Skip to Content

Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit

An Eastern Texas District Court judge has ordered Apple to pay US$8 Million to Personal Audio LLC, after ruling that the iPod manufacturer infringed upon patents for downloadable playlists. Specifically, the court determined that Apple violated two generic patents with its support for downloading playlists on the iPhone and the iPod.

According to Bloomberg, one of the patents addressed an "audio program player including a dynamic program selection controller" while the other was for "audio program distribution and playback system." Note that, while eight million bucks is nothing to sneeze at, it's less than the $84 million Personal Audio initially sought in 2009.

That initial suit also included Archos, Coby, and Sirius XM, all of whom settled in 2010, after concluding that they wouldn't be able to finance a challenge of the final verdict.



Categories

iPhone iPod

An Eastern Texas District Court judge has ordered Apple to pay US$8 Million to Personal Audio LLC, after ruling that the iPod...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

9 Comments

Filter by:
Thomas

I sometimes wonder if the judges and jurors in those east texas courts get a cut of whatever gets awarded? There ar so many patents and the trolls need to be cut down.

July 11 2011 at 8:13 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
JHam

Did the term "generic" get lost somewhere in the translation from street speak to legalese? I don't see how any court, with the exception of Eastern Texas, can rule in the favor of a generic patent. It usually encompasses a variety of things, but no one thing in particular. I think I've become more upset with Texas than the patent trolls.

July 10 2011 at 3:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ChristianReiner

Because the costs and risks are high, defendants may settle , as Archos, Coby, and Sirius XM did, even non-meritorious suits they consider frivolous, for several hundred thousand dollars. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of jury trials also encourages settlement. Eight million is quite hefty.

July 10 2011 at 1:25 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rndy Newman

Someone should end this startup issues. There is no sense for letting companies write patents on :
a) Clear things that every 3 years kid can invent.
b) Things that are so basic like download data or metadata. No, matter what it is.

If the patent were invented before the wheel. We were still living in caves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySXl0Oxijw&feature=player_embedded

July 09 2011 at 4:07 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Wayne Luke

$8 Million dollars is something to sneeze at. At least where Apple is concerned. How many iPods and other iOS devices have they sold over the years? 500 million is probably a good guess. This is like 1.6 cents per device.

July 09 2011 at 3:03 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Riccardo

Crazy...Soon someone will sue Apple for "electronic device" patent...Or generic playing music device...this is trolling..

July 09 2011 at 2:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Riccardo's comment
Wayne Luke

Trolling when someone sues Apple but when Apple sues someone they are protecting their rights? Not all patent lawsuits are put forth by patent trolls.

July 09 2011 at 3:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Wayne Luke's comment
furbyslayer

While I agree that not all patent lawsuits are put forth by trolls, from TFA the company involved is "Personal Audio, LLC" and just so happens to reside in the most favorable areas of the country where patent troll companies can thrive... If it looks like a duck... I think I'll go patent the name 'Wayne' move to Texas and file a lawsuit... I'm not trolling, I'm protecting my rights... :)

July 09 2011 at 9:06 PM Report abuse rate up rate down
Rick Ludwig

Personally, I think you should actually have to produce something in order to protect a patient (not necessarily sell, but at least make something). If you patient an "audio program that transfers playlists to a mobile device" then you need to actually MAKE that in order for your patient to apply. A patient violation would then be considered if the products are similar or the methods are similar (and it should be easier to determine if this is "patenting the wheel").

July 10 2011 at 10:59 AM Report abuse rate up rate down
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.