Audiohighway awarded patent on digital audio players 296
Jelloman wrote to us to say that Audohighway, Cupertine-based company, has said that they have been awarded the patent for "any type of digital audio player used to store and play back downloaded content regardless of the electronic format in which the content is saved." They applied for the patent in 1995, and are saying that with all the players built, they believe they eligible for "compensation agreement". Excuse me while I go smash my head against a wall in frustration.
Re:Another Sad Day for the Patent Office (Score:1)
William G. Gates III
Patent For Electron Mobilizer (Score:1)
Hmmm, computers, audio electronics, the wiring in your house, your Uncle Freddy's pacemaker, these are all infringing on my patent's protection. Pay up, all you users of any sort of electronics.
Next up I'll patent a device that uses Maxwell's Equations, so all you optics and wireless people will need to pay up too. I better make my move now, it's only a matter of time before I'll be taken ov^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H friendly acquired by bill gates. Oh wait, he's probably already got a patent in for this stuff anyway...
Re:AAAarrgh (Score:1)
Make sure you have witnesses.
Patent #5,914,941 --More information (Score:2)
A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format and can play back audio programming, where such programming has been digitized and stored in data files using a variety of compression/decompression algorithms. Audio programming is stored digitally on a non-volatile medium, such as a hard drive, or in a flash EPROM, or other solid state non-volatile memory. The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system. The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation.
----
seems rather broad, wouldn't a laptop with a MOD Player fall under this, even though it's not a specialty device. Unfortunatly this seems to exactly describe most new MP3 players (Empress, etc.) I believe just having a patent doesn't entitle you to royalties (INAL) Legal or not, it really sucks that something like this is patentable. There is also a longer press release at: http://www.audiohighway.com /news/press/index_press.html [audiohighway.com]
Brandon
Re:I was playing music on the Internet back in 199 (Score:1)
Prior Art (Score:1)
Sorry, but unless the patent covers some specific method of digital-based playback, I think it's invalid due to prior art.
You are incorrect (Score:1)
Prior art: IBM PC with OS/2 Warp 3.
The level of disgust I am filled with after seeing this patent actually granted leads me to the conclusion that *all* "intellectual property" should be done away with. It has become obvious that government cannot possibly police this; it has become little more than a lottery.
--
Slight Correction; Patent still ridiculous (Score:1)
These kind of patents defeat the purpose of having intellectual property; instead of encouraging innovation, they leech off of others' efforts, and discourage new products.
--
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:3)
Why? The market is so small. Better to patent stupidity.
I dunno... (Score:1)
This thing sounds almost like a laptop with a music player app that is run on bootup. Quoting from the abstract:
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
Well, does that mean that a device that doesn't include all of these things would not be subject to the patent?
Does this mean that a laptop with WinAmp is covered by the patent?
Here is the part they say is unique:
"The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation."
Don't they at least have to have a prototype? Not that it would be too difficult. Just get the old Thinkpad out and rig it up with a pretty UI.
On the other hand, I don't think any of the current digital MP3 players would be subject to this patent. It is fairly specific about what it does and how the thing will operate. I don't know of any that operate specifically like this. As long as players continue to get their data from a PC, they wouldn't infringe on this patent.
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:2)
They didn't even say portable. In that case, try Apple ][ in the late '70s
There are earlier examples than that, but I don't know for a fact that music was ever downloaded and played on those.
I think I'll patent thinking.
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:2)
I remember those things well. My favorite trick was the two bit (in both senses of the term :-) digital audio output. IIRC the speaker was driven at ultrasonic frequencies and the duty cycle was varied to more or less position the speaker cone (since it couldn't actually produce the ultrasonic, the cone went to the average position instead). It sounded awful, but then, some people feel the same way about MP3.
An interesting read (Score:2)
Thanks for the patent number!
Now that I read it, none of the current players fall under the patent at all. Just in claim 1, they are eliminated because none of them can initiate a download form said keypad, that happens on the other side. From there, they continue adding features that simply don't exist on any current player.
IMHO, most of those extra features are not desireable anyway.
