I am really curious if an event like <i>this</i> will eventually promote change in the software patent laws.<p>We've been watching events like Lodsys running around kicking everyone in the knees and international developers pulling their apps out of the app store out of fear of litigation[1] while Apple seems unable[3] to actively step in and protect its developers.<p>Then you have other patent trolls sitting around, biding their time and waiting for targets to become profitable enough to make it worth their while to sue[2]<p>For something that was created with the sole purpose of protecting innovation, it has really become a perversion. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think the original laws were put in place out of good intentions (path to hell and all that...)<p>If software patents are done away with, I think we just throw the pendulum in the opposite direction and now everyone with money and strong development teams steamroll the competition.<p>For example, I am sure Skype developed and patented some seriously impressive tech for VoIP and video that Google, Microsoft and Apple would have simply ripped off if given the chance... as opposed to licensing it or buying the parent company.<p>There has got to be a middle ground where the original intent of the patent system is maintained, but we do away with these selfish/unprincipled folks that buy up portfolios just to molest the system.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.iphoneanswers.net/2499/will-international-app-developers-leave-the-us-app-store-over-patent-fears.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.iphoneanswers.net/2499/will-international-app-dev...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/angry-birds-lawsuit/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/angry-birds-lawsuit/</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.edibleapple.com/lodsys-argues-against-apples-motion-to-intervene-on-behalf-of-ios-developers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.edibleapple.com/lodsys-argues-against-apples-moti...</a>
Until recently, I thought that the patents issue was a PITA, but not that big of a deal, and something that would eventually pass after a lot of damage is done.<p>Now, I really believe that unless things change, the US is going to have a lot of trouble attracting new businesses to start at home, or foreign companies providing services in the US. Spotify will run their own cost benefit analysis of fighting the lawsuit versus attracting future revenue. Many small services that cannot afford an upfront lawsuit in the hope of future American revenue will just not open shop or services for the US.<p>It hurts me to see how the patent system is screwing with every damn thing. As they say for startups, competition from other countries won't hurt America, but inefficiencies and bad decisions within would. And IMHO the risk is not hypothetical anymore.
With that kind of welcome, I'd just say screw it and leave. The US is a big market sure, but there's lots more Europe to do where there's less crazy.<p>I'll go back to listening to spotify via a vpn through our sever in London. An IP curtain has descended across the continent...
"You could have asked any semi-competent engineer how would you build a digital music streaming service, and you would have received a similar general explanation."<p>The question I had after reading that was "who thought to ask about building a digital music streaming service in 1995?"<p>I was a little disappointed the post didn't cover that.<p>Statements like that remind me of the often cited "I could have done that" when people talk about art.
This patent was filed in 1995 [edit: and it actually claims priority back to 1994]. Was there really much relevant prior art in this space back then?<p>One other comment: I really appreciate that techdirt actually included a claim from the patent. Most articles posted here just quote the title or the abstract, which is useless as far as determining what's covered and what's not.
Everytime something like this is posted on HN, people say in the comments "I hope <i>this</i> will push patent reform". I feel like this issue has been brought to light a lot recently, but is this just my bias as an HN reader? Have lawsuits and patent fights been going on for many years, or is it escalating right now?
It is Spotify today, which is just a music streaming service.. for which a lot of other alternatives already exist. It could be a high-tech foreign robotics company in future which might just decide not to market products in US or worse price them much higher factoring in all the litigation fee...
This is ridiculous. How were they even approved a patent for something so broad and general? Is it a matter of the judges not understanding the technology?<p>There are a lot of recent law school grads out there that are having a hard time finding jobs. I tell a few of my friends in such a situation all the time that they should get into the IT area because there is so much going on. What's the climate like for challenging patents like this in court?
I'd like to file a patent please. It's for a system of computer fastness where somehow we manage to get a processor to switch at a frequency of 1000ghz and use that speed to perform rapid computations to execute various programs really fast.<p><i>wait 15 years</i><p>Booyah!!
I hate patents as much as the next guy, but to imply a patent is less valid because it was purchased is bunk. Part of the value of patents is that the inventor can sell them. If they aren't as compelling after being sold, then the inventor can not demand as high a price. That doesn't seem fair to the inventor. The fact that the patent has changed hands should not influence anyone's opinion on the matter.
But why Spotify and why now? Couldn't they have hit Apple, Real, Microsoft, (new) Napster, Amazon, Pandora, Last.fm and a zillion other drm-music-to-device streaming services before now? Have they summonsed these services already but we just don't know about it? Who exactly is trying to keep Spotify out?
One of the problems is that this companies don't have anything to loose by bringing these lawsuits. They just have to fill some papers electronically, pay a few hundred dollars and the other party have to loose thousands of dollars to protect itself.