I don't think so, The whole point of patenting something is that you have exclusive rights to your invention for a defined period of time (depending on your country's laws..). Its not your responsability to make sure that no one infringes on your patent... its the responsability of others to make sure they don't infringe on your patent... If not a person that would file a patent would be continuously doing research to make sure no one is infringing on them...ElDiabloConCaca said:Since iTunes has been around, oh, at least 3 years now, I think their lawsuit is moot. They should have either a) done something with their patent or b) sued Apple a long time ago.
Actually, that is not entirely true. Patent infringement gives you grounds for a civil lawsuit; it's not a criminal offense.xarcom said:Its not your responsability to make sure that no one infringes on your patent...
I wasn't infering that it was a crimal offense, I am simply stating that if your a developper and you release a product, its your responsability to make sure it doesn't infringe on any patents if not you could get sued.brianleahy said:Actually, that is not entirely true. Patent infringement gives you grounds for a civil lawsuit; it's not a criminal offense.
If you don't sue people who infringe your patents, no law enforcement body will take any action. To enforce your patent, you must file a suit and pay all costs associated with pursuing it.
This is the part that I don't agree with ( your #2 ). Regardless of (1), you still own the rights to your invention and also the right to sue for compensation or whatever.. The only way that #2 could happen (in Canada at least..) is if some prior art pops up that can prove that you were not the first person to think about your invention.brianleahy said:Furthermore, if you FAIL to sue infringers, there are two bad side effects: (1) you get a reputation as a wishy-washy patent enforcer, which will encourage others to infringe without fear (2) you may lose your right to sue in the future. (I'm less sure about this -- it definitely applies to copyrights though.)
I agree, this type of thing shouldn't be able to be patented.xarcom said:I think the larger issue here is that things like that shouldn't be patentable... sometimes I wonder if someone will patent the while loop !
If what you're saying is correct, I think Apple shouldn't have any problems getting out of this lawsuit. All they have to do is point to these applications: Windows Media Player, Creative PlayCenter, Winamp, etc, etc.brianleahy said:For instance, if I patent a widget, and then I find out that Acme Inc. is infringing my patent - and I don't sue them....
Then later Mega Inc. infringes my patent, and I do sue them....
If A1 can prove that I knew about Acme, and made no effort to stop them, they may be able argue successfully that I have abrogated my patent rights.
By this, Apple could be mighty screwed, except iTunes is so widely used I believe it would be impossible to stop its distribution as the prosecuting company demands.Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
-- Title 35 US Code 286
Actually, if a defendant can prove that is the case, than the plantiff loses their rights to collect in most cases.fjdouse said:If held such a patent, I'd leave it as long as I could so Apple could make heaps off it and then settle for a nice cash payout. I'm not saying that's what their plan was... but...