Comments on: Apple, Google, & Napster Sued by Intertainer

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:17:07 +0000

Unfortunately people will do nearly anything for money these days. I just don’t see how such a small company will be able to afford the lawyers necessary to fight these huge corporations.

By: CoryC

CoryC — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:39:09 +0000

Some of these companies are going off the deep end with their patent lawsuits

I agree. Intellectual property is one thing but filing a patent in 2005 for the sole purpose of suing; you got to be kidding.

By: waghdude

waghdude — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:48:55 +0000

The difference between Microsoft and a patent holding company is that Microsoft at least makes products, and can be guilted into opening up their patents. Apple, Google, Yahoo, IBM, and Microsoft have lots of broad patents (see for yourself on Google's patent search using "inasignee:") but how many silly lawsuits do they start? These smaller patent holding companies don't hesitate to file lawsuits because they don't have to worry about user backlash. It would be good if patent reform efforts would distinguish between speculative/litigious patent holders and companies that actually make products - you know, the ones that the patent system was supposed to help.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:51:02 +0000

The idea of distributing audio and video over the Internet is somehow original? Isn’t that what the Internet is about? Why did the Patent Office give them a patent in the first place? That’s the root of the problem. The patent system is broken. Starting with an agency (the Patent Office) that makes money from the fees that it collects for each patent. That office therefore has an institutional bias and financial incentives to grant all types of ridiculous patents.