Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Patent Describes iTunes Reselling and Loaning System

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the on-the-internet dept.

Books 97

An anonymous reader writes "An Apple patent granted on 7 March details a system allowing customers to resell iTunes and iBooks content to other users at a reduced price, or to loan the content temporarily for free. Such a system could pave the way for second hand content being made available on iTunes for a discounted price." (Note: Beware the auto-playing video ad, with sound.)

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apple is for assholes (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108751)

Don't be an asshole. Don't buy Apple.

finally, some good sense (2, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43108897)

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

Re:finally, some good sense (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108931)

they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.

Re:finally, some good sense (4, Insightful)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109197)

they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.

Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it. Your are free to patent another method to do this. If Apple had patented the loaning or reselling of objects that patent would be discredited faster than you can say 'conspiracy theory'. Humans have been loaning, renting and selling each other objects since somebody invented the stone hand-axe 1.6 million years ago. It's hard to get more prior art than that.

Re:finally, some good sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110163)

This is why the patent system is broke.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110943)

This is why the patent system is broke.

Because people have atrocious reading comprehension skills?

Re:finally, some good sense (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114479)

Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it.

I'm losing patience. On threads like these you always get idiots like you who are nay sayers and go about "oh they only patented a method of doing it".

Have you actually read the patent. It's very short (which should be an indication of quality) and very copy/pasted (another indication).

Basically they've patented a method for transferring DRM ownership, where the "method" if you can call something so excrable a method involves tracking the user, providing renumeration (or deciding to), stating that tracking includes tracking how long the usre has had the item (no shit!) and a bunch of other really trivial stuff, then all of the above ON A COMPUTER which has a PROCESSOR and a STORAGE DEVICE!!!

That's it.

So yes, they have basically patented the idea of transferring DRM to other people ON A COMPUTER with a STORAGE DEVICE.

The claims are vague, broad and general. Nothing new like an algorithm is patented and this adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.

If Apple had patented the loaning or reselling of objects that patent would be discredited faster than you can say 'conspiracy theory'.

You need to pull your head out of your ass and actually read one of these patents that you are so blindly supporting.

Without exception, every stupid patent that has come up on slashdot that I've taken the time to read has been an utter waste of time except to confirm quite how bad the patent system really is.

Re:finally, some good sense (1, Troll)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110183)

How fucking generous. I can lend my own virtual property, just like I can lend any physical item I own.

Shove your DRM up cock.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

sosume (680416) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112293)

Because there is no prior art in second-hand sales (even using a computer, internet, mobile device, whatever)

Re:finally, some good sense (3, Funny)

gurps_npc (621217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43108979)

Yes the approach makes a lot of sense.

Which is why other people have been doing it for years.

Figuring out a different way to do something that Barnes and Nobles (lending econtent for a short time) or everyone else in the entire world already does (right of resale), is not something worth patenting.

It isn't even worth praise.

It's worth a "Finally you idiots figured out what we've been saying!"

Re:finally, some good sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109023)

Excuse me? Patenting what people have done for decades with physical objects, makes A LOT OF SENSE????????????? Not in my world.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111303)

You clearly don't understand how patents work, then.

People were traveling around for thousands of years. Somebody was still able to patent the inventions that went into building a modern car.

You see, a patent covers a process AND a method for accomplishing that process.

If you come up with a novel way of accomplishing the task of "reselling things," then yes, you can patent it. You can't just patent... "RESELLING MY SHIT."

Re:finally, some good sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109035)

They're the ones implementing DRM, they're the ones CREATING the artificial barriers. This patent wouldn't even have use if they didn't try to make things that are not normally scarce into things that are scarce.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109525)

I thought they removed DRM?

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110407)

Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive). Not on ebooks or on iTunes video. Not sure when you'd have noticed that though, it's only been pointed out on every DRM-related story (and 80% of the Apple-related ones) on Slashdot in the last few years, and Slashdot *never* discusses DRM or Apple...

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111089)

Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive)....

using itunes-in-the-cloud it will replace your local music files (even old drm'd ones) with drm-free 256kb files. all for free. hope this helps.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Americano (920576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111317)

Technically, iTunes Match (the part that does that) will run you $25 per year, but once a track is upgraded, you can download & store it and continue using it even if you never re-up your iTunes Match subscription.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112563)

double-technically, the itunes match service is free for all of your songs purchased from itunes. for $25/yr you can extend it to your entire collection. So for the GP's specific point, dealing with old drm'd tracks from itunes stor, using the free itunes match service you can download new unlocked high bitrate versions of songs you purchased from itunes store earlier.

Re:finally, some good sense (4, Insightful)

Silas is back (765580) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110095)

To be fair, they implement DRM because the content rights holders want them to. Apple fought to be able to remove DRM from the songs they sell, and they convinced the industry to let them remove it some time ago, which is great and hopefully can expand to the other digital content soon.

Re:finally, some good sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110179)

Thank you for correcting me a bit. I've never used iTunes and I missed that bit. But still, a patent on this does still seem very... silly at best.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

misanthropic.mofo (1891554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110443)

a patent on this does still seem very... silly at best.

The silliness of a patent doesn't enter into the equation. It's not about silliness, common sense or reality when it comes to the patents most of these companies seem to try and get. It's more along the lines of patent everything in sight, imaginable or possible. Do this as broadly as possible and then sue the shit out of anyone that steps on their toes. You can also be assured that if Apple allows for reselling through iTunes, they'll be taking a slice of every transaction made.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110917)

The silliness of a patent doesn't enter into the equation. It's not about silliness, common sense or reality when it comes to the patents most of these companies seem to try and get. It's more along the lines of patent everything in sight, imaginable or possible. Do this as broadly as possible and then sue the shit out of anyone that steps on their toes. You can also be assured that if Apple allows for reselling through iTunes, they'll be taking a slice of every transaction made.

Well, there are plenty of DRM'd formats out there that let you resell them. Like say, DVDs and Blu-Ray. They're DRM'ed, but they allow easy reselling through a different method than the patent...

And really, other than OTA TV, most video IS already DRM'd. Hell, they had analog video DRM as well.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

misanthropic.mofo (1891554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43115023)

Yeah, Macro Vision was a bitch, but luckily easy to get around with an extra little box plugged in.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110371)

To be fair, they implement DRM because the content rights holders want them to. Apple fought to be able to remove DRM from the songs they sell, and they convinced the industry to let them remove it some time ago, which is great and hopefully can expand to the other digital content soon.

Yes and no. Specifically, music yes, video generally not(but at least 3rd-party unencrypted video in the correct format will work), ebooks(see video). 'Apps', 100% Apple's show, and locked down harder than anything. At least ipods always played music from 3rd-party sources...

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Silas is back (765580) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110495)

Seeing how many people pirate iOS and -- even more so -- Android apps tells me that DRM will stay in apps for quite some time.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113685)

iOS application DRM is the least of them all. You can run your iOS apps on all devices that run iOS, unlike books or movies, etc., which cannot be used on all devices that can play MP4 video or ePub books.

Re:finally, some good sense (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113607)

Music DRM was mainly removed because the DRM gave Apple full pricing power over the sales of the songs. As long as the labels wanted DRM they were limited to Apple (with their ~80% or more market share). The only way to tap into the iPod market without being limited to a fixed $0.99 price tag per song as Apple demanded, was to sell DRM free.

It's simply self-defeating.

Apple fighting for DRM free music is either keeping up appearances, or Apple not understanding (in the beginning at least) the huge market power their DRM gave them over the publishers.

Re:finally, some good sense (3, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109443)

You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

Actually, it still reminds me of the first cars: They had no horses (there's no paper in your e-books), but still went to great pains to imitate horse carriages in shape (you can lend your bits and bytes for a limited period, but say no-no to reading them yourself during that period). Breaking down artificial barriers my ass.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109523)

You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

Sure it is.

