Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Company Demands 1% Share of Online Music Profit 143

Posted by CmdrTaco from the amazingly-lame-patents dept.
Neuroprophet writes "It appears a company named SIGHTSOUND.COM is claiming to have patents on the selling of audio content over the internet as downloadable files. This letter was sent to MP3.com telling them they need to pay a 1% royalty or stop selling downloadable music." Look people- you can't patent selling a download just because it's a new data type. The letter claims that they have a patent on downloadable video as well. People have been selling downloadable data online for years.Just because its sound and not sight doesn't make it different. It's all just 1's and 0's! I'll be ecstatic when this joke is thrown out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Company Demands 1% Share of Online Music Profit More

Company Demands 1% Share of Online Music Profit

Comments Filter:
  • I think that might be a good solution. Or maybe just painful torture, followed by decapitation. After a few dozen people have been seen walking around singing falsetto, people will begin to think twice about doing retarded shit like this.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • I have a patent on downloadable boldface tags in slashdot stories.. Please pull this story or I'll have to take legal action. :-)

    I give this 0.00001 seconds in court before it's taken down.

  • People own the patents on using 0's and 1's to represent numbers (binary), flipping 0 -> 1, and a few other operations which are done about a million times per minute in your CPU...

    There was a web page on which I believe was posted on slashdot many moons ago. Maybe someone should mail these sightsound people claiming to represent these people and demand a percentage of their profits to see how their respond to frivolous patent claims.

    You can't really blame the patent office for allowing patents on these sort of things either. It has long been common to allow patenting of things which have existed for a while, only to have them be contested in court... I mean, we have to give our judges something to do right?
  • : Yep! That's what capitalism is all about, innit?

    Uhm, no, answer the cluephone. That is state intervention in the market, and that is groups of people using the government to enforce a monopoly.
  • Posted by The Apocalyptic Lawnmower:

    Starting your own business in the US is almost impossible, as leeches will sue you for bogus patent violation. Hmm. What was that constitution thing again? Freedom of leech? And wasn't this the country that's all about economic progress (at all cost)?

    - the Apocalyptic Lawnmower

    Ps. sorry for the screwup - turns out my Njetscape submits when you press enter in the "Subject" box.
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:

    Thats not a bad idea...
    hell if you write it up using complex
    enough terminoligy and a few obscure references
    you could probably write up a really good
    patent text on "1s and 0s"
  • Posted by ButtGoblin:

    so sightsound doesnt have a case since their patent thing is about selling mp3s.
  • Posted by Windigo The Feral (NYAR!):

    Actually, since the patent office *will* apparently literally patent everything and anything, prior art or no (for an example, IBM literally patenting the wheel), why not patent the process of patenting?

    You would just have to basically describe the process as obtusely as possible:

    A patent for a process of ensuring protection of intellectual property, including mechanisms for ensuring appropriate compensation and mechanisms for unique watermarking and tagging to enforce intellectual property rights...

    Hell, it's even possible that we could talk some groups pushing for patent and copyright reform (like the GNU project) to bankroll the actual cost of the patent, and maybe even be co-signatories to it. :) (Now, wouldn't THAT be a pisser--everytime anyone tries to patent something or enforce a patent, including the PATENT OFFICE ITSELF, they'll either have to pay the GNU Project royalties or they will have to admit...very publically...that the whole patent system is run by people who effectively rubber-stamp patents and who have all the technical knowledge of inbred, syphilitic, microcephalic rhesus monkeys. :)

    So...any takers on this? :) Feel free to write me if you wish...

  • ...with off the shelf hardware...all I need is X11Amp and my computer...heck, I don't even have to be in the same room...I've seen people like markster [marko.net] piping music from their home machines to the public computer labs :)

    That gives you the distance for signal transmission, a signal (ok, it may be an mp3 but the program is still piping the audio signal), random access (courtesy of the good folks who make X11Amp), and audio :)

    And this is the sort of practice that people do all the time...I think their patent violates the "it must not be obvious" criterion...when people have been doing different forms of activities covered by this description for years now (piping signals between UNIX boxes isn't new), then they can't claim that it's a new development...

    I say we take this to a new high. Let's all find their phone number and intorduce them to a new kind of electronic signal over wires: a whistle in the ear over a collect call.

