Personal Audio sues Apple over iOS 5 music playlists

“Personal Audio LLC of Texas, who won a case against Apple on one of their patents back in July of this year is back in court,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

The jury in the first trial sided with Personal Audio against Apple, but a post trial judgment ruled against their second key patent,” Purcher reports. “Personal Audio is back with a vengeance to prove that their second patent was indeed infringed by Apple by pointing to iOS and Apple’s own marketing regarding playlists for which they have no patents for, states the company.”

Purcher reports, “The lawsuit drags in the new iPhone 4S, iPod touch and the iOS 5 operating system which was just released.”

Much, much more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple wins court order limiting damages in Personal Audio ‘playlist’ case – July 30, 2011
After $8 million jury verdict against Apple, troll wants more and sues over iPhone 4 and iPad 2 – July 20, 2011
Eastern Texas court orders Apple to pay $8 million in patent trial over iPod playlists – July 9, 2011


      1. It wasn’t necessary to mutate (mutilate) the patent system to provide protection for intellectual property. The copyright system would have been a better method, especially considering the speed with which technology IP progresses.

        Maybe what is needed is a third system just for IP protection. A cross between patents and copyrights that protects IP developers… and protects end users from anti-consumer EULAs.

      1. Yes, software patents *are* a broken system. At the very least the scope might be tightened up and period of protection for software patents reduced from 20 years to 5, tops. The 20 years was fine for mechanical inventions, not for the software world where things change every 2 years.

        1. Arbitrary number is raised by another arbitrary number. It might be worth investigating why and how software patents may differ from regular patents (math can’t be patented therefore software codes shouldn’t either is weak and deliberately misguided; let us not reproduce and feed the echo chambers of ignorance known as CNet forums).

  1. They won one case, will they win this one. It’s about gaining royalties off of iTunes and a lot of companies will give their left nut to get a hold of that patent. Imagine Samsung or Google getting their hands on a patent that demands royalites from Apple. That’s a headache.

  2. Trouble is, the plaintiff does not actually have anything that does what they claim their “idea” (which is simply a means to access and organize music files). There is nothing unique special, or significant about the idea of organizing files of any kind on a computer. There never should have been a patent issued for this – it essentially is the equivalent of organizing a sock drawer, which happens naturally – there was no invention; there was no infringement; this is crap. The patent system is broken if this type of “claim of injury” even addressed in a court. Especially since crap like this only flies in one court in one state.

    1. Are you retarded or something? The first case was won by Personal Audio. Obviously it was a valid case. Your mythical theory about what is a valid patent is for losers. Someone has fed you a line of bullsit and you swallowed it. It’s a legal case that’s real and you’re in La La Land.

      1. Really? — totally agree. I believe in protection, but these guys are just abusing the system. Period.

        Joe, sorry but just because PA won a case does not make it valid. Yes Apple lost and must pay. but innocent people go to jail every day and guilty people go free. Does not make it right, just makes it so.

        Just a thought,

        1. @ Norm. Very useless analogy there norm. Do you think Apple’s iTunes patent would look any better? Look, you may not like patents and you’ve been brainwashed into thinking no one should own patents, but in the real world, ideas like the iTunes Store exist, regardless of your blind denials. The patent graphic in the originating report shows the flowchart of the invention that covers the downloading of a catalog and updates and playlists called “Playback sessions.” It’s a multi-Billion business there norm and of course Apple filed for legitimate patents. But if Personal Audion has such a patent prior to Apple’s, then Apple has a problem.

          The only problem with patents is that the law should force companies to have a working product on the market within 10 years of the patent. But until that never-to-happen system comes into being, it’s a standing patent that’s legit whether you like it or not Norm.

          You’re theoretical concept of what patent life is, is just that, theoretical and your “Opinion” is worthless as far as how the outcome will turn out. The judge isn’t going to say “look, Elder Norm thinks this patent isn’t valid, therefore this case osclosed.” Dream on Norm.

          1. Actually it is broken… the problem is that you have people with no knowledge of computing science making rulings based on “experts” twisting facts around to fit their needs. Judges dealing with software patents should hold degrees in computing science or some other relevant field.

            Being a computing scientist I looked over the full article and their patent is completely invalid. They might have filed their patent a few of years before the iPod, but what they patented was a technique that has been used since the late 80s. Pretty much they say the equivalent of “we thought of using lanyards for usb sticks” when people already used them for keys, id cards, cameras, pouches etc.

            Also, patents should only be valid if you’ve developed products using them. No exceptions. The biggest problem in the world is useless leaches on society like those from Personal Audio. Honestly there should be an open ended clause in the law that says that if you are deemed to be using the courts time for personal gain whilst not attempting to offer anything back to society all your assets will be confiscated and you will be sentenced to 1-5 years of community service. No appeals and a final decision must be reached within 1 month of it beginning.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.