AppleInsider is reporting that Apple and Starbucks are being sued because of their recent iTunes promotion cards. James and Marguerite Driessen claim to hold a patent on, what they call "RPOS" (or retail point of sale for online merchandising). The patent in question allows customers to buy a gift card from brick-and-mortar stores and then go home and redeem the card online. However, Apple has an excuse, because while the Driessens' patent was under review, Apple developed their own similar concept for redeeming the iTunes gift cards. Apple's gift cards allow a person to enter a code on the iTunes Store and receive a whole artist's album, along with the artwork. However, due to legal pressure from the Driessens, Apple apparently pulled the iTunes gift cards from the stores, but left them in UK Stores.
Now, here's where this may get a little sticky. I've been wondering why this is only affecting the Apple iTunes cards. Why aren't other gift card manufacturing companies getting hit with this suit? This patent application seems to describe pretty much every gift card that I have seen; such as those credit-card-gift-cards that you can buy at most malls -- you can also use those online as a credit card. And not to mention those Zune music cards! What do you think? Should Apple be forced to remove their cards that provide convenience to customers, or should they fight back? Be sure to sound off in the comments below!
[via AppleInsider]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
2-22-2008 @ 10:13AM
harrywolf said...
Not sure about stupid patent sluts, but I did hear a rumor from a friend at Microsoft in Seattle that they are going to CLOSE down the Zune division and stop making the Zune.
Supposedly this will happen in the summer, but they will announce it fairly soon, or 'zune' I guess.....
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:50AM
StrangeBum said...
As Ryan Goodlett says below. There is no way MS is shutting down it's Zune division. Like he said, simply because they just announced at GDC that they were enabling games to be developed for it.
The Zune has quite a large support base now, nowhere near iPod, but still large. There may even be a 3rd Gen Zune coming out sometime this year. Most likely between 3rd and 4th quarter.
2-22-2008 @ 10:24AM
Ryan Goodlett said...
@harrywolf
I don't believe Microsoft's Zune division is closing for a second. I have a friend that works on the Zune for Microsoft and haven't heard anything. Plus Microsoft just announced the functionality to create games for the Zune at GDC 08. So I think you've been misinformed.
Reply
2-23-2008 @ 4:54AM
Unregistered said...
I'm with you on this. I guess coupling the Xbox with the Zune will certainly help MS to gain a stronger foothold in the portable entertainment market
2-22-2008 @ 10:27AM
Paul Joyce said...
I guess I should go read the patent but, as described, this seems like another great example of the need for patent reform. How could the examiner not view this as obvious?
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 3:28PM
Fritz Laurel said...
I totally and wholeheartedly agree!
I'm as anti-corporate conglomerate as the next guy, but these patent trolls have got to go.
Patents were intended to protect innovations. Key word: innovation. This is not innovation. Velcro -- now, there's innovation.
This is like the guy who has the patent for using JPGs on a website. And patents last for 17 years?!? In today's day and age, that's just retarded. The current system does nothing but stifle small business startups and therefore consumer choice and in ironic full-circle-ness ... innovation.
My 2 cents.
FL
2-22-2008 @ 10:32AM
Edsel said...
I wonder who owns the patent on toilet paper?
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 6:00PM
south said...
not sure, but given the current climate you could probably claim it was your idea and get the patent for it yourself.
2-22-2008 @ 10:32AM
David said...
If this is true, then M$ and everybody else that uses these kind of cards had better be falling all over themselves trying to help Apple win this. I'm not a lawyer, but I think if this patent gets defended in court like this and is upheld, the precedent has been set, and it will be easy for the patent holder to "run the board" with the rest of the companies. If you want to read an interesting book on this, "Juice, the Creative Fuel that drives world class invention" by Schwartz talks about a number of cases like this.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:35AM
TEG said...
It sounds like this patent is specifically for the purchase of a card in reality for a particular online item. The regular giftcards are purchased with a dollar value to be redeemed for anything. So Apple won't be able to sell a gift card for someones album in a store, so, just buy a dollar value card and spend it on the item, problem solved.
TEG
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 12:03PM
jason mark said...
As a followup to the Patent issue.
TUAW Says:
However, Apple has an excuse, because while the Driessen's patent was under review, Apple developed their own similar concept for redeeming the iTunes gift cards.
Keep in mind you have patent protection from the day you file your preliminary patent application, so if you file for a patent, and the someone "comes up with the same idea" while it's under review, you still have the patent.
Jason
http://www.gravityswitch.com
2-22-2008 @ 10:36AM
alpayerturkmen said...
Well lucky Apple those guys haven't pattented elegant, easy-to-use computer with a price premium.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:38AM
Micheal said...
I'm so sick of people looking for a "get rich quick" scam that ends up holding back technology.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:41AM
drew.blessing said...
One word - STUPID! Patents can be such a crapfest. It's a system that is needed to protect truly significant inventions, but when it comes to basic DUH stuff like this, it's a burden on the system and on the court's time when it comes to cases like this. Come on idiots! Stop trying to sue everyone who walks across your path.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:44AM
Aron Trimble said...
It's called FUD - clearly someone has a vested interest in seeing AAPL drop a few points.
@TEG - The XBOX Live gift cards are not for a certain dollar amount. And plus, with the volatility in USD, is there really anything certain about the dollar? ZING!
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:45AM
Brandon Martinez said...
I agree, it's ridiculous to have "duh" patents. If it's a no-brainer, it should be classified as "common sense", which should be able to be patented.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 10:50AM
doog said...
"Now, here's where this may get a little sticky. I've been wondering why this is only affecting the Apple iTunes cards. Why aren't other gift card manufacturing companies getting hit with this suit? "
I don't think that there is a requirement for a patent holder to sue every alleged infringer at the same time.
I think that Apple would win a suit like this. There does not sound like that there is any technology that is patented here, just an idea. And you cannot patent an idea.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 11:02AM
Patent Boy said...
While you can't patent an idea, you CAN patent a business method or process -- which is what this is.
2-22-2008 @ 10:53AM
Kacy said...
Everyday we seem to see more and more cases where some vague patent is used as an attempt make easy money. Our intellectual property laws need to finally catch up with technology.
Reply
2-22-2008 @ 11:00AM
Patent Boy said...
"However, Apple has an excuse, because while the Driessen's patent was under review, Apple developed their own similar concept for redeeming the iTunes gift cards."
This would not protect Apple, as patent protections preclude the argument of simultaneous innovation even if there was no copying involved. Further, the patent process will protect the Driessen invention since they were the first inventors, even if they filed after Apple had created the same invention.
Apple can use the cards in the UK because the Driessen patent (presumably) was never filed there -- hence, no conflict.
The Driessen patent distinguishes itself from the "credit-card-gift-cards" in a number of ways -- most importantly (and required by law) by citing to the "prior art" such as patent 20050192896 entitled "Method and apparatus for ordering goods, services and content over an internetwork using a virtual payment account."
If Apple is found to infringe on the Driessen patent, it must enter a licensing agreement to use the invention. However, given the number of ways that an RPOS system can be arrange, I'm confident Apple will get a good patent attorney to push back and differentiate the iTunes system. If they can't, the Driessen family deserves to get licensing fees -- they invented the process, and the U.S. Constitution says that Congress should ". . . promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8). Just as Apple is protected in its invention of the MBA, so should the Driessen's be protected in their invention of a useful and unique business process.
Reply