“Apple and its iTunes store has been grouped with a number of mainstream media outlets in a new lawsuit regarding a patent of distribution and processing of information online,” Neil Hughes reports for AppleInsider.
Online News Link, a California-based company, holds claim to U.S. Patent No. 7,508,789, which covers the transmission of digital information through a broadcast channel and bi-directional channel,” Hughes reports. “‘Defendant Apple infringes, either directly or indirectly, through its operation of iTunes and the email and Web-based products, systems, and services offered via iTunes,’ the suit, filed in a U.S. District Court this week, reads.”
Hughes reports, “The patent was granted on March 24, 2009… In addition to Apple, Online News Link’s suit targets Dow Jones & Company, Investor’s Business Daily, Forbes Media, Forbes.com, TheStreet.com, Morningstar, A.H. Belo Corporation, and The Dallas Morning News. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, where complainants often file in hopes of a favorable outcome.”
MacDailyNews Take: Rocket Docket.
Full article, with Online News Link’s patent illustration diagram, here.
This gets old, very old!
Thank you Texas!
Wow… this is getting really old…
actually, with the gov’t forcing ALL TV stations to go digital, and with radio stations now on the web, they should go after anyone broadcasting digital these days… maybe they need to bring a lawsuit against the FCC….
Wow…. maybe I should take stock in this company ! Actually, maybe we can convince the bafoon at microscoff to buy it – he seems stupid enough to buy into trash like this.
Does anybody have this guys contact info? He’s infringing on my patent regarding the filing of retarded patents. He should also see my patents pertaining to public retardedness, and general lack of logic.
I have to say, living here in Texas we hear nothing of these suits in local media. Now, this is not to say that there is something conspiritorial going, on.
What I am trying to say is that the area courts here in east Texas are well versed in these types of cases and they tend to not allow a lot of goofy legal jockeying by either side. I know full well that it is thought that this area offers the best chance for a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs, but the reality is that texans in the area tend to be pretty clear thinking folks an don’t have a lot of time for shenanigans- we like to call it straight shootin’. Whether or not that constitutes a breeding ground for abuse of patent law- maybe. But, then again, maybe the patent laws need a once- over themselves.
My .02$
As to the nature of this particular lawsuit, I am calling excessive BS and abuse, my lack of knowledge of the full patent issue not withstanding.
I for one would love to see it thrown straight out on its skinny backside.
Another person/company seeking to get rich quick the American Way–by suing someone.
Is this a great country or what!!!
How can a patent be valid after the fact?
Maybe I should run out and get myself a patent, so that I can have something to fall back on in old age…<GRIN>
Sounds more like an lawyer trying to make something out of nothing so as to make some money… hell of away to make a buck!
@AmericanJoe,
You forget that this is the judicial and legal professions being discussed. Any description of the local inhabitants of any area is bound to be of a higher caliber.
MDN word: free. As in when are we going to be free of this sort of legal nonsense.
I assume Apple (and others) employee full time lawyers in the Eastern District of Texas.
Or at least a law firm.
What part of “prior art” don’t they understand?
Made I should file a Patent for the idea of biological complex self aware machines and when it’s granted by the Patent Office and then go to the Eastern District of Texas and file a suit against every woman who as ever given birth and every doctor and hospital that as delivered a baby. There are plenty of Abandoned Patents that I can reference to support my idea and claim.
Hell I might just win and be able to collect a royalty from every birth of man or animal and a license fee from every doctor, hospital, Veterinarian and animal hospital in the world I’d be Rich I tell you!!!!!!
This patent was obtained expressly for the purpose of extorting money under the guise of a patent defense lawsuit against legitimate companies.
@ AmericanJoe: What the rocket docket in Tyler offers is a quick decision without protracted legal filings and shenanigans allowed in other courts (see Exxon Valdez, Love Canal). In general that benefits all winners and plaintiff losers.
If this patent is upheld, virtually anyone running a web server could be infringing upon it. Total BS.
MDN– How about researching some the final rulings on the many technology patent infringement suits being ruled on in this court. We always here about the nonsense being brought to court, but rarely hear about the results. I’d like to hope that the crazy ones, like this one, get bounced quickly.
Ban software patents. They should never have been allowed in the first place, and that their proponents keep trying to sneak it into legislation in Europe any way they can (e.g. as a rider to a fisheries bill) only proves they’re harmful to actual progress.
@Tommy Boy,
I understand very little about the rocket docket notion (native west coaster), but I guess I don’t see how it can be too fast given the fact that a trial jury was requested. I would assume that defendants must given a reasonable amount of time to gather defensive evidence, correct?
And have the patent on blowing smoke up your ass.
File charges in response for abuse of the court system as part of an extortion scheme. It is often clear when the law is being abused as a tool to accomplish what would normally be illegal. This “patent owner” is trying to extort money from Apple and other companies. It is still extortion by goal. It uses patent law as its method. It should be ruled clearly for what it is. Those attempting this scheme should be prosecuted for extortion and sent to jail.
One thing I have never liked is that the law is often used as a tool to attack individuals or companies that find it easier to settle than to fight it out and win. Even those that know they will win often settle because it is easier. That is why they were targeted in the first place. Filing counter suits that will make the abuser pay dearly for their abuse of the system should be a common event.
I think people that abuse the court system to attack people should be punished for it, especially if it is extremely clear that is what is going on, such as this patent. There is no way these guys came up with the methods described in the patent. The methods were most likely already in use when they first learned of it or “thought” of it. This is clear extortion and should be treated as such.
Looks to me like they were granted a patent for the physical layer. How can that be? The USPatent Office is in serious need of a brain transplant.
This is the Patent Abstract from the USPTO url
“Information distribution and processing system
Abstract
An information distribution and processing system contains a remote site, a sender and a receiving apparatus. The remote site contains a first set of digital data. The sender delivers a second set of digital data to the receiving device. In one embodiment of the present invention, the receiving device contain a timing device for automatically receiving the second set of digital data at predetermined times. The second set of digital data contains a first set of displayable data, a second set of displayable data, at least one non-displayable symbol, and at least one linking reference associated with the second set of displayable data. If desired, a user can select the second set of displayable data. The associated linking reference is sent to the remote site. The associated linking reference is used by the remote site to search for the additional information, and returns the requested information to the user.”
What I can figure out is that this patent covers what the WWW and private data networks have been doing for over 30 years now. How does this deserve a new patent in the 21st century?
In certain Texas jury rooms, being a major corporation is Prima Facie evidence of guilt, particularly if the jury can identify with the plaintiff. Auto companies have lost fortunes in the Rio Grande Valley, because cars sometimes run into things.
How can a patent be issued this year, and challenge the iTMS, which has been out for nearly a decade?
It’s one thing to grant a patent for an actual software program, but it does not sound like they actually have any software that could be infringed, whereas pre-existing software does do what it sounds like is being patented. How is it possible to patent something as nebulous as this when by suing the corporations with long pre-existing history of doing what they claim is infringed, basically proves that there is prior art?
Patent Info
Chan, Hark C. (Cupertino, CA, US)
Application Number: 11/825905
Publication Date: 03/24/2009
Filing Date: 07/09/2007 <– This is important
iTunes was introduced by Apple Inc. on January 9, 2001,[3] at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco.[4] The latest version, iTunes 9, was announced at Apple’s September 2009
Enough said