News

Apple Wins Media Download Patent

Friday, December 1st, 2006 at 8:15 AM - by

Apple Computer's ongoing legal battle with David Contois is finally over, now that the patent he says Apple stole from him was awarded to the iPod maker in an out of court settlement. The patent in question describes how computers manage and download media files to external devices - in essence, exactly what iTunes does.

Michael Starkweather, the attorney that wrote the patent for Mr. Contois, commented "That's the billion dollar patent. I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos."

Mr. Contois and his company, Contois Music & Technology, filed a suit against Apple in February 2006 claiming that the iTunes software violated his patent in 21 different ways. At the time, he asked the court for monetary damages and an order to prevent Apple from distributing iTunes. If the requests had been granted, it could have been potentially devastating for Apple since iTunes is the linking conduit between computers, iPods, and the iTunes Store.

Apple denied that it was infringing on the patent, and in June counter-sued for reimbursement of legal expenses.

The terms of Apple's settlement with Mr. Contois have not been disclosed.

9 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:22 pm

If the patent was really useful/valuable, why didn’t Apple announce it themselves? Sounds more like shameless self-promotion by a lawyer than a bankable asset for Apple.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:46 pm

Rainy Day wrote:
If the patent was really useful/valuable, why didn’t Apple announce it themselves? Sounds more like shameless self-promotion by a lawyer than a bankable asset for Apple.

Been around Apple much? This is exactly what Apple does. Nothing. They do that when they are right also. Apple is notorious for being tight lipped about everything and in this case it is obvious that they were in the wrong, otherwise, the little guy would have lost. And since there was a settlement with no disclosure and no court case really says something. This guy's got it made for life. And his kids, their kids, and theirs . . . . .

So if you reread the story and are able to grasp its true content, you'll see that the "shameless" grandstanding lawyer made a point that Apple acted on. "That's the billion dollar patent. I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos."

Get wise. Or a PC.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:57 am

Quote:
Get wise. Or a PC.

A PC? No way! I might have to pay royalties to Apple.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:00 am

If this is really such a valuable patent, did the guy settle for a billion? More? Unclear to me why the lawyer would let such a valuable patent go for a measly hunnert million.

Dave

Quote this post ↓

pilky said:

member since 29 Nov 2006 with 4 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:35 am

Guest wrote:
If this is really such a valuable patent, did the guy settle for a billion? More? Unclear to me why the lawyer would let such a valuable patent go for a measly hunnert million.

Dave

Because the guy who had the patent before wouldn't have really had the money to deal with extra claims. Plus a few hundred million is a LOT of money. With the possibility of a few hundred million or a lot less money and being known as the guy who prevented iTunes from being distributed I guess most people would take the few hundred million

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:28 pm

First, Apple did not pay this guy a few hundred million guaranteed. If it had, there would have been an announcement, as Apple would have had to report this pay-out to shareholders. You guys do remember, the Creative settlement right? Apple announced the settlement.

Second, patents today are BS. They are awarded for obvious ideas, and the patent holders do not even have to have a fighting chance to bring the patented idea to life.

Third, Apple probably paid the guy less then a hundred thousand dollars because to defend the matter it will cost Apple at least that. Accordingly, it makes more sense to just pay the guy off.

Fourth, real companies, like Apple, rarely sue people over patents. Instead, the patents are held so that the companies can pull them out as counterclaims when they are sued. For instance when Creative sued Apple, Apple counter sued Creative over patents Apple holds.

Fifth, Apple will not sue anybody over this patent.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:32 pm

PS:

Come on, Creative actually had a legitimate patent that Apple unsuccessfully fought to be invalidated before it was awarded and before Creative sued. Apple only paid it a hundred millions dollars, and it announced the settlement. Shareholders will notice a hundred million missing dollars.

The guy got peanuts.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:44 am

Peanuts. $M100. Mmmm!

Idiot.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:52 pm

Guest wrote:
Get wise. Or a PC.

Yep, definitely an Either/Or choice.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.