ZD News reports that New York company, E-Data has filed a patent suit in Germany against Microsoft, Tiscali and OD2 (a digital music company). E-Data claims that the companies’ downloading services (MSN Music Club and Tiscali Music Club) which enable consumers to download music off the internet and record it on to a CD for a fee, infringe a patent it was granted in 1985 that is valid in Germany, England, France, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Sweden. The patent covers the sending of information to a remote point-of-sale, where information is then transferred to a material object such as storage media. A US case on the patent previously held that while recording music on to a computer’s hard drive is not within the teaching of the patent, recording on to physical media such as a CD at an in-store music kiosk is. E Data is seeking to equate a person’s home computer with a remote kiosk and is arguing that a CD or MP3 player constitutes transference to a physical object.

The IPKat is more accustomed to seeing copyright disputes, rather than patent cases, in the field of music downloads. As the case stands, E-Data are trying to draw an analogy between today’s technology and the state of technology in 1985, long before the days of the Internet Revolution, let alone music downloads. The analogy seems like a bit of a stretch – for example, can a person’s home computer really be equated with a music kiosk based in a conventional shop?

For the wonderful world of kiosks click here, here and here

MICROSOFT IN PATENT BATTLE <strong>MICROSOFT IN PATENT BATTLE</strong> Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, October 16, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.