for Phyllis Young only

Affinity Lawsuit against Amazon and Amazon Digital Services

Affinity sued Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Digital Services, Inc., alleging that they infringed the '085 patent by marketing the Amazon Music system, which allows customers to stream music from a customized library. According to Bryson, the Amazon entities moved for the entry of judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the asserted claims were not directed to patentable subject matter (2016). The magistrate judge found that the '085 patent is directed to an abstract idea and recommended that judgment be entered in the Amazon entities' favor. The magistrate judge also rejected Affinity's argument that the customized user interface supplies the inventive concept to the claimed invention. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation and entered judgment against Affinity. Therefore, the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry was addressed and consisted of confirming whether the claims of the '085 patent are directed to an “abstract idea.”

However, Bryson affirmed that Affinity maintains that the '085 patent embodied a concrete technological innovation because, as of its priority date (March 28, 2000), wireless streaming of media was not “routine, conventional, or well-known.” that the magistrate judge improperly engaged in fact-finding when he stated that the idea of delivering media content to a wireless portable device is one of long standing; and objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the claims merely set forth “routine and generic processing and storing capabilities of computers generally (Bryson, 2016).

The second step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry was then addressed, and it was concluded that there is nothing in the claims or the specification of the '085 patent that constitutes a concrete implementation of the abstract idea in the form of an “inventive concept.” According to Bryson, the only putatively narrowing limitation in that result-focused claim is the limitation requiring that the “network based media managing system” have “a customized user interface page for the given user.” but neither the claim nor the specification reveals any concrete way of employing a customized user interface (2016). In conclusion, Bryson affirmed: “we therefore uphold the district court's judgment that the claims of the '085 patent are not eligible for patenting.”(2016).

This situation in which Amazon is liable for the money they have been recipients of, goes against the Intellectual Property Law that protects property that is primarily the mental creativity, rather than physical effort. This Law protects patents, trademarks, and copy rights. The lyrics in music are products of someone’s minds and credit must be given to the artist first. Once a company decides to create a playlist they must acknowledge the individual artist. Amazon making money from the playlist of Affinity without distributing those profits to the rightful owners is illegal, and they are taking the ideas of someone and using it for their benefit versus rewarding them for their efforts. A trademark is defined as “a distinctive mark, word, design, picture, or arrangement used by a seller in conjunction with a product that tends to cause the consumer to identify the product with the producer. Even the shape of a product or package may be a trademark if it is nonfunctional.” And because lyrics are trademarks of a person, and this playlist is a specific idea of Affinity, action was taken against Amazon, with Affinity practicing the Intellectual Property Law.

References

Bryson (2016).  LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Defendants–Appellees retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1746460.html

Kubasek, Nancy K., Bartley Brennan, M. Browne. The Legal Environment of Business,  7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 12/2013. VitalBook file.