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:3)
Why? The market is so small. Better to patent stupidity.
That's very true, but USPTO might catch that one. I figured I'd patent something nobody there had ever encountered before.
Macintosh Portable: Prior Art, Baby! (Score:1)
The Powerbook 170, released in 1992, could replay audio files downloaded from the internet in 16-bit stereo (CD-quality), ran for two hours off of a battery, and could fit in a small satchel or briefcase.
Doncha just loooove prior art?
MacTCP (Score:1)
SoupIsGood Food
Re:URL (Score:1)
Re:URL (Score:1)
Wow what a retarded patent. (Score:2)
BTW, they haven't given a number, so we don't really know if the patent office was dumb enough to reward this one. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's time for punitive action! (Score:1)
How about this? For each patent that later overturned, they should be made to pay a penalty into a fund that provides for more detailed examination of patent filings. The size of this penalty should be proportional to the profits that the company expected to get from the frivolous patent.
If a company files more than x patents within y years that are overturned in court, it will be considered a habitual abuser of the patent process. For the first habitual abuse offense, the company should be prevented from ever filing a patent for things developed within the next six months. Repeated habitual abuse should result in increasing the length of the patent moratorium.
Let's put the cost of these frivolous abuses back onto the shoulders of the abusers!
Previous patents and other blah blah (Score:2)
Here's a lame list of links pointing to prior patents related to "digital audio players":
These are but just a few that I could find in IBM's patent database. Just look for "digital audio player", you'll be surprised.
Re:Another Sad Day for the Patent Office (Score:1)
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:2)
Re:Another Sad Day for the Patent Office (Score:2)
There's lots of prior art (Score:5)
I don't know whether its that patents are so wrong or its that some people are so stupid, lazy and greedy. Though I suppose if those personality traits weren't so prevalent then patents wouldn't be needed.
VERY broad (Score:2)
They pretty much cover the whole gamut. This is a bogus patent though, because the prior art of MD players covers those concepts, since early this decade there were MD players that had digital inputs. The stuff about PC's being prior art in this case doesnt' seem to hold up, since this is fairly specific about it being a portable device for this purpose specifically.
I've read the average cost to get a bogus patent struck down is about a million and a half dollars. This company probably knows it too, and will keep their licenses inexpensive enough that it won't be worth the money for a company to sue about it. $1 per player or some such B.S, or $1 million for a corporate license. Do that, and no one is going to challange the patent. Its not worth it. They probably know that.
Its no different than companies like Walker Digital snapping up patents on business concepts that are completely obvious in order to extort patent license fees when anyone else comes up with an idea (most of which aren't rocket science, and are pretty common sense).
If you can't get rich because of any skills, get rich on an Internet IPO. Not clever enough to do that, get rich practicing extortion by patenting obvious products and business practices and keep the licenses cheap enough that no one will waste the $$$ to fight them. Ah America. Makes you proud, huh?
Um, prior art prohibits... (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me (Score:2)
Re:ass-whuppin' (Score:2)
Re:Previous patents and other blah blah (Score:1)
However, there have been plenty of digital recording devices which have also had portability for quite some time. Hell, the C64 had a (very crude) 4-bit DAC, and it had plenty of modems, and it was possible to download Castle Wolfenstein which used the 4-bit DAC to play digital audio, and there was a portable version of the C64...
Also, DATs have been around since when, 1987 or so? And there's plenty of portable DAT players out there. Minidisc also predates 1995 by quite a bit.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:Some info from the paent itself (Score:1)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:Buy stock in Audiohighway now!!!!! (Score:1)
I had to laugh at that patent, but I've never filed one. Maybe they are supposed to sound completely idiotic. I wonder who has the patent on the kitchen sink?
Their patent specifically said the device contains a hard drive. Well, forget anything that's
out there right now.
Dorks!
-kabloie
Re:Read patents carefully (Score:1)
Yes. Just use any old stereo with two cassette decks and high speed dubbing. Of course, this has no bearing on the patent issue... I think. Well, IANAL.
