We received a lot of emails, many ask us some funny questions, the followings will give a better understanding of Pat-rights to your readers…
re: Pat-rights demands 12% from Apple(cont’d)
Dear Sir,
I am Mark Neilson, Director of Pat-rights.
We received a lot of emails, many ask us some funny questions, the followings will give a better understanding of Pat-rights to your readers :
What is Pat-rights ?
Pat-rights is an International company, not Hong Kong, it owns a portfolio of “Intenrnet user identity verification” patents and patent applications, and they are essential for Internet digital content distribution etc. Pat-rights will enter into the Internet digital content distribution market soon and it’s headquarter will be in USA.
Apple not patent “Computer registration”= “willful Infringement” of our US Patent 6,665,797 ?
We do believe so.
Look at Apple’s “Computer Registration” procedures-it requires a user to submit, by means of an Internet computer, his financial account info to their server, verify the validity of the info, authorise itune software to bind itself to the hardware of the user Internet computer so as to prevent the itune software to be use on other computers and thereafter, play music tracks on that user internet computer, without repeated payment for the sound tracks. This infringing US Patent 6665797, claims 6, 18, 20, 21 etc.(http://www.pat-rights.com/ComparisonChart.doc)
Let me ask you one question. If you were Apple and this was an original idea of your own, would you try to patent it and file an application at least? or let Microsoft or any other party to freely use it and make yourself to compete with them in the market ?
Our PCT patent application PCT/IB99/02026 was published on June 28, 2001. They got the patent info and made use of the invention to sell sound tracks in 2003.
Is “12%” too much?
Before I answer you, I have to tell you our story.
We sent a copy of our allowed patent application to Apple early in September 2003, before the patent 6665797 was published in December 2003. Thereafter, we sent many others. There was no response.
Apple uses our invention, pays us no license fee, not a word of thank you and has no prior art to beat down the patent(http://www.pat-rights.com/news.html). But they get hugh profits and people curse us, say that we are thieves, our patent is stupid.
If Apple cannot use our invention, they can’t sell music tracks, and they will have to offer subscription services, like what Napster is doing. One measure of reasonable license rate in courts is the realised profits that should be credited to the invention. This is a simple mathematic-the profits of Apple minus that of Napster, the court will rely on this figure. Of course, there are other minor factors to be considered. The actual damages determined may well exceed 12%.
Any “Prior Art” ?
Before our invention, or a few years ago, the only known methods used to protect paid and copyable software from unauthorized copying, is by means of a piece of special hardware. Such methods are useless.
The only useful prior art in selling sound tracks we know is burning sound tracks into CDs, and place the CDs in retailor shops for sale. If Apple has no other prior art and they don’t want a license from us, then they should consider very carefully how to make use of this prior art.
Is Pat-rights going to sue Apple?
This depends on the negotiation progress.
Any progress now?
Apple gives me a strong feeling that this company is not going to be a good partner in our future development. I am observing.
Kindly let me know if you have other questions and when the story is published.
Regards,
Mark.
