On CBS News: Check out the day's strangest news
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Jo Best, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News: Mar 7, 2005 8:08:00 PM

A Hong-Kong based company wants 12 percent of all profits from iTunes and iPod sales, claiming it holds the patents to the DRM technology that governs the use of downloads through Apple Computer's online music service.

According to a post on the Pat-rights company Web site, the patent governs the verification of a single user before permitting the user to download tracks.

iTunes' "computer registration involves a process of identity verification in which a user is required to key into the computer the correct Apple ID and password he used to purchase the song....This is certainly a patentable technology. If iTunes does not patent it, there must be a very good reason for them not to do so--someone else has patented this," the post says.

Though Apple declined to comment, the company has been in negotiations with Pat-rights for some time, according to Joseph J. Zito, the patent lawyer representing Pat-rights.

"We expect to be successful in licensing negotiations with Apple. They're a good company that understands intellectual-property rights, and we think they'll be reasonable," he said. "My client was first in touch with Apple during the months of December and January, so Apple has been aware of the issue for a couple of months."

Zito declined to comment on whether the patent is a working implementation or purely a design. "That's going to be an important issue in this case, as it is in all such cases. This case will hinge on a lot of things, so I'd rather not comment on what our plan is," he said.

Zito said that the patent may be applicable to a variety of DRM schemes but said he isn't aware of any plans to take action against other companies.

Currently, Pat-rights is gunning for 12 percent of Apple iPod and iTunes profits, but if the matter comes to court, the payoff could be equally lucrative for the patent holder. If Apple is found to have willfully infringed the patent, damages could be tripled.

If the issue is not settled by March 21, Pat-rights intends to file suit.

Apple is currently involved in another patent battle, with Advanced Audio Devices, which claims iTunes violates its patent, filed in 2003, on a "music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein."

David Berlind, of ZDNet, reported from Cambridge, Mass. Jo Best, of Silicon.com, reported from London. A Hong-Kong based company wants 12 percent of all profits from iTunes and iPod sales, claiming it holds the patents to the DRM technology that governs the use of downloads through Apple Computer's online music service.

According to a post on the Pat-rights company Web site, the patent governs the verification of a single user before permitting the user to download tracks.

iTunes' "computer registration involves a process of identity verification in which a user is required to key into the computer the correct Apple ID and password he used to purchase the song....This is certainly a patentable technology. If iTunes does not patent it, there must be a very good reason for them not to do so--someone else has patented this," the post says.

Though Apple declined to comment, the company has been in negotiations with Pat-rights for some time, according to Joseph J. Zito, the patent lawyer representing Pat-rights.

"We expect to be successful in licensing negotiations with Apple. They're a good company that understands intellectual-property rights, and we think they'll be reasonable," he said. "My client was first in touch with Apple during the months of December and January, so Apple has been aware of the issue for a couple of months."

Zito declined to comment on whether the patent is a working implementation or purely a design. "That's going to be an important issue in this case, as it is in all such cases. This case will hinge on a lot of things, so I'd rather not comment on what our plan is," he said.

Zito said that the patent may be applicable to a variety of DRM schemes but said he isn't aware of any plans to take action against other companies.

Currently, Pat-rights is gunning for 12 percent of Apple iPod and iTunes profits, but if the matter comes to court, the payoff could be equally lucrative for the patent holder. If Apple is found to have willfully infringed the patent, damages could be tripled.

If the issue is not settled by March 21, Pat-rights intends to file suit.

Apple is currently involved in another patent battle, with Advanced Audio Devices, which claims iTunes violates its patent, filed in 2003, on a "music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein."