Re:"The Patent of Patenting Dumb Patents" (Score:1)
Otherwise, that would be great -- phrase the description as something like "a method for extorting money from other companies by exploiting the USPTO's incompetence to acquire a patent for some overly-broad technique that is is common use." You can't do it, though, since other people have thought of it first (not the frivolous-patent patent, just frivolous patents).
Question: if you could do it, would you charge guys like this a cut of their licensing fees as your licensing fee, or would you just refuse to license your technology at all?
David Gould
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:1)
>Hmm.. Actually, claim 1 says compressed. Prior art for this, pre 1995?
Surely any digital recording can be considered a form of lossy compression, as only a finite number of samples is taken.
IANAL, but it doesn't appear as though the patent would affect much: there seems to be a very specific set of requirements, all of which have to exist at once in the same apparatus. For example, according to claim 15, anything without a wireless modem wouldn't be covered. Perhaps their lawyers made their money by doing a lengthy investigation to find a particular combination of existing ideas that nobody happend to have used before.
I think I'll go and patent something very similar, but with the additional claim that it should "be orange with blue spots, and the word 'wibble' written in yellow on the front". Or does anyone know of any prior art for that?
Prior Art anyone? (Score:1)
Is it just me (Score:1)
publicity.... (Score:2)
Time Travel! (Score:2)
From the patent-
"A digital replacement for an analog audio tape recorder can record audio programming digitally in a faster than real time format..."
So, if you're recording a song faster than it's being played, before the song is finished you'll be able to play it back and hear how it ends!
But think of the possibilites! You could record yourself reading off stock market prices and play them back before you're done, and then use that to become the world's greatest day trader!
We'd need to overhaul most languages to add a new tense- the future playback - in order to talk about things that are happening in the future but we're listening to now.
It's making my head swim. I'd better go lie down.
Re:A reality check... (Score:1)
I am absolutely sure that any competent engineer would have whipped up substantially the design of the Rio, etc. if you suggested that Flash memory, harddrives, or something similar were about to reach a price point that made it feasible.
What is not obvious about extending the idea of a portable listening device with electro-magnetic memory (Sony (cassette) Walkman) to a portable listening device with optical memory (cd player) to a portable listening device with electro-magnetic-optical memory (Sony Minidisc) to a portable listening device with Flash/Harddrive/SuperRam...?
Just assembling the technology de jour in an obvious way doesn't make a valid patent.
IMHO, It won't hold up long...
sdw
Re:A reality check... (Score:1)
> In closing, I'll repeat: if you honestly think
> you know of a specialized audio playback
> device integrating a hard drive or solid
> state memory with a dedicated
You mean to tell me that the specialization is
what qualifies the patent?
Specialization in this case means "removing other
functionalities of the device," since a laptop can
do what a Rio does and also other things.
Please tell me that doesn't count as grounds for patent approval.
I should register a patent on turn-based games. (Score:1)
How does the patent office decide who to give patents to, seriously? This patent seems to be applicable to a gramophone. It's digital, after all -- it has 2 states, "on" and "off".
The idea that one could patent something this broad indicates that there is a paradigmatic problem with the *concept* of a patent. It shouldn't even make sense (wrt the law) to own a patent on something this broad... this is a mistake it should not be possible to make.
However, this patent is just in the U.S.
Macintosh floppy drives? (Score:2)
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
I remember when you could find programs for the original Macintoshes that could play tunes on the variable speed floppy drive.
Those were the days, my friend...
Re:prior art? (Score:1)
newtons, samplers (Score:1)
Or a Newton MP100 with, say, an
Re:This patent covers most portable PC's. (Score:1)
AHRA... (Score:1)
--
kinda OT but funny (Score:1)
--
Re:Read patents carefully (Score:1)
Um, it is here. Try something like cp foo.mp3 bar.mp3. Unless your hardware is ancient, it shouldn't take as long as playing foo.mp3.
Re:AAAarrgh (Score:1)
Downloading music and playing it on a player is a direct result of increased bandwidth. With enough bandwidth, it's a complete no brainer. While some of the methods people invent to get that bandwidth might be patentable, the obvious tag-along effects should not.