Of course, that's only if you ignore the fact that Apple is still in charge of what you can sell, who you can sell it too, and how much you can sell it for.

So really, less a step towards 'breaking down artificial barriers,' and more just a novel approach to erecting them.

Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111101)

Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?

when you buy a song on itunes, you download a 256kb aac file with no drm. you are free to do what you please with it. hope this helps.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43115755)

If that's the case, why would Apple have to be involved in order for you to transfer ownership of that file to someone else, and why would they have any control over the price?

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43119463)

if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43119957)

if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.

Here's an excerpt from TFA:

The patent explains: "Techniques are provided for managing access to digital content items. In particular, various techniques are described herein to enable an authorised transfer of a digital content item from a current owner of a digital content item (the 'transferor') to a new owner of the digital content item (the 'transferee')...a 'digital content item' is any item that can be stored in a digital format, including but not limited to an ebook, music, movie, game, software application, ringtone, TV show, or audio book."

Every digital download sold by Apple through its iTunes, App and iBooks stores would keep a record of who owns it, giving them the sole right to consume the file. Selling the download to another user would make a change to this embedded information, transferring rights to the second user and preventing the original buyer from accessing the file.

Sounds like the "No-DRM" version of iTunes is about to go the way of the dodo...

Shame, that.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43121807)

choose one: 1) situation as it is now or 2) situtation as it may be some point in the future if particulars of a patent are implimented. hmm?

i'm telling you that as the sitation is right now, dispite your insistace to the contrary and your refusal to see what's plainly visible, there are no barriers to sharing or reselling purchases from the itunes music store. the greatest challenge is finding a marketplace and payment mechanism, which is the exact solution that the patent proposes.

Re:finally, some good sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109579)

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. This isn't a physical object. It doesn't degrade with use, it isn't a consumable, it can even be copied ad infinitum.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109591)

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

Artificial barriers enforced through law are the core premise behind the protection of Intellectual Property. Why the rush to break them down? People like this poster who think artificial barriers are bad either don't understand IP law or would rather live in a world with fewer content creators who earn much less. At leas that would be an honest position.

In our non-utopian world, laws are the only way to protect and encourage the profitability of developing easily replicated items. That's why traditional "used car" analogies don't fit when applied to IP. As humans who evolved to think about the physical world, laws that protect ideas can be non-intuitive. This doesn't mean they're bad and need to be broken down.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109703)

If you weren't an AC I'd mod you up.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

HybridST (894157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111093)

Not the OP. People like you are why i go with +1 ac in my profile. From somebody with the handle "PoolOfThought" I would have expected a silent mod point applied to the "thought" portrayed rather than bitching about the logged in status of the OP.
 

Re:finally, some good sense (2)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111271)

I don't think you're wrong. But I think maybe you misunderstood my position. My intention wasn't to bitch about the choice of the poster to be anonymous. I only get a certain number of modpoints and I choose to mod (both good and bad) non ACs because so many people filter AC out by default.

Not that you have any control over it, but what would neat (perhaps not "useful", but "neat") is if slashdot would let readers obfuscate author names and toggle them visible as desired. Every AC post would get a new obfuscation to keep you from tying them to one another, but every other post would start out (if the reader desired) with obfuscated "by" names. Then you wouldn't know if you were modding an AC or not - or modding one of your mortal virtual enemies. Might remove a little bit of the AC bias. But, otoh, AC bias is there for a reason... and it's because many of them are truly cowards / trolls.

In any case, your point is taken. I don't know if it will affect my behavior, but I'll definitely take it into consideration as this author really did have a good point. And for the record, that's why I responded... to draw attention - to make it a discussion - rather than one ACs random "rant".

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114407)

That's why traditional "used car" analogies don't fit

Blasphemy! Burn the witch!

