03.13Patent Law is broken, Rev. 3,578
Apple is being sued by ZapMedia Services, Inc. for infringing patents that cover, in essence, the fundamental workings of the iPod and iTunes. According to AppleInsider, ZapMedia Services, Inc. (which is actually a larger group that bought what used to be ZapMedia Inc. ) owns two patents that basically cover the concept of distributing and syncing digital media with a portable device, and for using DRM to secure that media. So, essentially, the fundamental infrastructure of the iPod and the iTunes Store.
My first reaction upon hearing this was, “seriously? They filed this lawsuit some seven years after the iPod and iTunes were launched? Who are they trying to kid?”
Upon further reading, my reaction is: “Who is the U.S. patent office trying to kid?”
The reason ZapMedia Services filed its lawsuits this week is this: of these two patents, which they filed for in 2000, one (the one that covers syncing and distribution) wasn’t granted until 2006 and the DRM-related one was granted this past Tuesday. ZapMedia Services says it met with Apple in 2000 after filing for its first patent, and that Apple went ahead and created the iPod/iTunes ecosystem anyway, without Zap’s “permission.”
Can someone please explain to me how our patent-granting structure allows this to happen? First, why on earth would the simple act of filing for a patent allow you to demand first a meeting, then licensing agreements based on the possibility that the patents might be granted? And why on earth should all business, innovation, and product planning be expected to come to a complete halt for up to seven years while the patent office decides whether to grant the patents themselves?
Or is the patent process in fact so broken that we can and should safely assume that no patent filing is ever not eventually granted, and companies should simply proceed with extortionist license payments and/or a complete lack of innovation based on the mere fact that someone once had an idea and communicated it to someone else?
And yes, in case you’re wondering, ZapMedia Inc. appeared to have existed solely for the purpose of putting together this portfolio of fairly obvious-seeming patents, and was no doubt eagerly snapped up by the new ZapMedia Services, Inc., solely for the purpose of eventually getting to sue Apple. As we said on Buzz Out Loud today, Activate “patent system is broken” Macro.
5 Responses to “Patent Law is broken, Rev. 3,578”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hear, hear! here: I have some limited direct experience in this area. Let’s just say lawyers win and companies with lots of cash and lawyers win. By “win” I mean they parlay meager innovation and got-here-first-ism into outrageous advantage. Meanwhile citizens are left so far behind all they can do is enjoy the “illusion of choice” between a few major vendors who have bought or squashed the original innovators.
XOR cursor patent. Apple trashcan. Xerox Star. Desktop metaphor. Mp3 encoding. ISO standards. PTO swamped. Patent system broken. Not to mention international issues. Sealand anyone?
March 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Patent trolling is the worst abuse of intellectual property law ever created, and patent trolls should be hung from the rafters in the highest courts in the land. And this type of trolling, where they sue for “technique” as opposed to actual innovation is the worst kind.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
On the one hand, the patent office appears to be an example of broken bureaucracy that should be killed off, on the other hand, I don’t want to say that anyone doesn’t have a right to create a business model based on the current legal standard. Ugh. I hate being conflicted.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I think it’s the latter – business don’t depend on the patent system. I’m glad that they don’t – this really seems like a faulty patent, one that I can’t believe actually passed. As you stated, businesses can’t be expected to stop during a patent filing that can take almost a decade.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Simple, make the patent contingent on the holder producing a product that uses said patent. Make that condition contingent on that product being viable in the marketplace also. If not then other competing companies can contest the patent and if the patent holder is shown to be a squatter they could loose the patent. No one would get to claim it either, it would become open to all.
So in this case, ZapMedia would have to have a distribution/sync system and DRM system that were both commercially viable. Apple could take ZapMedia to court if they ZapMedias systems were not. If the court felt that Apple was correct, then ZapMedia would loose it’s patents and those patents would go into the public domain.
Simple. No more patent squatters and more competition. Even if two or more companies fight for a piece of technology, the worse case scenario is that particular technology goes into the public domain. Not really so bad.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:38 am