Print
Most things become so unremarkable through frequent use that we begin to take them for granted. Take for instance media synchronization, a trivial task that most of you probably perform across your panoply of devices several times a day with your eyes shut. But I am sure most of you don't even know something as rudimentary as the name of the company that owns the patent for the intricate technology behind it. Any guesses? In any case, the correct answer is media server maker ReQuest. The New York-based firm is running a campaign to educate media companies about one of its most precious intellectual properties: couple of patents (No. 7,577,757 and 7,136,934) that broadly cover all that there is to multimedia synchronization.
According to CNET, ReQuest is busy sending missives to various online entertainment outlets to inform them that it owns the patent for media syncing. The tech site claims to be in possession of a copy of the letter that has already been delivered to a number of companies. The letter focuses on a proprietary ReQuest technology called NetSync and describes it as "a system for synchronizing devices in a multimedia environment.”
Back in 2007, the company issued a press release to announce that it had secured the “patent for music, photo, and video synchronization.” It also stressed the fact that it had filed the patent several months before the first iPod became available in late 2001.
This is how it described the technology back then: “NetSync is ReQuest’s proprietary, key enabling technology that allows its music servers and other audio-video component designs to share and exchange audio-video entertainment, setup and operations data, and to interact under the control of external “clients” including personal computers and personal wireless devices.”
Though CNET's source accused ReQuest of making concealed threats of legal action in the letter, the company's CEO Peter Cholnoky denied the same in a phone interview with the tech site. As per Cholnoky, his company only intends “to open up the patents to the market, especially as the patent market has heated up."
"Google just offered to pay $900 million for (6,000 patents belonging to Nortel, the bankrupt Canadian telecom-equipment company). Nortel is auctioning them off. So, companies like Google are interested in acquiring patents and I sent the letters to people who might have some interest...we've received lots of calls," Cholnoky told CNET.
Comments are closed on this article
Sovereign
April 28, 2011 at 8:42am
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.
someuid
April 28, 2011 at 7:48am
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.
big_montana
April 28, 2011 at 5:13am
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.
Gezzer
April 27, 2011 at 8:54pm
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.
newegg911
April 27, 2011 at 8:12pm
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?)