You can pry my ridiculously inapposite slashdot car analogies from my cold dead fingers.

Re:finally, some good sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110051)

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

No, not at all. Consider when apple buys back pre-owned digital goods and sells them at a discount.

Re:finally, some good sense (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110337)

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.

Given that it apparently has enough detail for a patent application, I'm going with 'step in the direction of adding complexity to artificial barriers'. Back in the old days, we had this 'first sale' stuff, by which people who bought things could just resell them if they felt like it! Totally crazy stuff. You just went out and did it. No patent-pending techniques required.

Good money says that any system worth patenting will be a crippled, DRM-laden, 'content-provider' approved, closed store where Apple will suffer you to do a limited subset of what we used to think of as "What we have a right to do with what we buy" in exchange for their cut.

Re:finally, some good sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110709)

This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! .

Bullshit... it's just another velvetted set of handcuffs.

Re:Apple is for assholes (1)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109009)

That's why I have a Zune!

The actual patent. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108779)

Techniques are provided for managing access to a digital content item (such as an ebook, music, movie, software application) to be transferred from one user to another.

This doesn't say for "itunes" or "ibooks" or anything of the sort.
I'd say it's a toss up if they even plan on implementing it, or just using it as ammo when another entity tries to.

Re:The actual patent. (4, Insightful)

earlzdotnet (2788729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43108939)

This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.

I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy

Re:The actual patent. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109037)

I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
 
Funny... I'm a happy Apple user. I can't say the same thing when I stuck it out with Linux and Microsoft.

Re:The actual patent. (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109051)

if they don't actually implement it, though, then they'll have some serious antitrust questions to answer.

Re:The actual patent. (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112583)

I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy

Apple makes it's users very happy. It's Linux users that are perpetually unhappy with Apple.

Re:The actual patent. (1)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113697)

You could have left off the last two words.

Re:The actual patent. (1)

collet (2632725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114529)

Give OSX snapping windows and we'll talk.

Re:The actual patent. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114955)

You mean this?

http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/cinch/ [irradiatedsoftware.com]

Re:The actual patent. (1)

collet (2632725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43141885)

Exactly like that. Now give OSX snapping windows!

Re:The actual patent. (1)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113691)

This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.

Based on...???

I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy

For Apple, happy customers is one of their primary driving forces. It's why their products are so wildly popular, in spite of what a handful of butthurt Slashdot-types would have you believe.

Re:The actual patent. (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43136479)

This is why you shouldn't be allowed to patent "as system or method" for something that is not fully implemented and available to customers. I read a great article posted here in the last week or 2 that all patent applications should be submitted with the working code. Thus, any other patent applications for a similar process, using different code could be seen as independently discovered.

Re:The actual patent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109147)

Techniques are provided for managing access to a digital content item (such as an ebook, music, movie, software application) to be transferred from one user to another.

This doesn't say for "itunes" or "ibooks" or anything of the sort.

I'd say it's a toss up if they even plan on implementing it, or just using it as ammo when another entity tries to.

It must be nice to live in your little fantasy world with its crazy cartoon-grade logic. "Welllllllll, the LAST eighty or ninety times they did something like this with patents, it immediately went into iTunes and the App Store or iTMS, but maybe THIS time they've realized the error of their ways!"

Re:The actual patent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109557)

"Welllllllll, the LAST eighty or ninety times they did something like this with patents, it immediately went into iTunes and the App Store or iTMS

Citation needed.

Hmmmm.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108809)

I thought The Pirate Bay and DRM removal tools had already solved this problem. Funny that Apple's getting a patent for this.

i think apple would be all for resales.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108815)

they'll get their 30% off every transaction regardless.. and 'used' content will attract more users who in turn will buy more 'new' bits, too.

i suspect they saw a fight over digital content resale rights from the start.. and now that court case in europe could change everything.

Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43108919)

"second hand content" ...as in second hand DIGITAL content?

Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...

Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109031)

"second hand content" ...as in second hand DIGITAL content?

Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...

It's actually the license contract and viewing rights that are second-hand. The bits of the "content" just come with it.

Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (2)

Dins (2538550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109111)

Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...

They get worn a bit at the edges. So instead of 0s and 1s, they turn into 0.0000000001s and 0.9999999999s.

You need to stop using your Pentium 90 machine (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109759)

That will fix those pesky ragged bit edges.

Re:You need to stop using your Pentium 90 machine (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111469)

I wish I had a Pentium 90, if only for nostalgic reasons. At the time, I was a mac guy and I had one of those pizza box PowerPC 601/66s.

Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109313)

They won't be marketed as "Used" but as "Pre-Owned".

Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110239)

because you know, if you don't give back the bits itunes will run out and won't have any to sell to the next guy

Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43136489)

Relevant [slashdot.org]

Not actually granted, just published (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109185)

Apple now has a published Patent Application as of March 7, 2013. Could be a few years until it's granted, but that's only an estimate.

Commission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109217)

do they take another 30% of the sale price or do they tell you how much you can sell it for and take their 30%

And Apple takes their cut... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109225)

Apple will naturally take a percentage of every "used book" sale. It is of course the same in the existing market, where a second hand book shop will typically buy a book for about 1/4 cover price and then turn around and sell it at 1/2 cover price. All fine and good, it's a service and you pay for it.
The difference is that Apple will provide the ONLY method through which the used goods can be sold. There is no way to cut out the middle man or even choose a different middle man.

User-to-user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109789)

From the application:

As part of the change in access rights, the transferee may pay to obtain access to the digital content item. A portion of the proceeds of the "resale" may be paid to the creator or publisher of the digital content item and/or the entity that originally sold the digital content item to the original owner.

Yup.

Re:And Apple takes their cut... (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111407)

eBay takes 2 cuts if you use PayPal. They bought them so that they could control all the money.

Re:And Apple takes their cut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113447)

Seeing as we are talking about digital goods, it's a lot more like the Gamestop business model (and they buy at 7% and sell it at 95%).

Re:And Apple takes their cut... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113617)

And the tricky part is that you're not (re)selling a book or a music album, you're instead (re)selling a copyright license to that content. And that makes the whole thing much less transparent. After all there is no physical object involved as in traditional sales.

They Patented that? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109227)

Let's see if I have this straight:

Apple just got a patent on allowing people to resell or loan digital "content" when it's hosted on a server and managed by client software? Is that really the meaning of the claims, not something narrower?

Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?

Re:They Patented that? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43110041)

Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?

As long as they get paid for granting patents, this trend will only worsen.

Re:They Patented that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111195)

Yes, that really is the totality of the claims. Slashdot is sometimes overly shrill, but not this time. This is the narrowest claim, and it does nothing more than describe the minimal database you'd need for something like this:

21. A system comprising: one or more processors; one or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause: storing, at a particular entity, first ownership data that authorizes a user to access a digital content item; storing, in association with the digital content item, track usage data that indicates how much the user used or could have used the digital content item; receiving, at the particular entity, from a device operated by the user, relinquish request data that indicates that the user wishes to relinquish authorized access to the digital content item; in response to receiving the relinquish request data, the particular entity identifying one or more conditions associated with the digital content item; based on the one or more conditions and the track usage data, determining whether to provide remuneration to the user; in response to determining to provide remuneration to the user, storing second ownership data that revokes authorization of the user to access the digital content item; and based on the second ownership data, the particular entity preventing the user from further accessing the digital content item.

The further claims are not substantially narrower; they are just special cases and obvious tweaks of this one, like allowing time limits and pro-rated refunds.

Re:They Patented that? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114459)

on the Internet using a database

I think you mean "IN THE CLOUD".

So of course it's new. Because noone else has thought of doing anything obvious like that IN THE CLOUD.

