Streaming Services Face Patent Troll Lawsuit
April 10, 2018 - storage organizer
Guest post by Mike Masnick of Techdirt
Another day, another story of another obvious troll. This one is about MOAEC Technologies LLC, a “patent licensing” organisation that exists usually around four associated patents for a “music organizer and party center.” Last month, MOAEC sued Spotify, SoundCloud and Deezer over these patents. It’s engaging that a lawsuit came usually a few weeks before Spotify’s IPO, as we’ve seen a garland of companies sued for obvious transgression right before their IPOs — though it didn’t forestall Spotify’s IPO from happening.
All 3 lawsuits concentration on US Patent 6,232,539, that is described this way:
A song organizer and party core provides a core carrying a microprocessor, sound label functions and high-volume information storage and retrieval units for personification behind song according to a accumulation of fixed categories. Music can be played behind in pointless form or can be played behind according to a sold pre-selected order. The categories are supposing by use provider who delivers comparison titles and/or songs to a finish user. The songs are typically installed regulating a tradition CD-ROM supposing from a use provider. The song is supposing in data-compressed form and is decompressed and processed by a sound label during playback. The categories can embody a accumulation of parameters such as title, artists, date, speed, dance characteristics, biased appetite turn and song style, such as easy-listening, upbeat, etc.
Digging into a tangible claims, a genuine concentration here appears to be on a ability to name “a category” of music:
a graphical user interface arrangement carrying a comparison of selectable screens, during slightest one of a selectable screens including a comparison of difficulty buttons assembled and organised so that when a fixed of a difficulty buttons is activated, song selections carrying difficulty flags relating a fixed difficulty of a particular of a buttons are comparison and listed on a display.
Everything else in a obvious appears to usually be around personification music. But it’s formidable to see how this even remotely passes the Alice test for a ubiquitous mechanism function. The scarcely matching filings try to insist that this obvious revolves around some enchanting invention:
The claims of a ’539 Patent do not merely recite a opening of some business use famous from a pre-Internet universe along with a requirement to perform it on a Internet. Instead, a claims of a ’539 obvious recite one or some-more resourceful concepts that are secure in computerized electronic information communications networks, and an softened process to broach calm and yield interface among opposite accounts and computing systems.
The claims of a ’539 obvious recite an invention that is not merely a slight or required use of electronic inclination for song playback. Instead, among other things, a invention adds new facilities to broach content, confederate focus interfaces and other protocols together on common networks. The ’539 obvious claims so embody improvements for, for example, storing song information in organisation with a set of fixed flags, including an tenure difficulty flag, and needing user-customizable playback of music, formed in partial on a flags.
Accordingly, any explain of a ’539 obvious recites a multiple of elements sufficient to safeguard that a explain in use amounts to significantly some-more than a obvious on an incompetent concept.
Of course, all described above was not singular due to a miss of ideas to be means to do any of this, though usually a miss of prepared ubiquitous purpose computing equipment. In other words, there’s zero singular or non-obvious is a patents. The reason we didn’t have this progressing was that a underlying record wasn’t prepared for it, that is partial of what should nullify these patents underneath Alice.
That is… if these companies indeed quarrel a lawsuits. As always, it is mostly easier and cheaper to settle a obvious lawsuit than to quarrel it, even if we would win. Though, settling will usually attract some-more of these kinds of bother lawsuits.