Unless that quote from the company was incorrect, I think we have enough of the story to accurately judge this to be a mistake on the patent office's part.
He's planning on collecting a royalty from every company building digital audio players.. whether they've heard of his company or not.
Re:Worry Not (Score:2)
As long as they avoid a judgement.. they've got a nice little gold mine.. many companies will just pay the money.... because they won't be asking for much.
Help destroy another patent (write GPL versions) (Score:1)
see ompages.com [ompages.com] to break a patent
on the obvious idea of webmail that handles encryption keys that ziplip.com [ziplip.com] seeks to monopolize.
Free thought, free speech, anonymity, security, freedom!!!
Boycott Audiohighway (Score:1)
Given the broad contact range of the internet, just putting "boycott audiohighway" in your sig will reach tens of thousands of people. Remember, Jesse Jackson brought PepsiCo to its knees just by making speeches.
mp
Re:impossible (Score:1)
mp
Take complaints to Audiohighway (Score:1)
Kris.
Win a Rio [cjb.net] (or join the SETI Club via same link)
Re:Prior Art (Score:1)
Case in point: the Kurzweil K2000 rack-mounted sampling synthesiser. It had an internal hard disk, external MIDI and SCSI interfaces, a keypad, an LCD display, analog sound I/O, S/PDIF digital I/O, and it was introduced in 1991, way before AudioHighway's patent application. It could download sample data directly from the MIDI or SCSI interfaces, or you could share the hard disk with an external machine (the K2000's SCSI controller could live on a target ID other than 7, and was happy with multiple SCSI initiators on the bus). The only thing I don't know for sure is whether it had an inbuilt MIDI sequencer, or whether it played back *compressed* digital audio. If it didn't then I'm sure that one of the contemporary models from E-Mu, Akai, Roland or a whole raft of other manufacturers would have. We're getting pretty close to shooting down claims 1, 4, 8, 9... (I'm getting bored of reading gross legalese, so above 9 I stopped reading).
As for portability - well, it was a self-contained unit which could be easily carried under one arm. I think that the "portable" aspect is one of the dodgiest - compared to a PDP 11/45, my home PC is eminently portable. (I've moved both!).
ass-whuppin' (Score:1)
bowms
Re:AAAarrgh (Score:2)
/peter
Re:5 years of development and .... (Score:1)
Ohhhh I can win this one!!! (Score:1)
I would gladly show up in any court with my project (Still have it... I think) and the schools' copy of the thesis/paperwork..
Hmmm, I think I should cross-sue these turds for infringement? espically when I made the design/idea PUBLIC DOMAIN!
1989..... 1995.... I beat them by a good 6 years!
They must have drooling morons working there for me to beat them to their own game!
Based on a 68000 processor I was able to record about 15 seconds with $300.00 worth of ram (about 2 meg) in raw format and crappy quality. ran off of a pack of D batteries for quite a while. (there's only so many times you can listen to a few audio clips... and I couldnt afford to buy more ram)
Nope
Maybe I should re-design it (anyone good at CF interfaces? and mp3 decoding?) and publish the whole shebang free on the net! hehehehehehe
Bravo!! (Score:1)
The problem isn't that the patent office ppl are stupid, it's just that they usually don't have the necessary background to understand these new patents, and the few patent office ppl who do are overloaded with way too many applications.
If you really want to help prevent the issuance of overobvious patents, go back to school to learn about patent law and get a job at the patent office.
Re:Macintosh floppy drives? (Score:1)
I remember when we would "download" mag tape software from the "internet" (IBMs distribution center) and play music on the printers of 1401s, 1800s and s/360s. New? Hardly.
This patent is just representative of where things are in the good ole USofA. Greedoberallus.
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:1)
impossible (Score:1)
Too bad.