    Need I repeat what most everyone else has said? This is ridiculously stupid


    # find /dev/brain
    find: cannot open /dev/brain: No such file or directory
  • Advised them that they might want to publicise their case a little more here and at mp3.com (clarification and explanation) if they wanted to kill the cheers for a counter suit...personally I think the countersuit sounds like a good idea, but I want to see them try to wriggle out of this mess :) **sadism**


    # find /dev/brain
    find: cannot open /dev/brain: No such file or directory
  • 1. Prior Art :)


    2. You can patent "masterbation", but nobody does that...the guy who patents "masturbation" is gonna be the one who gets rich...


    # find /dev/brain
    find: cannot open /dev/brain: No such file or directory
  • How much must one pay to license all of that ayn rand dogma?

  • I think I'll patent posting to a geek-centric website via my Internet connection. Now all of you /. posters need to pay me .25 per post!

    The sad thing is, the patent and trademark office is so clueless that they'll patent anything they don't understand simply because they have no knowledge to fight it's stupidity.

    (BTW, why'd the /. font go to Times Roman ... BLAH!)
  • Most patents are US patents . . to create an INTERNATIONAL patent that cost BIG BUCKS . . . yeah true there are companies that have that . .but SOME countries (like Mexico) really don't care about patent stuff . . .

    If am a musical artist and wanted to release my music on mp3's, most contracts say the music belongs to the record company, ahhh . .not so, only if you got royaly screwed, there should be some legal mumble jumbo that says something about "up held by the US court of blah blah" . .

    So . . I say . .if you have a problem with a company that has a patent on a particular thing, move to mexico for a few months . .kick back on Cancun and do what you want to . . host your mp3's from the beach . .set up your company in Canada and stuff . . there ARE ways of getting around this . . .

    and if you want to "sell" stuff over the Internet easy. . .

    Give out the KEY for free and post the item you want downloaded for free . . .and if anything . . you can just SELL the key . . that can be a disk you send the user . . . come on . . if AOL can give out tons of CDs . . why can't you buy a CD-KEY . . .too much of a hassle . .sell the key . . .so you aren't selling the actual DATA (music, video) you are selling the KEY . . the patent doesn't say that . . .

    and if encryption laws come into play . .easy . . just use a PROPRIETARY form of compression that emulates encryption.

    I dunno . . I just think this cannot possibly hold . . it's too ridiculous . . .

    Patents were created to help the inventor get credit for his idea and not let big business screw him out of the credit and honor . . now it's about money.

    Even then though it's not much use, I mean today in schools kids are taught that Marconi was the inventor of Radio, when actually Tesla invented it way before him. Does it matter ? . . no, but the patent that was filed help Tesla get his just honor and credit before the eyes of others.

    But this is about MONEY not honor so I really don't care anymore . . .

    *SickToMyTummyNow*

  • I totally AGREE !

    It's just like the FLAT TAX thing . . .

    I think we still SHOULD have patents on software but not for RIDICULOUS things like "downloading video or audio"

  • Couldn't work. Too much prior art. Apes were doing it before we were even around. Long before there was a patent office :)

  • I think the different implementations of MBone and the like could be seen as prior art. If you think that there was a large partition of the IP numberspace reserved for applications like this, and that patent was filed in 1996, there is no case... (it shouldn't have been issued in the first place...)

    Try grepping for video or audio in the RFCs, there probably show up some quite old mentions...
  • Ok, let's get together and patent the electronic production of senseless e-mails about meaningless patents about already-existing technology that the writer certainly didn't invent.

    Then, when they write their letter to complain, we can sue them! :)

  • No. You have it backwards. Allowing trivial patents like this one does amount to state-sponsored theft, however the thief in this case is the patent holder who is given a government enforced monoply on trivial and obvious information. Inhibiting information also inhibits a free market by creating an artificial barrier to entry for competitors thus preventing price competition and fixing costs at a value that would be disequilibrative in a free market.


    --diaphanous
  • Mr. Ponzi, could you put rhetoric aside and use your own mind? In your replies you pay no heed to what those who disagree with you claim and instead toss out red herrings and slogans. It seems to me that you have neither paid attention to the specifics of this case nor thought carefully about the philosophy of intellectual property.

    I suggest you put aside Ms. Rand for a spell and read more widely. Some books on logic (both informal and formal) and reasoning would be excellent so that you might become more rational. Many of Bertrand Russell's writings are excellent also. You might also wish to read up on computers so you can understand why this patent should be declared invalid.


