bwaahahaha!!! That was so true and hilarious!
Bwaahahaha!!! That was so true and hilarious!
Bwaahahaha!!! That was so true and hilarious!
These suits are such a load of crap imo. Everybody is trying to get in on the act. The think is though, of all the tech companies, I think apple will be the one for the future who is best equipped to deal with these things. They are a progressive company and will make sure that they wont get caught out with these things in the future. They tend to think things through in a truly in depth way. I think Jobs is fairly pissed with all these suits and thats one of the reasons why he emphasised all the patents in the iPhone. A warning possibly that Apple are also willing to play hard ball.
Whoa! Apple was in court in Texarkana last year, which is only 70 miles north of Marshall. That is considered next door in Texas.
Jim-
don’t forget to sue the maker of the car that you drove to McDonalds, and the gas company that powered it. Also, were you by chance wearing Levi’s?
If so, I think you have a solid case…
Beacons of dull light, and dimer wits.
The patent was filed was Jan 29 2002. The first Generation of iPod was already released when they filed for the patent. One piece of the patent that might be why they are suing, other than to get free money.
“It is an object of the present invention to provide an MPEG portable sound reproducing system and a reproducing method thereof which reproduces sound data, compressed and stored on a memory chip using the MPEG method, into an audible format.”
Application
No. 10059777 filed on 2002-01-29 Current US Class 700/94 , Digital audio data processing system 369/63 , SOUND REPRODUCTION FOR TOY OR NOVELTY DEVICE (E.G., TALKING DOLL) 381/61 , SOUND EFFECTS 704/272 Novelty item
The iPod Shuffle was not released until January 2005.
Do I thinkj this is a stupid lawsuit YES.
> alleges infringement on U.S. patent 7,065,417, which was awarded in June 2006 to multimedia chip-maker SigmaTel… Just over a month later SigmaTel said that it had sold the patent to a Dallas-based patent licensing agency because it believed the agency would be better able to take advantage of its potential value.”
Very clever, SigmaTel… You can’t very well sue Apple, since Apple is a current or potential customer. So you “sell it” to some unknown company in Texas with an agreement to share the proceeds from the lawsuit.
No matter. I’m sure Apple incorporates the cost of these stupid lawsuits into the pricing of their products. So it’s not really Apple that’s paying the price, it’s the customers who buy Apple products who are paying. Fortunately, Apple seems to “playing the game” themselves on future products like iPhone, by patenting everything (so that someone else can’t come along later and say it was their idea).