Putting Metadata In Video For Search Purposes? Patented! Microsoft Sued
from the it-never-ends dept
The last time we wrote about a small company called Gotuit Media, it was in 2003, when the company was suing TiVo for an excessively broad patent about recording TV while playing back TV concurrently. Apparently, the company is still in the business of suing other companies that are putting obvious ideas into practice. For example, it’s now suing Microsoft over its implementation of Silverlight-based videos for the Olympics on NBC’s website. Microsoft’s crime? Apparently the videos are going to include some metadata that will make them searchable, allowing users to search and find specific content. And, that, according to Gotuit, is patent infringement.
Of course, that’s ridiculous. If you were to tackle the problem of how to create a search engine for video, one of the first things just about any competent programmer would think of is adding text metadata to the video that would then be used for search. But, thanks to the patent system, apparently you can only do that if you’ve agreed to pay Gotuit a licensing fee.
Filed Under: metadata, online video, silverlight, video
Companies: gotuit, microsoft
Comments on “Putting Metadata In Video For Search Purposes? Patented! Microsoft Sued”
Any links to the actual patent?
Anyone have a link to the actual patent that is at issue? Seems like something that should be included in a post like this…
Re: Any links to the actual patent?
Patent Review time! Wouldn’t Closed Captioning be a form of metadata, and therefore, prior art?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3ZmfAAAAEBAJ
Re: Re: Any links to the actual patent?
Its never that simple. Tweak the patent and forge ahead being an asshole troll.
Re: Any links to the actual patent?
This is a blog, not a news site. They link to the sites with the story. Like Slashdot, you are supposed to RTFA but no one does.
My Patent
I patent the idea of profiting from stupid patents.
Re: My Patent
I site multiple examples of “prior art” that make your patent invalid.
How did they get this patent?
Look at this paragraph;
8. A method as set forth in claim 1 wherein said set of segment descriptors is visually organized in an ordered sequence which corresponds to the sequence in which the segments identified by said set occur within a given one of said video programs.
Isn’t that called a Table of Contents? I am sure that no one thought about or used Ordered Segment Descriptors (TOC) before 2004.
Another pertinant patent
This patent is just as valid –
http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6368227
Re: Another pertinant patent
Wow. That one was filed for in 2000 and approved in 2002. Who thought of swinging on a swing before 2000? Definitely not me.
Re: Re: Another pertinant patent
That is actually for swinging side-to-side, rather than front-to-back (the way most people swing). The back story is that the father (a lawyer) was trying to teach his son a lesson about patents and the USPTO. Apparently the lesson was “Look, son, this is how you can game the system.”
Unordered
“wherein said set of segment descriptors is visually organized in an ordered sequence”
Seems all that is needed for this case to fail is to show that the descriptors are unordered.
join us now and...
It is well known that software patents, by design and implementation, often lead to these surreal situations. It is time we join mr Stallman and get rid of this, and possibly other, kinds of patents. Europe is ahead on this front.
Re: join us now and...
I hate to tell you this but some in Europe keep trying to get software patents in through the back door and they’re making another attempt as I type this.
ttfn
John
anyway...
it’s good for a change to see patents used against one of the patent-proprietary-obscurantist giants.
Re: anyway...
It is not good, no matter how much you dislike Microsoft. Software should not be patented. Plain and simple.
Re: anyway...
BS patents owned by large companies like IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc have rarely been used to screw over small companies. Apple has on occasion done this (freetype and their font hinting and rendering patents), but again this is rare.
Instead patents are increasingly used by small litigation houses to extort the larger corporations who find it cheaper to simply settle, license or pay royalties than to screw around in court for months or years on end fighting it.
Patents and Microsoft
Let’s not forget that Microsoft has not been totally innocent in the past. They have opening admitted to stealing technology and then challenging the company they are screwing to sue them. Also, they have been known to buy a company to obtain the technology legally if it was more expedient to do so then to defend their theft efforts.
Also, Microsoft was given a Trade Mark for Window – how stupid is that? It was already a common term in the industry and therefore should NOT have been allowed to trademark the name Windows.
I’m patenting the idea of a business model that does nothing but sue people for patents.
Where are the patent defenders?
Gee, where are all the patent system defenders? Or is this one so overwhelmingly wrong, so incredibly absurd, that even angry dude hasn’t shown up to argue in favor of the patent system?
Re: Where are the patent defenders?
Gee, where are all the patent system defenders? Or is this one so overwhelmingly wrong, so incredibly absurd, that even angry dude hasn’t shown up to argue in favor of the patent system?
If this patent is as overly broad and obvious as some here claim it is, then it’s a problem with the USPTO, not the patent system itself. Pro-patent folks, such as myself, realize that there are serious problems with the USPTO’s patent examination process that need to be rectified. An honest debate about whether the patent system is good or bad shouldn’t bring up shitty patents such as this one.
Besides, attempting to enlighten the minds of stubborn programmers is an excercise in futility.
it’s one thing to sue tivo when it’s starting up, but MS is gonna f*** them up and win the lawsuit, and possibly prove that ms has prior art in windows 3.1.
This patent was a shitty idea anyway.