David Berlind, of ZDNet, reported from Cambridge, Mass. Jo Best, of Silicon.com, reported from London.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 65 Talkback(s)
Regardless, they don't lead to quality
Quotas are about achieving quantity in results, not quality. It encourages shoddy work that's done quickly, poor review, etc. There are better approaches than the current "pass everything and let the courts figure it out".... (Read the rest)
Posted by: tic swayback Posted on: 03/09/05 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
"music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein." ?? rpmyers1   | 03/07/05
How can that be patented voska   | 03/07/05
Guess this just another example on why software patents are flawed voska   | 03/07/05
Plus, mp3 players were already on the market tic swayback   | 03/07/05
The servers at The WB have more space... The King's Servant   | 03/07/05
Definitions Roger Ramjet   | 03/08/05
More informative article tic swayback   | 03/07/05
Ah, I love the smell of a lawsuit in the morning! Confused by religion   | 03/07/05
Hey, it's the American way Jeff Spicoli   | 03/07/05
What exactly pray tell ... ShadeTree   | 03/07/05
Apple's profits, in these cases tic swayback   | 03/07/05
Assumes facts not in evidence. ShadeTree   | 03/07/05
Obviously tic swayback   | 03/07/05
Misuse of the word stealing again, fraud maybe voska   | 03/07/05
Why are you assuming that the company ... ShadeTree   | 03/07/05
Why are you assuming a limit of the concept to just this case? tic swayback   | 03/07/05
No Jeffs post was a ... ShadeTree   | 03/07/05
I took it as a bigger picture statement tic swayback   | 03/07/05
RE: Tic ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
If we don't offer opinions, what use is this forum? tic swayback   | 03/08/05
Have you seen the patent? Patrick Jones   | 03/08/05
Anyone can take a piece out of a patent ... ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
True, the courts will decide... Patrick Jones   | 03/08/05
It's definitely not on the up and up voska   | 03/08/05
RE: Opinions ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
What qualifies a patent office employees voska   | 03/08/05
Cluelessness is deliberate tic swayback   | 03/08/05
I don'y believe it is helpfull ... ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
Criticism can be helpful tic swayback   | 03/08/05
RE: Criticism ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
I guess you missed the part about quotas tic swayback   | 03/08/05
RE: Quotas ShadeTree   | 03/09/05
Regardless, they don't lead to quality tic swayback   | 03/09/05
Apparently its the Hong Kong way as well FilledOut   | 03/08/05
I live in.. Jeff Spicoli   | 03/08/05
Well good day then FilledOut   | 03/08/05
It's not the high tech companies, it's the weasel lawyers tic swayback   | 03/07/05
Thanks for that - I didn't know... Confused by religion   | 03/07/05
The patents shouldn't have been issued to begin with htotten   | 03/07/05
Asking for 12% of SALES, not PROFITS rdwhitti   | 03/07/05
Good point, but.... htotten   | 03/07/05
See it works both ways Nigel Johnstone   | 03/07/05
Apple is going to CRUSH them. Smells like another Laff   | 03/07/05
I don't think it'll get that far tic swayback   | 03/07/05
When exactly did you take up patent law. ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
I didn't know a talkback opinion was a ruling voska   | 03/08/05
Look my statement was opinioin butt opinion based Laff   | 03/08/05
Thats the thing about experts.... Dave F_z   | 03/08/05
Shade has forbidden us to discuss this case tic swayback   | 03/08/05
Merely pointing out that ... ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
We've given our reasons tic swayback   | 03/08/05
What? Fred Fredrickson   | 03/08/05
Perfect example Joe Blow_z   | 03/07/05
Perfect example of the liuttle guy using patents No_Ax_to_Grind   | 03/08/05
The little guy? tic swayback   | 03/08/05
"right" to monopolize is not good for anybody, big or small (nt) CobraA1   | 03/09/05
A fool with a gun, still a fool. mabricen   | 03/08/05
That was my point to ShadeTree Patrick Jones   | 03/08/05
No anger here! ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
Face it Shade, you're FULL of rage Jeff Spicoli   | 03/08/05
Actually I think ... ShadeTree   | 03/08/05
Maybe angry was the wrong word.. Patrick Jones   | 03/08/05
How can the patent office do it's job voska   | 03/08/05
You really need to read... Rick_K   | 03/08/05
From their website Rick_K   | 03/08/05

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Click Here