    -diaphanous
  • ...You do an exceptional job impersonating an idiot ;-)

    -diaphanous

  • Argh. (Score:1)

    by mattdm ( 1931 )
    Ok, a patent on a better mousetrap I understand. These people are patenting the concept of catching mice. Geez.

    It wouldn't be so bad if patents didn't last for so damn long. I realize that disallowing software patents probably isn't gonna happen, so I'd like to see a compromise: patents on computer software and algorithms should last for two years.

    --

  • They've patented everything and nothing all in two patents.

    How did this make it thru the patent office?....

    and just when did life turn into the movie "Labyrinth?"

  • They have picked the wrong company to target. If it had been some small no-name company with no assets they might have bullied them into paying. mp3.com has enough time and money to pursue a strong defense in the courts.

  • I think somebody ought to patent getting a patent. Then we can send cease and desist letters to everyone who holds a patent, saying that if they would like to hold their patents they will have to pay a licensing fee... :)
  • Do you trust a system to work for you that would allow this to begin with? I write my congressmen all the time, its a good way to vent, but basically ineffective... look at their handling of our present impeachment, did they vote according to their consituents? If they would stage a coup d' etat in gross violation of public opinion do you really think they give a rats ass about anyone whos not a scumbag oppressor like themselves? Maybe if this were an issue about the freedom of lawyers we might get a response from our representatives.

    Im sick of non-violent protest in the streets of San Jose. Im sick of getting whooped and bitten by Microsoft security thugs and their dogs at OSS rallys... i want blood. This country has gone on a major downturn as more and more companies realize that they can own every facet of our lives and even charge us royalties when we figure out a better way down the line.

    This trend is not gonna stop, i dare say, with popular opinion and our system of "democracy" which seems to ignore, blatantly, the wishes of the people and their clear best interests.

    Go ahead and legislate the end of corruption, power-tripping, and greed, im sure itll work... it is a noble pursuit. But Ill be oout there, living and breathing the same because oppressive, unconstitutional, and plainly WRONG laws dont even deserve the attention. And they can have their 1% when i can stuff it down their collective throats with my bare hands.

    "Shut up, be happy." - Jello Biafra, Ice-T, Freedom of Speech (Just Watch What You Say)



  • I was interviewing for a small company several years back that made switchgear for audio equipment. The owner gave in to the owner of a patent that demanded 1% of all equipment he made. The patent described things that switch on sequentialy as to prevent the whole load switched on at one time to blow the circuit.

    Patents are everywhere and are driven by money. Get used to it. They may not be right, but they offer "protection." The Mob offers protection too. Its because they can make money. The US can make money. And you will to just by playing this little game. Pay a small fee that you competitors do not and they will be denied entry.
  • Check this out. [theonion.com]
  • Patententing obvious ideas should
    1/ be stopped at patent agencies. THese mistakes should be instant firing offences for the guilty officers (and be investigated for corruption).
    2/ Registering a patent that is obvious or has obvious prior art ahould be treated as the fruad it is and land people in gaol.
  • #5 Digital Cable
    #4 Almost every porn site.
    #3 DSS,DirectTV,DirectPC etc.
    #2The stupid computerized VCR (I forgot the name)

    and

    #1 Every single ISP. After all you pay them for the access. What user hasn't downloaded digital audio and video, even if you didn't pay the site
    you downloaded it from you had to pay your isp.


    Vermifax
    verm@en.com


    ps- Does MP3 actually have any MP3's you have to pay to download?
  • All patents should be approved by someone in particular, who should then be fired if the patent is thrown out in court.

    Patent challenges should be free. There should be a way to tell the patent office that it's stupid without paying for the privilege.

    These people should be killed. Slowly.
  • Well, the obvious solution here is to zip the file. Then it's no longer music, but compressed data.
  • Does anyone know if there is a method for contesting a patent prior to issue. Then we could just have a few people skim over abstracts of potential patents, and if they look threating to our cause post it to a public web site. We can then find the prior art before the patent is issued and defeat it in advance. It might be cheaper than fighting about it later.