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/cyberlear
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Re:URL (Score:4)
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
none of the new digital audio devices like the rio or the nomad fit this description; none of them have hard drives, modems, or keyboards (unless this term refers to any input device with buttons). the newly released or soon to be released devices based around mp3s store things in solid state memory of one kind or another and although they do comunicate with your computer they have no modem (modulator/demodulator), they use some type of digital comunication (USB, serial, etc.). these devices themselves do not have anything to do with the downloading of the files.
also the patent states that the device will be capable of "ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive". does the rio do that?
I wish more people would take the time to do their homework before stirring up trouble for this company. the patent is vague but not nearly as vague as everyone seems to think it is, and that is necisary considering that the device does not yet exist.
I know that the abstract section of the patent has been posted to
and just to be fair...
Whoever the idiot was that wrote that press release should go back to school or at least find someone to show him the diference between a good informative press release and one that make his company look like a lying sack of $**t. (translation: that press release said they had patented things like laptops or the rio or nomad.... it sould have said that it patents things simmilar but quite a bit more advanced.)
my ramblings are deteriating now so I'll stop.
P.S.
please excuse the spelling, I am a product of the US public school system.
-----
"No one expects the spanish inquisition"
-- Monty Python
Re:Macintosh floppy drives? (Score:1)
You used an oscilloscope? I'm jealeous. I would just unscrewed the motor from its mounting so that it could rotate. Then I just slowly turned the motor, while continuously accessing the drive, until the error light didn't seem to flash much. Then I screwed it back down. Drive fixed. ;-)
Oh, and I had to walk five miles in the snow, uphill both ways, without shoes.
Re:Prior Art anyone? (Score:1)
Either way this patent is so hideously vague I cant imagine that any court could let it hold up.
-Rich
Remember "Electric Duet"? (Score:1)
#include
This program was available in 1985, if not earlier.
Re:Remember "Electric Duet"? (Score:1)
#include "rant_about_how_kids_today_have_it_easy.h"
Prior Art: minidisc? (Score:1)
----------
USP 5,914,941 (Score:1)
Built in TCP/IP stack in 6.0.x? (Score:1)
-Imperator
Re:Prior Art anyone? (Score:2)
-Imperator
Re:Great news!!!! (Score:1)
Re:Another Sad Day for the Patent Office (Score:1)
If you'd bothered to check their website like I did, you'd find that they have been granted the patent, and it is patent number 5914941.
Cyberfox!
Re:Look at their claims on the patent! (Score:1)
I did not see a particular section that covered 'or software implementing this process', so the answer is no, a general purpose portable computer implementing the same functionality would not be covered under the patent.
The Rio I have in front of me has:
A keypad (same as in the patent).
A interface (similar to the modem in the patent) to my computer.
A LCD display (similar to what is described in the patent).
The portions that the current crop of portable digital audio players don't match are more in LACK than in inclusion. These include recording (although that's changing), ordering content directly, and the inclusion of a more-than-PC communication system. Subsetting a patented device is not immunity from the patent. It just means you'll probably have to fight in court.
Cyberfox!
Re:Fight it (Score:1)
Hello?!? Knock, Knock?
Did you read this at all? This isn't a software patent!
Why in the world you would post, when you have no basic comprehension at all, is beyond me. Think, think, think before you post.
Cyberfox!
Re:VERY broad (Score:1)
Uhhh... If you read the actual text of the patent, you'd see where they reference MiniDisc, and explain why their part is different.
This isn't a bogus patent. They ARE specialized, they ARE different, and they DID come up with something new. Now the only question is whether it falls into the Comptons argument: Patent protection would cause more harm to a new industry than the lack of patent protection will cause to the company in question. At least that's my guess.
Cyberfox!
Re:Full text of patent (Score:1)
Or in better form, and straight from the horses mouth, you can get it from the USPTO.
Of particular interest is the description, as well, in which a lot of the points you want to raise are addressed.
Cyberfox!
Re:Full text of patent (Score:1)
What the... That link didn't work at all. ARGH. Evidently Slashdot can't handle really long URL's, or URL's in quotes.
The URL is:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
But for some reason I can't include it in an "a href=" tag.
Cyberfox!
