Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Others Sued For Patent Infringement For Appearing Larger Than Life
from the shrink-a-bit,-please dept
Every time you think you've seen the most ridiculous patent infringement lawsuit out there, you only need to wait a day or two before another, more ridiculous, one shows up. The latest is that Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, the Los Angeles Lakers and the band the Pussycat Dolls have all been sued for patent infringement. Seriously. The patent in question (6669346) is for a very large display system for a performance. Basically, it's for the sort of massive screens used at various concerts (and apparently, some sporting events). Seeing as I doubt that Spears, Timberlake or the Pussycat Dolls built these screens themselves, shouldn't there be some sort of patent exhaustion issue here, where (if there's any actual infringement, which seems questionable enough) the liable parties should be whoever made these giant screesn?Of course the lawsuit was filed in East Texas, and it's amusing to see the reasoning for this: according to the lawsuit, all of the performers likely had residents from East Texas who attended some of their concerts, and thus it makes sense. As for the Lakers, well, their games are broadcast in East Texas (even if the screen in question is in LA and probably not of much use or concern to those watching at home in East Texas). So, apparently, these days you don't just have to be an innovative company to get sued for patent infringement. You can just be a rockstar or a sports team...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: big screens, britney spears, concerts, justin timerlake, los angeles lakers, patents, pussycat dolls
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
East Texas should not be allowed to do legal stuff for the foreseeable future.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well actually, I mean never.
Never never.
Never Again.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
+1
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: giant screesn?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
- Lois McMaster Bujold
This is Google's quote of the day today.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Punk!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Pah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pah
Because you don't have a 36 line signature with all of your affiliations and contact information...hoping that someday, someday someone somewhere might want to talk to you....just a little human interaction...please....I'm...just so lonely....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pah
Please get out of your owner's arse.
Thanks,
The management
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pah
So why then do you not only read this site but bother to respond? What a tool!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who can be sued for patent infringement
It loooks more and more like you only need to be perceived as having money. The reason to sue can be found later on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the law
Patent law is very clear on this. It is illegal to even *use* something covered by a patent without authorization even if you didn't "make" it. So if Britney and the others were doing that then they're liable. That's the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's the law
You should always follow the law. To break the precious law is worse than? What? What could it be worse than? I know!
Murder.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's the law
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_271.htm
It's not only the manufacturer and end-user... It's all the middle-men too. Frigging whacked.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's the law
That said, the venues do not (except for maybe in the case of the Lakers) own the system, the band/touring company own the system. But it's doubtful that they own them - merely have leased them.
All that said, it's still stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's the law
Yep.
If true it is absurd because it makes the end consumer guilty do to the actions of a third party.
Legally, the manufacturer is still liable for *their* infringement. You're liable for *yours* (i.e. using the infringing product). In fact, you don't even have to buy it to be liable, just use it. You could do "due diligence" and hire a patent attorney to check out everything before you used it (patents, licenses, etc.), but that still wouldn't be a guarantee.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's the law
Indeed. But it's a dumb part of the law. Which is why I was suggesting it *should be* different.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
truly yours,
some guy on the internets
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
From stem to stern
If it isn't big pharma or big content seeking extensions into the next eon, it's people like this patenting stuff they never built and never will. Pathetic.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammre Naiz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
good on him!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Then, when companies like this file their frivolous patent suits in East Texas, I'll file a patent suit against them. I'll get their money and strike a blow against these patent mongers at the same time! Everyone wins!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply