Company Gets Patent On Digital Downloads; Sues Everyone

from the great dept

There's been quite a trend lately of companies who had otherwise completely failed in the marketplace to suddenly reinvent themselves as "patent licensing firms" and then go and sue everyone who actually was able to successfully innovate in the market. The latest entrant is Intertainer, a company that was fairly well known for a few bubble years, but was unable to find a real market for their online video distribution system. They blamed the movie industry for colluding against them (a lawsuit on that issue never went very far, nor did the antitrust investigation it helped trigger), but are taking it out on the tech industry. The company, which has long since been out of business, is back from the dead suing Google, Apple and Napster, claiming they all violate a patent the company holds on digital downloads. Go ahead and read through the patent and help us all understand what is new or non-obvious in the patent. The patent was filed (provisionally) in March of 2001, by which point it's hard to believe that the idea of distributing content electronically wasn't well known. I worked for a company in 1998 and 1999 that did many of the things described in the patent, and we were far from cutting edge at the time. The best comment in the article, though, goes to Eric Goldman, an expert in high tech law, who notes: "I have the same problem with this patent as so many of the patents of the dot-com boom days: I don't know what it means." Intertainer missed the market. It happens. It's a part of business. It would be nice if they could now leave those who succeeded alone to continue innovating, rather than wasting everyone's time and money on a pointless lawsuit over a silly patent.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    another, 3 Jan 2007 @ 10:39am

    Re: an quick analysis (and dismissal)

    You call it tripe without reading the patent. Also included in the actual patent is this (among a whole lot of other things:

    "FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a preferred embodiment of the invention.

    FIG. 2 is a logic diagram of a preferred method for ordering media content.

    FIG. 3 is a logic diagram of a preferred advertising method for use with the method of FIG. 2.

    FIG. 4 is a logic diagram of a preferred method of making content recommendations to a consumer for use with the method of FIG. 2.

    FIG. 5 is a logic diagram of a preferred method of reporting royalties for use with the method of FIG. 2.

    FIG. 6 is a logic diagram of a preferred method for posting an amount due for a consumer account."

    Schematic designs don't sound general, they don't sound obvious. At least try to understand the issue before deciding.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.