Re: So what that means is..... (Score:1)
It's plausible (to extend your question to a reasonable level) that a more general purpose device (PDA + MP3 player) could be considered a different enough device that it would not be subject to the claims. If a PDA shipped with an MP3 player and software to connect and get MP3's from the net or your computer, then it might have to be fought in the courts.
If it were an aftermarket application, then the device wasn't 'designed' to do this, and therefore most likely wouldn't qualify.
To answer your original question, however, I believe it could be reasonable argued that the primary purpose of the unit was the specialized playback of digitized audio obtained over the Internet or from your home computer.
Thus it would be subject to the patent licensing claims. This is why a general purpose PDA which had an aftermarket MP3 player would not fall under those claims. It's primary purpose is not digital audio playback, although it's capable of it coincidentally.
This would all very likely get fought out in the courts, though.
The primary point I was making is that given the specific nature of the product, I believe there is no prior art, despite people saying extremely ignorant things about their Macintoshes, Commodore 64s, and laptops being prior art.
Cyberfox!
A reality check... (Score:4)
I've read their patent (yes it was granted, come on people do your research), I've read their press release, and I will preface this with IANAL, as always.
This patent (5914941) seems reasonable.
If you honestly think you know of prior art for a specialized audio playback device integrating a hard drive or solid state memory with a dedicated interface to be able to obtain music from the Internet or a personal computer that dates before 1995, I'd love to hear about it.
No, your Powerbook with a music player doesn't count. It's not a specialized audio playback device. No, your Minidisc doesn't count, it doesn't have the interface, and it doesn't have a hard drive or solid state memory.
OBVIOUSLY your Amiga with a network card, and playing MOD files doesn't count, it's not specialized *AND* it's not portable.
Listen up. These people came up with something original in 1995. It's obvious to us now, but it wasn't obvious that all these pieces could work together back then. They thought of it, they produced a working model (yes, they did, check out their site), and they patented it.
I don't like it, and I think there is POTENTIAL for it to be partially broken based on non-specific algorithms. However, MPEG1 Layers 1, 2, *AND* 3 are all mentioned in their patent, and they even say that Layer 3 is preferrable.
It's also worth looking at their current professional associations. Creative Labs *AND* Diamond both have notable relationships with these people, which means that both of them probably are aware of this, and are probably willing to work with them.
I agree that many patents suck, and I hope to heck that this goes the way of the Comptons patent.
Cut audiohighway some slack, though. They DID innovate, they AREN'T patenting the action of breathing, or the letter 'e' or the wheel or anything obvious. It's obvious to you and I *NOW*, but it in 1995 the idea that there would be a market for a dedicated device like what we now see as the Rio was NOVEL. When the Rio was RELEASED even, the majority of people weren't sure if there was a market for it. We now know better, but look how long it took?
These people guessed right, they produced hardware, they described it, and they applied for a patent.
I keep seeing people talking about the 'natural progression of technology'. If you see something that others DON'T see, whether it's the natural progression of technology or not, make it, patent it, and build a damn business around it. The biggest wins are almost ALWAYS people who predicted the growth right, and got there first. I sure as hell don't begrudge them THAT.
In closing, I'll repeat: if you honestly think you know of a specialized audio playback device integrating a hard drive or solid state memory with a dedicated interface to be able to obtain music from either the Internet or a personal computer that dates before 1995, please post it!
I don't think it exists, and if you let go the knee-jerk reaction (same as I had!), I'll bet you think it doesn't either.
Cyberfox!
p.s. Few people will be happier than I if I'm shown wrong, and/or the patent is overturned on any basis. I just don't believe it will.
Re:A reality check... (Score:2)
I agree with part of what you said. If you see something that others don't, certainly build a business around it. Why the hell do you think you have to have a patent, though? If your idea is any good, and if it serves a real need, then why do you need the artificial monopoly of a patent?
