« In search of the next Google | Main | Why startups innovate while big companies incrementally improve »

January 03, 2007


Steve Morsa

It's only fair that--from the single individual working alone to giant companies like Microsoft (and it's irrelevant whether or not they are able, or willing, to commercialize the invention/s themselves; everyone's entitled to the fruits of their labors)--everyone be able to obtain patents on inventions which are truly novel and non-obvious.

In this specific case, in addition to the fact that such capabilities were (apparently--since it'll take a patent judge to define the exact meaning and scope of each claim in the patent/s); as Don and others have pointed out; well known prior to the patent's filing, it also sounds like Intertainer was itself using the technology for at least a year prior to the patent filing date, which; under our patent rules; renders the patent invalid in any case.

This sounds like a very easy one to dispose of...

vinnie nicolas

It suprises me how the majority of those who speak out against patent infringement lawsuits seem to side with the large 800-lb. gorilla companies who are being sued rather than side with the smaller inventor who is trying to capitalize on a patent that was legally issued by the USPTO. We can argue, appropriately, as to whether a specific patent should or should not have been issued by the USPTO but I don't blame the inventor for attempting to enforce his rights under the prevailing system.

Is this a nuisance lawsuit, as some have argued, or another case of industry giants appropriating a smaller player's patented ideas for their own gain, knowing it is highly unlikely that they will ever have to pay their fair share? Companies such as Apple, Google etc. believe IP is valuable and have no qualms about enforcing their own rights when the subject is "their" patents but if an adversarial party should dare try to enforce its rights against Apple or Google then they are "patent trolls' or it's a "nuisance lawsuit." It's a transparent double standard.

At the end of the day I don't feel sorry for Apple, Google or Napster in this case but I do feel sorry for Intertainer. Their suit won't last five minutes once the defendants' legal counsel finds the following patent which trumps Intertainer's patent and was filed three years prior and issued one year prior to Intertainer's.

This is the patent Apple and Google should be thinking about:

Boesjes Patent:
Patent number: 6799165
Filing date: Jul 28, 1998
Issue date: Sep 28, 2004
Inventor: Eimar M. Boesjes

An apparatus is disclosed herein comprising: a) a storage and distribution means; b) an inventory upload means; c) a product information download means; d) an order upload means; and e) a delivery download means. A method is disclosed herein comprising the steps of: (a) digitally transferring the goods and product information pertaining thereto from a provider of the goods to a storage and distribution means; (b) storing the goods, product information pertaining thereto, order information, and possibly sales information and marketing information on the storage and distribution means; (c) digitally transferring the product information to a shopper; (d) digitally transferring order information from a buyer of the goods to the storage and distribution means; and (e) digitally transferring the goods to the buyer. The storage and distribution means may be used to store digitally transferable goods, product information pertaining thereto, marketing information, and sales information....

Intertainer Patent:
Patent number: 6925469
Filing date: Sep 5, 2001
Issue date: Aug 2, 2005
Inventors: Kevin P. Headings, Steven M. Schein
Assignee: Intertainer, Inc.

The present invention is directed to an open business platform that provides an end-to-end solution for managing, distributing, and/or retailing digital media assets from various content suppliers. In one or more embodiments, the present invention provides an integrated system that permits media content suppliers to deposit their media assets with the system where they are prepared by a content management system for distribution to consumers via a secure distribution system. The media content suppliers may then track and-control the use of their media assets through a subscriber management system for managing consumer accounts, a licensing server for issuing licenses restricting the use of media content, and a royalty reporter for determining and reporting royalties to the various content suppliers.

Fred Voetsch

Forget Apple and Google, these scam artists are trying to take a free ride off my small company, Acclaim Images. They have served me and this may be the end of my small company or I may have to lay off employees to pay the legal costs. This patent, 6,799,165, is patently adsurd! I was actually in business and using this system prior to their patent being issued.

Ken Murray

Has anyone else been approached re: the 6,799,165 patent?

Fred Voetsch

I now have a page to easily find info on patent 6,799,165 at http://www.acclaimimages.com/patent_6799165.html so visit it and contact me if you have evidence to contribute so we can stop the patent scammers.

John Valente

YES! I have one of those letters claiming infringement of patent 6,799,165 right here in front of me for my children's ebook website, www.Ebooks4Tots.com

How are we supposed to respond to this nonsense???

John Valente
jvalente1435 (at) gmail.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter