Just when we were getting all nice and cozy with Spotify, someone had to go and ruin the party for everyone.
Just two weeks after Spotify pitched a tent on American soil and began dishing out its brand of music subscription packages, Twonky creator PacketVideo slapped the company with a lawsuit claiming... you guessed it... patent infringement.
The complaint (Scribd) was submitted on Wednesday in the Southern District of California and claims that Spotify violates a patent for a "device for the Distribution of Music in Digital Form." It also states that Spotify was informed of the patent infringement months before it launched here in the States, but went ignored.
PacketVideo is now asking for triple damages for a "willful" violation. The company also wants the California court to ban Spotify here in the States unless the technology is licensed from PacketVideo. It's also seeking royalties for the patent.
According to the lawsuit, PacketVideo offers "everything from browsing for, recommendation of, and discovery of music and video, to the purchase, playback and sharing of music and video. The company's software supports all major media formats, broadcast standards, home networking protocols, operating systems and handsets/mobile phones. PacketVideo's customers include mobile operators such as Verizon Wireless, NTT DoCoMo and Orange, handset manufacturers, and consumer electronic companies. PacketVideo's software is currently embedded in more than 260 million devices worldwide and more than 320 different products."
The lawsuit also addresses Spotify's Luxembourg and UK divisions.
"PacketVideo is claiming that by distributing music over the Internet, Spotify (and by inference any other similar digital music service) has infringed one of the patents that has previously been acquired by PacketVideo. Spotify is strongly contesting PacketVideo's claim," a Spotify representative said.
Currently the free version of Spotify is invite only, but music lovers can now sign up for the Unlimited and Premium accounts without waiting. For $4.99 per month, Unlimited is a step up from the Free account by eliminating ads and time restraints. Naturally the $9.99 Premium account provides everything Spotify has to offer, from streaming to iOS and Android devices to offline music playback (caching).
Before Spotify launched here in the State earlier this month, the service was only available in the UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway, France, The Netherlands and Spain.
I bet this patent is incredibly vague and obvious, and could have been thought up by any amateur in this field (The field being distribution of digital media? How can you patent that?)
Patent trolls need to disappear.
And how can they be suing for damages if nobody has ever heard of PacketVideo? Will our patent system fail again?
So either remove that phrase from your post, or pay me $39999.99, or I'll see you in court.
Mmwouahaha!
Whomever approved it in the first place needs to also be fired!!!
Copyright protection yes, like for books, music and film, but patents no.
I also think Spotify might be sleezy. They say invite only but I went to the site and put in my email and got a reply right away. The quickness and ease of getting the invite makes me wonder if its all just a PR scheme. Make it seem more exclusive so the users feel special when they get that invite.
Its pretty nice though, decent selection of music. Complements Pandora very nicely. If I know exactly what I want to listen to, I use spotify, if I dont I use Pandora. Either way I am not paying a cent for music now.
NPR Podcast.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Patenting software is fine, if its your idea. If it wasn't possible then everyone would just rip off Windows and sell it.
I am fine with patents when the company uses the product/technology and offers it to be licensed at a decent rate. But when they do this, just sit around and wait for someone to use the same idea then sue its BS.
A patent should only be applicable if the owner is using it and not just sitting on it.
So... Next up they will be filing similar lolsuits against iTunes and then the creators of ARPANET. I hate patent trolls, but I say the-more-the-merrier until legislators finally fix the broken patent laws throughout the world.
seriously?
everything you get from the media is biased, never ever trust what you hear from the media as the abolute truth when they do not argue both sides of the story as well as an independant 3rd perspective.
i can usually catch the flaws in rush, beck, colbert, stewart and even npr's claims and arguements most of the time within 5 minutes of listening.
here's an example in the comment (peanut gallery) section that blows nprs arguements, claims and perspective out of the water.
Also, I would like to point out that the author is misleading the reader on what patent number 7,222,078 is ACTUALLY protecting. The quoted language is just the abstract. The issued CLAIMS that define the protection cover much narrower subject matter. If the claims in this patent are "utterly ridiculous," then no shake down would occur. Few defendants would roll over on a clearly invalid patent. (Edit comment)
to quote Mr. Parrish's Toms article for which the patent number and patent itself weren't researched or displayed or link with just a quote of the abstract description of the patent:
Mr. Parrish's lack of research & in his opinion; would have us villify wireless communications companies and networking companies even based on that little tidbit of abstract patent description language.
next time don't just copy and paste some one else's story before getting all the facts, the truth, and the whole truth before commiting libel and facing a defamation suit by PacketVideo.
i'm sick and tired of hearing the whine and cry of people who don't have a clue in what they're talking about when it comes to patents and how they think the 'system' which was thought out by people much smarter then the whiners IMO.
"Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." - U.S. Constitution Article 1. Section 8.
written by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, (both inventors themselves) and signed by none other then George Washington himself. (for all you bigots of the patent system you probably hate the constitution of the united states also)
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/uspatent.htm
You should not be able to patent a concept only the devices or code or application related to a concept. Like you can patent an ipod, and its OS, but you cant patent icons, vertically scrolling menus and battery meters that display available live in bars instead of precentages.
Advancement no matter what the direction is still a progress.