After all, business designs are arguably what makes a company successful or not. Look at GE, Coke, IBM, Microsoft. Has Microsoft patented the concept of an OS? Has IBM patented e-business? No! These companies have been successful because they understand a need (which you said, cyberfox), and then designed their businesses around it. Not because they said, hey, US Government, we want you to grant us a monopoly on a thing, so that we are the only ones who can use/supply it. This type of thing, by the way, is called a free market. It's supposedly what our economy is built on
Geez. Try 68K Macintosh, with digitized sounds (Score:3)
(Example events/sound-clips:
Inserting a floppy: "Ooh, input!" (from Short Circuit)
General error alert: "Human error." (HAL from 2001)
and so forth. There were some pretty long sound clips available, kinda useless for system event sounds though.)
Patent legalese... (Score:2)
[Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. This is not to be taken as legal advice.]
The ONLY part of a patent with any legal significance, as I understand it, is the "claims" section. As broad as you think "digital audio player" is, this is NOT what has been patented, and does not have to be more specific.
The patent itself is here:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0591494
Skip right down to the "Show all 18 claims" link, and click it.
For a product to infringe the patent, it must be completely covered by at least one WHOLE claim. If it is similar to -part- of one claim, then it doesn't infringe. There are some pretty specific requirements within these claims that a potentially infringing product must satisfy.
None of this is to suggest that the patent is any more legitimate, but read the -claims-, not the title or abstract before you get mad.
Re:Press Release from Audiohighway.com (Score:2)
Patent office is screwed (Score:3)
The problem with that is it negates the whole point of patents in the first place: inovation. Now, instead of loan inventors creating inovative ideas, we have a bunch of big corporations with a new tool to help promote their own monopolies.
That's not how it works (Score:2)
In general, it is not a bar to a patent that the invention in question includes some patented or unpatentable components, provided that it otherwise meets all the requirements of the patent laws.
[P.S. You guys better not rip off my neat idea. FDA approval, here I come.]
Worry Not (Score:2)
No end to stupidity (Score:2)
Re:Buy stock in Audiohighway now!!!!! (Score:2)
URL (Score:5)
US5914941: Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface [ibm.com]
MD (Score:2)
ATRAC (Adaptive TRansform Acoustic Coding) divides the 16 bit 44.1 KHz digital signal into 52 sub-bands in the frequency domain (after a Fast Fourier Transform). The sub-bands in the low frequencies are finer than the ones in the high frequency range. A psycho-acoustic transfer function that takes advantage of the masking effect and the absolute hearing threshold then removes enough information to reduce the data stream to 1/5th of the original size. Each channel receives that treatment separately (the Sony MZ-1 portable MD recorder features one ATRAC encoder/decoder chip per channel). PASC (Precision Adaptive Sub-band Coding) divides the digital signal into equally spaced sub-bands and removes less information (to only 1/4th of the original size). PASC is essentially the MPEG Layer 1 audio standard (can be decompressed with MPEG Layer 1 players after a trivial preprocessing step).
Both are data compression algorithms, used to store the information content from a stream of 16-bit samples in fewer bits. The purpose of compression is to reduce the rate at which the disk has to deliver or record bits, and to reduce the total number of bits stored. There are many compression algorithms. The ones used for computer data (for example in archiving programs) are lossless; the result of decompression is identical to the input.
PASC and ATRAC are both "lossy" algorithms. In order to get greater compression, they do not attempt to preserve every bit of the original data, but rather only the acoustically "important" bits. Considerable cleverness goes into finding the sounds masked by properties of the human auditory system, ones that you would not hear even if they were reproduced. By all accounts the two schemes do amazing well, considering they operate in real time.
So basically, yes. MD definitely compresses, at roughly a 4.6:1 ratio (I assume... it squeezes 74 minutes of music into 140MB worth of media). I personally have a MD, and it rocks. If this company thinks they're going to beat Sony in court, they've got another thought coming. The MD standard has been around for almost a decade.
There's a patent number for it (Score:2)
What's more, it appears to explicitly include laptops, desktop computers, etc.
My faith in the US Patent office, already quite low, is now unrecoverable.
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:2)
But I agree, there's lots of prior art for claim 1. Here's another solid one: the Psion 3a [wisc.edu] palmtop was released in 1993, and has everything claimed in claim 1. Including "a keypad for effecting control of said apparatus" (what will these people think of next!).
