As mentioned earlier, on April 11, 2011, Walker Digital, LLC filed a number complaints for patent infringement in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

In another of the complaints involving Apple, the patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,236,942, Pre-sale data broadcast system and method.  [Full Complaint]  Listed inventors are Jay. S Walker himself, Daniel E. Tedesco, and Magdalena Mik.  The application was filed December 28, 1998, though it is a CIP of two other applications, one dating to December 19, 1997.

Defendants are Amazon, Apple, B&N, Best Buy, Bloomingdales, Dell, Ebay, Expedia, Gap, GSI Commerce Solutions, Macy's, Microsoft, NBA Media Ventures, Nieman Marcus, Nordstrom, Overstock, Saks Direct, Target, Verizon, WalMart, and others.

Agility IP Law, LLC attorneys including James C. Otteson are listed Of Counsel for Walker Digital.  Local counsel are Richard D. Kirk and Stephen B. Brauerman of Bayard, P.A.

 

Regarding Apple:

Upon information and belief, Defendant Apple is infringing (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ‘942 patent in this District and throughout the United States by, among other things, making and using systems for promoting a sale of a substitute product, including iTunes, covered by, without limitation, claims 1, 12 and 13 of the ‘942 patent. By way of example and without limitation, Defendant receives transaction data from a consumer regarding an original product, such as DVD movie, through iTunes, transmits that data to its server to determine a possible substitute product, such as a different DVD movie, offers the substitute product to the consumer through iTunes, consummates the sale of the original product if no information concerning a substitute product offering is received or the consumer declines the substitute offering, and consummates the sale of the substitute product upon acceptance of the offer of the substitute product by the consumer.

 

Claim 1, for reference:

1. A method for promoting a sale of a substitute product, comprising:

• receiving transaction data regarding an original product presented for purchase by a consumer at a point of sale terminal;
• transmitting said transaction data to a remote server of a manufacturer during a transaction session for determination of a possible substitute product to be offered to said consumer;
• upon receipt of information regarding said substitute product from said remote server, offering said substitute product to said consumer before the transaction session terminates;
• consummating a sale of said original product if at least one of
  
  • (a) no information regarding said substitute product is received from said remote server, and
  • (b) said consumer declines said offering; and
• consummating a sale of said substitute product upon acceptance by said consumer of said offering.

 

Previous coverage:

• Walker Digital v. Apple et al. - '014 Navigation Complaint
• Walker Digital Files 15 Suits, 100+ Defendants including Apple

From the press release:

Walker Digital Files Lawsuits in Patent Dispute

More Than 100 Defendants Named in 15 Suits Filed After Company Efforts Fail to Obtain Commercial Licenses

STAMFORD, Conn. & WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Walker Digital, LLC announced today that it has filed suit in Delaware to stop the unauthorized use of its intellectual property rights and to recover its substantial investment in innovation. In total, 15 suits have been filed against more than 100 defendants, including Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, WalMart, Groupon, Apple, Sony and Google.

[...]

Commenting on recent developments, Ellenthal stated, “We are disappointed that after reaching out to so many companies in an effort to secure reasonable licenses, we were consistently told that without litigation our requests would not be taken seriously. [...] Indeed, ironically and unfortunately, our efforts to avoid litigation have been met, in some cases, with lawsuits filed against us just because we sent letters asking companies whether they would be willing to license some of our patented inventions.”

[...]

I am not sure what could be considered "ironic" about a D.J. being filed against an entity seeking licensing revenue based on claims, no matter how veiled, that the other party needs a license to operate.  "Fair" is the word that actually comes to mind.

More to follow when the complaints become available.

 

Amazon didn't beat Apple to market because of technology.  They beat Apple to market by going without licensing.

Amazon has announced its Cloud Player and Cloud Drive, which allow users to upload music for later streaming back from Amazon to various devices.  There has long been speculation that Apple is working on a similiar "cloud" component for the iTunes ecosystem.  Rumors intensified when Apple acquired Lala.

It is doubtful that Apple's delayed entrance into this market is related to technical issues.  Apple delivers high volumes of digital content through the iTunes Store, the App Store, and most relevantly, through streaming of movie rentals.  I've always presumed that Apple has been reluctant to offer such a service without explicit licensing agreements with the major music companies.

In the late 1990s, MP3.com provided an online streaming service called my.mp3.com.  Users would insert a CD into a CD-ROM drive, MP3.com software would identify the disk, and the user would be provided with streaming access to online MP3 versions of those songs via the web.

MP3.com was promptly sued.  MP3.com argued fair use, but quickly faced a partial summary judgement:

The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear. Accordingly, on April 28, 2000, the Court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment holding defendant liable for copyright infringement.  (UMG RECORDINGS, INC. v. MP3.COM, INC., SDNY, May 4, 2000, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761)

Amazon reportedly has not obtained licenses to stream users' content, but is working on obtaining them.  From the WSJ:

Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment said the company was "disappointed" with the way the online retailer launched the new service, known as Amazon Cloud. "We are keeping our legal options open," the spokeswoman added.

Perhaps the legal landscape has changed since UMG v. MP3.com, but I wouldn't get too attached to Cloud Drive quite yet.