German Court Rules Apple Violated OpenTV Streaming Digital Video Patents

Am I wrong in thinking that, from this description, these patents seem extraordinarily vague? How do Android, Netflix, and everyone else not violate patents on streaming digital video?

Am I wrong in thinking that, from this description, these patents seem extraordinarily vague?

Could be, but usually the description (especially in an article) is far more vague than the actual patent claims.

Patently Apple wrote a long piece last year detailing the pioneering background of OpenTV, and about its patents in the lawsuit:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/05/extensive-report-open-tv-sues-apple-over-content-streaming-as-part-of-an-interactive-television-system-more.html

How do Android, Netflix, and everyone else not violate patents on streaming digital video?

They license them, something Apple will also have to do.

5. Be sure to never bother making an actual product.

Then you'd be unlike the companies behind this lawsuit, who have been creating software for e.g. set top box makers for decades.

Am I wrong in thinking that, from this description, these patents seem extraordinarily vague? How do Android, Netflix, and everyone else not violate patents on streaming digital video?

The description has no relevance with the "vagueness" of a patent: what defines the scope of the patent and what is actually protected are the specific patent claims. Without analysing the claims only from the description there is no way to determine what actually the patent is about and whether is "vague" or not.

I think Google actually got a license to use these patents as part of a cross-licensing deal ('https://www.nagra.com/media-center/press-releases/kudelski-group-and-google-enter-patent-cross-license-agreement') with Kudelski.

Netflix should be licensed too ('https://www.nagra.com/media-center/press-releases/kudelski-group-and-netflix-enter-long-term-business-relationship-and').
[doublepost=1458227278][/doublepost]

How is there anything useful in this patent, they made buffering? Or what.

The patent itself has a lenghty description and all of its 22 claims available in English. If you actually read it you'll quickly realise that it's a very specific patent.

Again, evaluating a patent's "vagueness" simply cannot be done without actually reading all of it: the patent's name or a short description are not enough.

Hahaha now fancy that, yet another patent owned by the company who made the product the patent is for, that Apple has used without paying a license for.

I did read this is the time where Apple will be losing cases brought by companies who's parents they use without license.

So Apple has been ordered to stop selling the majority of its devices and services in Germany, right before a new iPad launch. They best get that cheque book out then if they don't appeal.

Apple should simply purchase the Deutchland. :apple:

When I win lottery: 1. form a limited company and file incredibly generic and vague software patents. 2. Wait for a new product from a Silicon Valley company to rub up against my generic patent. 3. Sue said company in Germany and Texas. 4. Profit.

5. Be sure to never bother making an actual product.

So basically you want to be a patent troll? :rolleyes: Regardless, what do your aspirations have to do with OpenTV? Nothing you wrote is even remotely similar to OpenTV v Apple.

Good luck with the lottery and the LLC.;) Gilstrap has been uncharacteristically slapping patent troll hands recently.
[doublepost=1458221102][/doublepost]

Just trying to thwart streaming competition?

Nope. Just trying to get licensing for a legitimate patent.

Am I wrong in thinking that, from this description, these patents seem extraordinarily vague? How do Android, Netflix, and everyone else not violate patents on streaming digital video?

"OpenTV alleges that Apple's iTunes software for downloading or streaming rented movies violates its patents for securely delivering media to consumer devices. The suit claims that other companies, including Apple rival Google, Cisco Systems and Disney, have licensed its technology."

From OpenTV Files Lawsuit Against Apple Over Allegations iTunes Violates Five Patents ('https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/opentv-files-lawsuit-against-apple-over-allegations-itunes-violates-five-patents.1878775/').

But still, a patent for securely delivering media to consumer devices? It should be too vague to be accepted as a patent...