    --Karl

  • Sick! (Score:2)

    by jsproul ( 4589 )
    The solution is not to ignore laws and patents - the solution is to change the laws and patents. If you're a US citizen, you have rights - use them and stop whining. Call your Senators and your Congressperson. Tell them the PTO must be forced to change their review process and their evaluation system for patent examiners. Tell them we need patent examiners who are competent in the field of endeavour for which they are reviewing patents - which means paying competitive salaries. Tell them we need a law which clearly forbids patenting software and algorithms, or perhaps a new category of IP altogether: short-term software patents with a life of a few years at most. Oh wait - we're dotheads. I forgot we're too busy getting the first post and surfing the Web to make sure that creeping corporatism doesn't destroy our way of life...
  • for harrassment, extortion, emotional distress, whatever. make them pay. if we *must* have s/w and similar patents there should be a penalty for people who patent obvious things. this was done in JUNE of 1998 for crying out loud. mp3 shouldn't just defend themselves they should go into serious attack mode. heck, i'd even suggest looking into who is backing mr. hair (the twit who "invented" transmitting audio and video - what's pay per view coupled with a vcr?). wonder how far away riaa is...
  • ...and tell him/her that you'd like to see a law
    passed that provides for severe penalties for
    filing frivolous patents, i.e., for which prior
    art is obvious. This will keep companies from
    filing patents to extort small companies out of
    money when they can't pay outrageous legal fees
    to fight something that is obviously bunk.

    This is not a joke. You can make more of a
    difference doing this than if you sit on your ass
    complaining all day.
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • I plan to patent the idea of stupid patents.
    I'll be rich!

  • What's the legalese translation of, "Go fsck yourself?"

    Schwab

  • As if it weren't obvious by now, the USPTO is off its rocker for awarding patents like this. However, it only just occurred to me that the claimed "technology" is far older than I initially suspected.

    Thaddeus Cahill did exactly the same thing with his Teleharmonium in the 1900's! For a fee, Thaddeus would pipe music to you over the telephone, generated by his Teleharmonium.

    So, instead of using the telephone, SIGHTSOUND.COM uses the Internet; and instead of using cash or checks, they use credit cards. It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to see this is not a novel extension of Cahill's technology.

    So who do we clobber at the USPTO?

    Schwab

  • Frankly, I'm suprised that the RIAA hasn't already
    slapped SightNSound with a lawsuit merely for daring to attempt to muscle in on their turf. I would have thought that a protection racket like the RIAA would object strongly to even a small company trying to cut into their profits.
  • I assume you realize that your post very clearly applies to companies who've decided to apply for a patent on something that people had been doing for quite some time.

    Give it up, man. You're just making yourself look like yet another dogmatic fool.
  • I'm not a big fan of the USPTO nor of the seemingly carte blanch way that computer related ideas are being patented. However, a major problem related to these patents is the result of the US Federal courts, not the USPTO. The USPTO is simply following the direction of the courts rulings.

    For instance, in a significant case, Federal courts have ruled that methods for conducting business can be patented. This case involved online commerce. What is the ramification of this ruling? It probably means that everything that you have seen on the web that is related to e-commerce is patentable, has been patented, or is patent pending.

    Secure online payments? Patented. Online shopping carts? Patented. Airline bonus mileage for using e-commerce? Patented. And yes, selling music online using mp3? Patented.

    Finally, one must keep in mind that most of these patents are actually very specific in what they cover. Change a few things around, and the patent may not necessarily apply anymore. Hence, one should be careful when one screams, "prior art!" Yes, parts of the patent are prior art. Look at any patent on file at the USPTO web site; there are dozens of patents referenced. However, it is the *combination* of existing ideas (prior art) that makes up the new patent.
  • The two patent abstracts (can't find the whole documents) indicate a method for transmitting desired digital or audio signals. This is from the 1st patent abstract:

    The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party.

    I think that this kills sightsounds' 1st patent. They then make a subtle change in the 2nd patent.

    Then, there is the step of selling electronically by the first party to the second party through telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital audio signals in the first memory.

    Hmmm, what exactly does "selling" mean? (now I sound like Clinton and Gates) Got to see the rest of the patent before passing judgement.

  • The patent on the "method" (rather than the "system") mentions "controlling use of the first memory from the second party"

    The "second party" is the person controlling the selling server, the "second memory" (mentioned in the patent) is presumably the server the content is located on. (Now you can figure out what the first party and memory are;-)

    Now there are a lot of security folk out there who go to great lengths to ensure that code on a web server cannot possibly interact with the web client or browser. So this patent seems broken after reading only a few lines...

    martian

  • I think I'll patent the idea of a "philosophy" that claims to be anti-religious but continues to turn out religious zealots of the first order. I'm sure I could get a piece of the Rand estate, and maybe L. Ron Hubbard would owe me a bit too.

