Media Syncing: There's a Patent for That



+ Add a Comment


Patent trolls need to go away.  I'm not sure how this would be done legally, but here's the layman's terms version: No company may attempt to patent an idea (rather than an implementation) or concept (rather than a process).  If questions are raised, the onus is on the patent-seeker to prove that they have a reason for a patent.  The US Patent Office is currently overloaded, and examiners don't have enough time to make sure "obvious," everyday things aren't inadvertantly getting patent protection.

Supporters say it's about "protecting small inventors," but that's the same BS argument you find with farm subsidies (which go to farms both large and small).  "Taking this away hurts little guys, feel guilty!"  Except, there are a bunch of people who ABUSE the system while using that very defense.






This guy is hedging his bets.  He sends out letters telling companies he owns a patent for what their products do, then when told he's being a troll, he just says he's looking to put the patents on the market for sale like Nokia.  That, however, is not what the letters discussed.  His letter discussed licensing the patent, not selling it.

He is yet another overly arrogant fool looking to scam our economy for his personal gain, damn the consequences of his actions.

He should be sued into the ground for extortion.  That is what he's doing.  Either you have a case and wrong has been done and you sue, or you don't.  Either you want to sell the patent, and put out a news release to all interested that it is for sale, or you don't.

Every company that received a letter should pitch a million dollars into a legal fund and then hound this guy to the ends of the earth until he releases the patent to the general public.



The problem with this companies claim is that Apple did not invent media synching with the release of the iPod. Other MP3 players had synching capabilities' long before the first iPod ever left the drawing board, ever here of iRiver, RIO, MPMan (Korean MP3 player sold in the late '90's), and the Nomad to name a few, that all pre-date this patent claim of 2001, and their purchase of 2007. Another bs money chasing scheme from a company that probably originates nothing, sells nothing, and solely makes money in the court room. Good for the lawyers, bad for everyone else.



I was going to post this as a reply to Newegg, but for some reason when I log in I get the field for adding the comment. But when I hit reply I'm sent back to the login page. Not using Facebook might be the problem,and if it is it still won't make me join up.

As for my comment I'm with you Newegg. I don't know if they need to die, but any system where a vague discription of a method is enough to let you sue anyone who produces a working product that in any limited way matches your patent is stupid.

As far as I know this discription of a method was to allow the inventor time to produce a working proto type with out fear of some one stealing the idea and rushing a product to market before the original was ready.

Instead of protecting original IP they seem to be now weapons of litigation. Used to either make tons of money off the backs of the true innovators, or to stifle any new competeing product that might devalue a current standard.

It's amazing anyone is actually bothering to invent any more. 



As someone who doesn't even pirate any software and actually pays for it, patents need to die yesterday. I can't even think of a legit patent lawsuit I've ever seen. (Can someone point one out to me to show a different viewpoint?)

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.