Now how the f*ck could this be granted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109235)

Second hand markets are fundamental to our economies. I give up.

Don't forget the slice for Apple (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109259)

Obviously such a scheme would involve trading through Apple's sites, where Apple gets a cut of the sale.

Re:Don't forget the slice for Apple (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112635)

Apple's slice is clearly a core feature, as it allows them to stem losses caused by seedy individuals who would otherwise peel away their profit.

Sell it... flac them (1)

mynameiskhan (2689067) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109265)

Just yesterday, I was wondering how much I cold have saved by not buying music from itunes store. Do drug and cigarette addicts say the same too?

Re:Sell it... flac them (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109563)

Only when they're considering quitting.

Re:Sell it... flac them (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109763)

At $10 per CD I've saved about $280,000 by not paying for music. Woot! I'm rich!

Re:Sell it... flac them (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109797)

Check that. Forgot the new collection I haven't yet merged.

Closer to $350,000

I've gotta finish my media librarian application.

They patented it that means others services... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43109421)

They patented it that means other services wont be able to do the same for reselling contents or Apple will sue them for using their patent.

Re:They patented it that means others services... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111337)

They wish to patent a technique. If others try and copy the exact technique then yes, if they do it a different way they won't have much chance.

bitbay.com (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109499)

For the best deals on used bitstreams. Special offer, today only: 50% discount on all PDFs. Get them now before they are gone!

Reduced price? (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43109547)

What about increased price? Suppose I buy an ebook. It becomes valuable due to the limited number of copies that were originally made. The original DRM key was lost so no more copies of these bits can be made. Now I go to sell my book for one hundred times what I paid for it. Is that covered by the patent?

Re:Reduced price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110775)

Yes, just suppose...

Re:Reduced price? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113619)

I haven't read the patent (no intention to) but I bet they will have that covered.

Re:Reduced price? (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43115039)

Suppose I buy an ebook. It becomes valuable due to the limited number of copies that were originally made.

This is one of the reasons i'll never suppoort copyright. Artificial scarity and greed. Supporting creators is good think bud limiting distribution to achieve it is nonsense and causes much more harm then good.

They wont do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110059)

They just get the patent to prevent others from using it and set a presidence for themselves. But if you actually think they are going to do this then youre a moron or just an apple fanboy looking for an excuse to wave your apple flag.

Patenting idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110367)

Patenting libraries and second hand shops...

How innovative!

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43110529)

What if I just copied the file and gave it to a friend? Why bother loaning? Or what if I bought a song for $1, copied the file to a different directory/location, and then sold my "second hand" rights for $0.75? I would essentially be paying only $0.25 per song, and then making it available at a cheaper price so that the artist/label gets payed less. Two people would have the song, but only one payed. I don't see how this would work, and I doubt that Apple would implement it.

Another thought just crossed my mind: How come all the music on the radio is aimed at 13-16 year olds? Because 13-16 year olds are the only ones that buy music. Which logically means that they are the largest demographic of iTunes users. Why bother making this system if the only ones who *might* use it are a minority group of adults that read ebooks, especially when they are probably smart enough to figure out how to copy a file and attach it to an email?

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113481)

A digital copy is not second hand it is just like first hand and should sell for the same price. The only thing worse than suggestion something like a second hand digital copy, is to get a patent on it.

Isn't a patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43118885)

This isn't a granted patent, it's a published application. In fact, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) hasn't yet examined the application, so Apple might not even get a granted patent from this application. Given the art unit that the PTO has placed this application in, it might not get examined for some time.

Additionally, since a patent right is not defined by what the application describes, but by the claims that PTO ultimately allows, it's worth noting that the claims Apple is looking to get (you can see them here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130060616.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130060616&RS=DN/20130060616) here are fairly narrow; a competitor would probably be able to "work around" them fairly easily to accomplish the same ends.

I do like the concept of being able to re-sell digital books, etc.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>