Hmm.. Actually, claim 1 says compressed. Prior art for this, pre 1995?
I know that US patent law differs from every other country's (it's AFAIK the only country to use date-of-invention rather than date-of-filing, which causes a lot of trouble), but I'd be disappointed if most of the claims 2-17 didn't fail on the grounds of obviousness, even if prior art didn't exist. (And, for instance, claim 16 is predated by the NICAM system in Europe - I don't know if digital interleaved audio is used on TV in the USA)
Re:There's lots of prior art (Score:3)
You can't go after the companies that do this stuff directly; patents are issued to individuals, not companies. When James M. Janky signed that application, he was formally signing an affidavit that he had exercised diligence in confirming that each claim is new and original to him.
That's perjury I see in those claims.
If a company's lawyers keep landing its engineers in jail, the company won't survive long.
Will it happen? Naw, the lawyers get too much fun and profit in looting new industries.
Zax
Re:A reality check... (Score:2)
One could argue that the Atari STacy [computingmuseum.com] portable computer was built primarily for musicians, and therefore is covered by this patent. It had multiple MIDI ports (note that the music format is unimportant as specified in the patent), and had lots of specialized software packages to record music streams and send them back out again, faster than realtime if necessary for storage. A lot of musicians used 'em for their concerts.
And yes, I've read the patent [ibm.com], and before you answer with "It doesn't cover all 18 claims," I'll say it myself: This doesn't cover all 18 claims. However, one of the requirements for a patent to be granted in the first place is that it is new art and not easily derived from existing technology.
In this case, the STacy argument covers claims:
1
most of 2 (I'd argue all, if anyone ever paid for connect time to Compu$erve to download a MIDI file)
3 (for the same reason)
claim 4 is slightly confusing since, AFAICT, they're laying claim to the fact that the music was transported at all rather than how it was transported
5 is trivially covered by any modern computer
6 is simply an update of the technology (Commercial Off The Shelf -- COTS), and already covered by sweeping clause #4
7 is again covered by 4, which beginng to appear to be just too general to be of any use
8 covered.
9 covered.
10 is quite covered thank-you-very-much by any of the software available for the STacy that lets you control a song play-set for a concert or performance.
11 mostly covered (again, each impingement by prior art weakens the validity of the patent).
12 Duh, yes.
13 See 12 (I know someone who used the joystick interface to control the music programming selections so that he didn't have to ride the keyboard)
14 covered by any reliable exchange protocol (encryption is not necessary since the wording in the patent is "preferably includes an appropriate time dependent encryption/decryption keys")
15 COTS.
16 COTS (closed captioning decoding for TVs)
17 yes.
18 yes, with the caveat that I don't know of anyone who actually encrypted their MIDI streams.
So, while it's not perfect, it's certainly a start on showing that the patent is easily derivable from existing technology, and is not new art, but rather a simple and intended as possible application implementable upon existing technology.
I think this is another example that shows the Patent Office just doesn't have the expertise or manpower necessary to research technology related claims.
Ray
--
Every truth has a context
Re:AAAarrgh (Score:2)
I personally don't think we have the whole story.
Re:AAAarrgh (Score:2)
So, when was the GUS first made? Heck, even the Soundblaster (.voc) fits those claims.
I was playing music on the Internet back in 1992 (Score:2)
Back when I worked supporting an all Sun based company I used a set of programs called radio/broadcast to play music to the workstations. I would use workman to play a CD from the CD-ROM, which was wired to the audio in port of the back of the Sun.
I had quite a bit of fun being the company DJ. I even hooked up a radio so people could get up-to-the-minute news reports.
On weekends I would play music loudly through all desktop machines. This helped me locate all working desktop Suns, and It was damned fun.
I later moved to converting entire CDs to
So. This has been done before, long ago. These people are completely fooling themselfs.
Does anyone have an old copy of radio/broadcast? I might have it on an old 8mm if they live that long. Please email me if it's needed to stop these fools.
-- James