    You're missing the point here: these people were not the first. I understand it's "objective" to worship capitalism at the expense of self, but these people aren't playing by the rules.
  • I think anyone would be less of a crackhead than you in this situation.

    The point is not that we all "could" have thought of this. The point is that it was being done before the patent was issued. It's called prior art.
  • chuck
    i think the real problem here is that the patent itself was issued. i'm assuming that you jumped on this without knowing the full story, because mp3.com doesn't even sell downloadable music...it is all free to download. they do sell CDs though. i hate state-sponsered theft as much as you do and i'm a proponent of objectivism. but do you think Hank Rearden would've paid a license for the ability to SELL his metal to customers...?
  • That's just plain sick.

    IGNORE those kinds of laws and patents - any idiot can make a law, and any idiot will abide by it.


    Now, go /. them for this imputence!

    --

  • I think I speak for every slashdotter when I say:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
  • Ridiculous! Everyone is commenting on the explosion of patents, but no one has followed the trend to its logical conclusion...a quagmire of lawsuits.
  • I am not sure if you read the patents but the patents clearly say "The present invention is a method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party."

    Well if we know anything then we should realize that mp3.com or anyone that is transphering files is only placing the files on a hard drive not actually transphering them. So in short you can't be touched by this patent unless you create a system kinda like DIVX ( well not really but sorta ) where you call up and pay for the song and download it right there. Then you would be infringing on the patent. As it stands we do no more then put the files onto a hard drive. Someone elses product ( M$'s IIS or Apache ) move the file from the hd to memory to the other users memory where the users operating system or application they are using do download places it in their memory.

    I did not find this one that hard to figure out that is what it says in plan english from what I can see. Anyone else see anything else?

    --MD--
  • actually, the cats OWN us, instead of us owning them. When they howl or cry, we feed then, brush them, give them water, attention, and such. When we scream at the cats, they look mildly bored, lick their asses and walk out of the room... Who is being subjugated here?

    -Cid (private property of the siamese princess)
  • Selling things on the internet is old. Selling a new product on the internet hardly constitutes a "great invention". And the patent holder certainly can't claim to have invented e-commerce.


    Moreover, there isn't anything new about selling data over the internet ( eg software, or just straight graphical data such as porn ... )


    -- Elflord

  • Well I roam a little bit the claims and can say the following:
    These two patents are much more serious than the ill-famous "gaming patent" we saw a little while ago. They are much more concrete and straight on describing the technological process of audio transfer. They could have some "abstract" moments. But in general they are what a patent should be. They describe an invention almost from the top to the bottom of it.
    HOWEVER...
    Does this invention applies to MP3 technology and Internet? It does not seem so. While not well described, some points of the claims show moments for which the invention takes the responsability for the information transfer through telecom lines. Besides there is a description of the connection process and what is most important a description of the encoding/decoding process. It even shows hardware implementation for it.
    So if MP3 does not touch even by a hair the described processes of transfer, more, if MP3 does not "copy" the encoding decoding process, then these guys are just throwing rocks over the Ocean. They have no right to run over mp3.com and cry for whatever royalties they think they deserve.
    Oh, has anyone took the care to take a look at the Web site of this company (www.sightsound.com)? Well they have a pretty interesting picture down there. Is that the way they see themselves making this whole bulaboo over the Internet?
  • I tried to take a deeper look at some links on sightsound.com. Well their design... For a company throwing such claims for MP3 the "high bandwith demands" of the site are just hillarious.
    But the most funny is that they don't use their own proprietary system over there. They use Shockwave...
    A curious question. Has Macromedia been forced to pay them royalties for the patents? :)
  • it says that a financial transaction has to take place first. AFAIK, mp3.com doesn't charge any money for downloading. Therefore it's a different process.

    That's not to say that their claim is valid. Personally, they amuse me.

    damon
  • Having read both patents I can only say that I am awestruck.

    This all falls in line with making legals arguments based upon the definition of is.

    Now I know Clinton doesn't have an original thought in his head. He created his whole legal defense by following the criteria set forth by the Patent Office!

  • For how many tens of thousands of years did the human race lack the wheel? Should the inventor therefore have been sacrificed on the alter of the collectivist mob because they "could have thought of that"? Absolutely not. Was the inventor so sacrificed? Almost certainly. We need not enshrine and repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Are you paying the inventor of the wheel everytime you buy a car? Nope.

