January 4, 2007 at 19:38Intertainer patented digital content downloads
Company Intertainer owns US patent № 6.925.469 to download digital content from the Internet. Specifically, the patent describes an online system for managing and delivering digital materials received from different suppliers. This description includes the iTunes Store , Google Video , and other services, even AllofMP3.com . An application was filed in 2001, and a patent was filed in 2005.
Thousands of Internet companies that distribute commercial audio and video recordings over the Internet may be faced with the need to pay royalties. If they refuse, then they will have a trial. The first "refuseniks" whose cases were brought to court were companiesGoogle , Apple, and Napster . It is reported by the NY Times .
Intertainer was founded in 1996 by professional producer Jonathan T. Taplin, who sincerely believed that the Internet would someday become a distribution channel for film and television programs. The startup attracted serious investors, including Microsoft and Intel, and fully armed entered the era of dot-com boom. Until 2002, the full impression was that Intertainer business was growing successfully. The subscriber base on the Internet exceeded 125 thousand subscribers, and another 35 thousand people paid for receiving content through a cable network. But in 2002, the company closed the service and accused Movielink of undermining its business., a company founded by major Hollywood studios, including Sony, Universal and Warner Brothers.
The antitrust investigation against Movielink ended in vain in 2004. During this time, Intertainer lawyers were not idle: they patented the technology for commercial distribution of audio and video files over the Internet. To date, Intertainer owns nine patents, including the aforementioned patent No. 6,925,469. There is a great reason to sue Google, Apple and Napster. Then it will be the turn of everyone else, except perhaps Microsoft, because this is one of Intertainer investors.
The trial will take place at the Marshall District Court (Texas). Going the courts in those places traditionally decide cases in favor of patent owners, but in this case, according to experts, difficulties may arise. The reason is that the patent application was filed relatively recently, in March 2001. At that time, many companies, including Real Networks, already successfully carried out commercial video broadcasts over the Internet with a paid subscription.
One by one, the modern patent system gives rise to such “business lawyers” with bundles of patents in their hands, like Intertainer. They sue everyone in a row - this is their business.
“There are so many similar processes these days,” says Eric Goldman, director of the High-Tech Institute of Law at Santa Clara Law University. - It is difficult to determine which ones pose a serious threat and which do not. I have the same problem with this patent as with other patents of the dot-com boom. I don’t understand what he means. "
Thousands of Internet companies that distribute commercial audio and video recordings over the Internet may be faced with the need to pay royalties. If they refuse, then they will have a trial. The first "refuseniks" whose cases were brought to court were companiesGoogle , Apple, and Napster . It is reported by the NY Times .
Intertainer was founded in 1996 by professional producer Jonathan T. Taplin, who sincerely believed that the Internet would someday become a distribution channel for film and television programs. The startup attracted serious investors, including Microsoft and Intel, and fully armed entered the era of dot-com boom. Until 2002, the full impression was that Intertainer business was growing successfully. The subscriber base on the Internet exceeded 125 thousand subscribers, and another 35 thousand people paid for receiving content through a cable network. But in 2002, the company closed the service and accused Movielink of undermining its business., a company founded by major Hollywood studios, including Sony, Universal and Warner Brothers.
The antitrust investigation against Movielink ended in vain in 2004. During this time, Intertainer lawyers were not idle: they patented the technology for commercial distribution of audio and video files over the Internet. To date, Intertainer owns nine patents, including the aforementioned patent No. 6,925,469. There is a great reason to sue Google, Apple and Napster. Then it will be the turn of everyone else, except perhaps Microsoft, because this is one of Intertainer investors.
The trial will take place at the Marshall District Court (Texas). Going the courts in those places traditionally decide cases in favor of patent owners, but in this case, according to experts, difficulties may arise. The reason is that the patent application was filed relatively recently, in March 2001. At that time, many companies, including Real Networks, already successfully carried out commercial video broadcasts over the Internet with a paid subscription.
One by one, the modern patent system gives rise to such “business lawyers” with bundles of patents in their hands, like Intertainer. They sue everyone in a row - this is their business.
“There are so many similar processes these days,” says Eric Goldman, director of the High-Tech Institute of Law at Santa Clara Law University. - It is difficult to determine which ones pose a serious threat and which do not. I have the same problem with this patent as with other patents of the dot-com boom. I don’t understand what he means. "