Geez. You guys need to stop getting your "news" from forum postings and go the original source. You also need to read up on Patent law at www.uspto.gov and stop posting stupid/ignorant comments. So, you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and now you're a legal expert. Also, many of you are passing judgement CLEARLY without knowing even HALF of the facts. Stupid.

Let the courts decide it. You know, the COURTS. Remember the COURTS? We have a legal system in the U.S., that while it may be flawed, I SERIOUSLY doubt any of you would rather take your case to court in China or Kenya. I wonder how well you'd fare in those places.

If you live in the U.S. shut up and enjoy your inherited freedoms, especially the freedom to argue against BIG CORPORATE establishments. I'm sure if you spent years working on something you wouldn't mind at all if someone with more money just took it and sold it for their own profit. Yeah, sure. Right.

Off-beat slightly but is it possible to just patent stuff at will? Kind of like those people who buy up domains and re-sell them twice what they are worth? Looks like that guys "company" (which is likley his trailer) is around to just make money off vague and pointless lawsuits?

Max,

>> "Off-beat slightly but is it possible to just patent stuff at will? "

Yes and No, you can patent a lot of different 'stuff' starting out with provisional patents and moving on to a filed application, and ending with a Patent.

Domains are cheap and in demand whereas a patent can cost anywhere from a couple thousand dollars [which I've never seen], up to my limit of personal experience, around $20k so it isn't cheap like a $4.95 a year domain.

A business can exist anywhere, trailer, office, corporate HQ in New York. However, it does not need an office, and the owner of a business who spends money on a patent usually has the intent on making a business model succeed.

I have to assume that a lot of the BetaNews.com readership is young [don't take it as a personal insult] because I see a lot of jumping to conclusions about the frivolous nature of a case that shows on face value that there is cause for a lawsuit, the product existed as far back as 1995.

A patent is reviewed and regardless of its ultimate discovery as being useless [cat toy laser pointer patent for instance], so if there is no documentation showing that it existed as a patent before, and/or the examiner(s) had no foreknowledge that it was in the public domain for years prior, it is granted, but again, a patent alone is worthless paper unless it is enforced.

There is a lot involved in building a patent, from provisional (1 year allowance to file formal application) to filing (and subsequent publishing before it is granted) and to final granted Patent (18-24 months after application of filing, which is upwards of 1 year after the provisional, so a total of nearly 3 years takes place before a patent is granted)... In a nutshell, a lot of people can catch wind of your product/service/business method in 3 years and if someone comes to market with an identical product using your knowledge and you get granted a patent, that means that you have legal action in your favor.

Courts, attorneys and litigation don't exist because people are trying to make money off of that process. It's expensive, time intensive, emotionally exhausting, and ultimately may end up in the defenses favor meaning you are still stuck with the bill. In either direction, it is still VERY expensive to bring a case to court... add another $25,000 to your bottom line for that patent.

stupid patent, somebody should do something about the patent law. it should be revised.

This is lawsuit is worthless.

"computer interface that played music on an internal or external device"

So lets look at it this way

Computer Interface = OS (computer or tv)
music on internal = (hard drive, tv-tunner)
music on external = (stereo, DVD, VHS, Tape, 8 track.

This process has been around for a long time.
A TV with an OS plays media that is internal or external by connecting to wires that connect to either external or cable tv. Which in turn brings media (audio) over the lines to play it on an OS that knows how to render the information for display and for hearing. Now a TV might not have as graphical of an interface but it still has an OS, So does the DVD players, old radios. This technology has been around since music started being recorded on media of any sort and played internally on a system or externeally from a radio station to your radio. This is nothing new. Just better technology now.

The application was filed in 1996, and nearly 10 years later it comes to court because they possibly get information that leads them to believe that Apple copied their tech from witnessing it at a trade show. The title of a patent and its abstract has nothing to do with the claims. Read the claims, find out when it was filed, couple that with the fact that it didn't exist in 1996 and you've got a good patent lawsuit when you shine the light on the fact that Apple witnessed the technology back in 2003. The claims [primarily claim 1] is the one you should pay attention to... A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer, comprising the steps of:... an operating system is not a computer interface used to access music on internal and external devices, applications within are, but the OS isn't. They aren't patenting the internal/external devices either, just the method.

Anything unique can be patented, anyone who suggests that they should get over it, or that they are greedy need to realize that if the patented product was at a trade show, then they were doing something with it, if they have a patent and someone uses the IP within the patent, then it should be protected and a patent does not protect anything unless you enforce it. I've not done any research on the matter, but Contois could have informed them of the patent years ago and Apple brushed it off... notification = start date of damages.

Anyone who thinks that their IP have been stolen need to inform the parties involved in the use of that IP, that they are either to license the IP or buy it outright, or stop the use.

I'm not sure why so many people have a hard time realizing that the unauthorized use of IP is identical to theft of personal property, just because you can't run off with it and sell it at the pawn shop doesn't mean its worthless.

To the person who said the patent is nearly exhausted doesn't know that a patent has 1 years from the date the patent is granted if before 1995 or 20 years from the date of the application [whichever is greater]. And there are plenty of ways to expire it early, or make it invalid. The length on the Contios patent means it still have 14 years of life unless invalidated. [and simply responding to the USPTO with a claim that its invalid will make the investigation process start, which basically invalidates the patent until complete]

If Apple knew of the product and used that knowledge to create a new product, then they need to compensate the creator of the original product. Wouldn't you want to be paid for your work if it spawned works that weren't going to be created without your hard work?

Yes, you would. Now, go invent something, spend $20,000 to get it patented, and then let someone else with more money bring it to market faster without your permission and see how fast you end up in court.

Totally agree. These other comments are just ignorant.

I seem to recall Apple suing over equally squishy things like design and feel.

These big companies need to learn the lesson with software patents that one cannot light their neighbor's house on fire without burning down their own.

Lame. I've had lots of *my* ideas stolen too, so get over it - if you wanted to keep it you should have done something with it, or not told anyone about it.

Heh....It's kinda like saying everyone using water cooling is breaching that misc patent from that guy way back when, when he filed it on a pump. :P

Your kidding right? Get a life you loser. TAKE them to court Apple is also famous for STEALING other people's ideas!

Well, no bias for you...

Edit: Oh, nevermind. You went on to insult several people in other articles.

This has to be the stupidest case ever.

If this passes, I wonder if General Electric will sue Sony for putting the channel up button above the channel down button on the remote control.

Plus the fact the patent is 10 years old or more now, so it probably only has a life of 3 or 4 more years, and Apple is at the top of their game.

I wonder how long Contois has been sitting there thinking "Haha...Apple is so stupid for doing this, we'll just wait until they are extremely successful and ruin them for all they are worth.....buahahaha"

Stupid, stupid company.

Apple should put a counter-suit on Contois for wasting there time, and just demolish the company.

Today's mentality--decide you want someone's money and THEN find some patent they "violated" and sue them for it. Lovely.

As much as I like to see Apple squirm, software patents are still stupid.

Usually it's Apple shotgunning lawsuits as fast as the RIAA against users. But another Amerikun corporation caught stealing? That's what they do, and when they can't steal from consumers any more, they rob other corporations.

Greedy b-ass-turds

You mean Apple, right?