    I think the problem here is not "they could have thought of that," but that they did think of that.

    This company in *no way* came up with technology

  • Were that inventor's estate still operating, I would be glad to pay them a reasonable fee for the use of their intellectual property.

    Okay. Point well taken. However, if you had been riding around for quite some time in a car with wheels before the wheel was patented, would you still want to shell out some hard earned cash to pay him when you buy a new car? If so, you are a fool.

  • Money talks, common sense walks.

    This is like that patent on ONLINE SHOPPING
    CARTS. Anyone been sued yet? Or no one is
    worth suing yet Ispose.

  • After reading the text of the patent, it seems
    that these folks have a patent on any transfer
    of video or audio electronically, if it is being
    paid for. First, MP3.com doesnt sell stuff, does
    it? Second, do the cable companies know about
    this? Are they paying 1% to this company? Third,
    this patent is from '93. Sorry folks, we been
    transferring audio and video electronically
    long before this company thought to make a buck
    on it. Can you say, "Prior Art"? I think you can.
  • Look, we all know that the patent office will apaprently patent anything and then let the courts decide if they should have done it.

    So why not, seriously, compile a list of things that we all know have obvious prior art, and apply for patents. The patent office will surely grant a large handful.

    Once they do grant patents for things that the applicants KNEW were not original ideas, go to the press and point out how irresponsible they are.

    I don't think the patents should be used to harass anyone other than the patent office itself.

    Try and patent EVERYTHING. Mice, keyboards, infrared, color dithering, widgets, URL parsing, RFC822, etc.
  • > If they own it, it's theirs, to do with as they please. Period. End of story.

    Dude! The question is if they own it. You can't walk into my house and claim YOU own my cat. They can't walk onto the net and claim that THEY invented downloading music files. They didn't. Prior art.
  • We should patent the process of getting a
    patent. We will list all the steps on how
    you go about doing this and submit it. When
    it gets approved we will sue anybody who
    makes a stupid patent. Hell, we could even
    sue ourselves!
  • Abstract:

    The present invention is a method for transferring a desired physical object stored in the area of a first party to an area of a second party. The method comprises the steps of transferring money via digital transmission to the first party from the second party. Additionally, the method comprises the step of then connecting vehicularly via a transportation substrate the first area with the second area such that the desired physical object can pass therebetween. Next, there is the step of transferring the desired physical object from the first area with a vehicle in control and in possession of the second party to a place containing the second area at a location determined by the second party. The place is in possession and in control of the second party. There is also the step of then storing the physical object in the second area.
  • I would like to inform all of you that i have recently patented the entire human language. the actual patent number is yet to be assigned, but what i have proposed is the patenting of all audible noises coming from a human body. this is including, but not limited to, voice, farts, burps, vomiting sounds, and sneezes. i would like to invite all of you to help in this struggle. to help, please send me 1% of your yearly earnings. if you choose to not cooperate, i will be forced to bring legal action upon you and your family.

  • It's simple, really. Every time a sentient race develops a warp drive, the technology gets tied up in a patent fight. There's probably thousands, *millions* of sentient races out there ... all stuck in court.
  • I read their patent, It looks like they patented sending audio or video over by ANY electronic means that involves payment.

    Guess this is another vote for OSS
  • Um, ok....
    I've never even heard of sightsound.com, much less known that you could patent downloading audio.

    I really hope this is dismissed as frivolous. It's sad how rampant commercialism has become.

    -Y
  • obPlug: You could always join the cause at StopDSS [tucows.com].

  • Do you wish to tussle in court with the likes of AT&T, Sprint, and MCI Worldcom?

    AT&T purchased a license from SIGHTSOUND for it's a2b [a2bmusic.com] project... Looks like they've already tussled...

  • You can not even browse web cuz you are downloading text from the webserver to your mcahine and have a video display connected to it. HTML pages are video too.
  • Dear Sir or Madam:

    Pursuant to a patent regarding the "transfer of text between computers" that I retain, I am requesting that you cease and decist the unauthorized communications being conducted on this and other Internet sites. Failure to comply will result in swift legal action.

    I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

    Bah.

  • I somehow got it in my head that this company was www.sightnsound.com, not www.sightsound.com.

    Sight 'n Sound [sightnsound.com] looks like a much more interesting company (at least if you've got a bar mitzvah coming up).

