US company PacketVideo has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Spotify with courts in the Netherlands and the US. In the Dutch courts, PacketVideo will claim the Swedish music streaming service violated European patents belonging to PacketVideo dating back to the mid-1990s. It will argue the same in respect of a US patent …
I stream music from my own hard drive. Seems like I'm infringing, too.
Your hard drive is connected to your PC by an internal cable so you're not streaming.
Were to say that you were streaming from your NAS to your PC or wi-fi connected lap top? Maybe.
But you're not a commercial organization.
At the same time, I would have to argue that its a trivial and obvious patent.
If i took out the word music i could swear they tried to patent internet protocols.
… for all intents and purposes.
... technically speaking ...
A module could be software based.
...misuse of its patents
why didn't they go after pandora?
Bets! 5 to 1 on...
1) Will be laughed out of court in the NL
2) Will be awarded gazillion of damages in the US
... get real
Surely this means ANY streaming media sites are liable to a lawsuit, iTunes next? Pandora? Get freaking real, this patent should never have been granted as its way too broad. Companies need to stop suing each other and wasting the courts time.
Think of the poor lawyers, whatever would they do without these patent battles?
Dial a disc
Apart from the music being digitised, that patent sounds a lot like the Post Office's Dial A Disc service. Anyone here old enough to remember dialling 160 to hear abysmal quality music (it always seemed to Free singing Alright Now whenever I tried it).
a) The number of dollars in damages the trolls are seeking
b) The number of articles of prior art used to invalidate the patent
Hmm, that might be harder to find than one might think, seeing how this patent goes back into the 1990s, at which time streaming music and so on wasn't exactly common...
Streaming in the '90s
Streaming music to consumers wasn't big business in the 90s, but there should still be plenty of prior art. "Push technology" and "publish-subscribe" content delivery were big buzzwords by mid-decade, and there was no shortage of research and experimental systems.
Plenty of websites had (typically god-awful) musical accompaniment; that was often in the form of MIDI files as MP3 (MPEG-2 Level III audio) was only standardized in 1994, and PCM formats (WAV, AIFF, etc) took too much bandwidth. But whatever the format, delivering music data over HTTP and having it play in the browser was close enough to "streaming" to serve as prior art for this patent, IMHO.
The original Timidity MIDI-player browser plugin was created in '95, for example. That's the same year this patent was filed. And I don't believe Timidity was the first music plugin.
- Review This is why we CAN have nice things: Samsung Galaxy Alpha
- Hey, YouTube lovers! How about you pay us, we start paying for STUFF? - Google
- MEN: For pity's sake SLEEP with LOTS of WOMEN - and avoid Prostate Cancer
- Vid BONFIRE of the MEGA-BUCKS: $200m+ BURNED in SECONDS in Antares launch blast
- Tim Cook: The classic iPod HAD to DIE, and this is WHY