  • If you all remember, back in the early 90's Compton's Multimedia tried to pull a fast one like this too - stating that they owned the patent on multimedia encyclopedias and hypertext or some such. The patent was granted sometime around '93 I believe and it was quickly struck down by the courts. Just b/c a patent exists doesn't mean that it's valid - once the courts say it's good and set a precedent then it can be a valid patent. I'm certainly not a patent laywer (nor do I play one on TV) but to my knowledge this is how it works.

    Anybody want to sue these bastards and put their patent to the test? I doubt it will hold much water.

    -nick-
  • If they would've been sure about their claim, the claim would have been asking for 10%. Or 50% of the profit.
  • Its happend before.

    The company that makes the DataGlove (VR input device) owns a patent on the *concept* of a VR style glove. Patents are not supposed to be for concepts, but they got one.

    That patent, however, has not stopped other companies from making their own gloves. There hasn't been any, or at least any sucessful, legal actions taken for patent infringment.

    I think Sightsound.com will lose any patent infringment legal action over their patent being a concept, or some other technicallity.
  • Little does anyone know i personaly hold a patent on all 1's and 0's that flow over the internet. you are required to pay me a 1% royalty for all 1's and 0's that may be sent from and recived by /.
  • From looking at their front page I suspect they are doing this only in order to make lots of noise so everyone will hear about their site.
  • Better make sure that they don't find out I've been infringing on their patents for about 3.5 years now...

    After all, that's an awful lot of jpgs, wavs and mpgs downloaded.

    Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    (Busting a gut)
    John.
  • I encourage everyone to email the Vice President on this issue. Consumer advocacy on the internet is real and can work to right wrongs. Here is the letter I emailed to them expressing my disgust. The /. effect shall prevail!


    ------------------------------------------------ -----------

    Christopher J. Reese
    Vice President and General Counsel of SightSound

    Today I read your letter that you faxed and mailed to the President of MP3.com concerning your "patent". I must admit that every bone in my body shuttered when I read your letter. The idea that you can patent a "concept" is disturbing. Ignoring the fact that what you have patented has been going on for years, the wording on the patent is intentionally vague so that it can encompass many technologies. This is immoral and unethical and implies you wish to receive monetary gain on technologies you had no hand in inventing or producing nor have any right in collecting. The new technology of voice over IP can loosely fall under your patent. Do you wish to tussle in court with the likes of AT&T, Sprint, and MCI Worldcom? Your claim is ludicrous and frivolous and will not stand up in court and I will actively encourage any company to countersue. The internet has become a wonderful tool for the global community, both socially and economically, but when the likes of your company attempt to infringe on the rights of others for monetary gain, then you must be stopped at all costs.

    Please be advised that I will notify the patent office so that they will review your patent and its legitimacy. I will also forward your letter to the Attorney General's office of your state for review. Be aware that the internet also has a very large consumer advocacy following that can greatly hurt your business through boycott and word of mouth (or email).

    Incidentally, MP3.com does not sell mp3 music online, rather they sell compact disks. Before you attempt to extort money from someone, you might want to ensure that they are actually infringing on your spurious "patent".

    Sincerely,

    Snapper XXX
  • umm, cats are free citizens? wtf are you smoking? That's why domesticated animals are referred to as "pets" and their "owners".
  • Well, I looked at the patents in question, and it appears that DS/S have misinterpreted things a little.

    They claim to have two patents, when the second patent is clearly a duplication of the first with certain enhancements (primarily: the second patent is 11 pages long as opposed to 6 pages for the first). I'm not a lawyer (or an American for that matter <G>), but surely a second patent application which includes all of the text of the first (which seems to be the case) is not strictly a seperate patent?

    Secondly, the patents both reference a device with specific properties, which could possibly cover the configuration of a website which distributed music/video. Possibly. In my opinion any judge would have to be coerced to make this ruling.

    In my (admittedly unskilled) opinion DS/S have no legal standing for their claim that the patent(s) in question apply to all pay-to-download music/video on the internet.

    In a similar vein, I wonder how the law views software/hardware emulation of patented devices. From what little I've seen of game/computer emulation software on the internet the emulation of the machine is not against the law, but transmission of the copyrighted sections of the machine (operating system, ROMs, etc) is. In this case is a webserver/system which closely emulates the device described by this patent covered by the patent?

    When all is said and done however, this appears to be nothing more than an attempt by someone whose pet project got pre-empted by the internet trying to make some free cash. They need to get over it. Fast.

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close