Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scherf (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 2 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Simonoldyk, can you (and anyone else who wants to) please examine the documents at the Gracenote legal page. These are court documents related to the musicmatch case, and they show that the statement linked to at the Manatt website is incorrect and misleading. The link to the Manatt website points to the CV of one of the lawyers for musicmatch (Becker), and in that CV he claims that musicmatch and Gracenote settled the case after musicmatch obtained a summary judgement. This statement is shown to be false by the legal documents above. In the "order to vacate", the court reversed the summary judgement, and in the "Ruling Re Inequitable Conduct" the court found that Gracenote did not obtain its patents fraudulently. It has been argued here that simply because Becker is a lawyer it must be true. Clearly, the documents show that what Becker's CV says is not true, and is at best misleading and at worst just plain dissembling. That link should be removed from the article.

Also note that the court ruled that musicmatch was found to be in violation of contract with Gracenote (I don't recall exactly where this is mentioned in the documents - if you can't find it, I can have someone check). So, musicmatch lost the inequitable conduct trial, their summary judgements were overturned, and they were found to be in violation of at least part of their contract with Gracenote. The lawsuit section of the Gracenote article is obviously just completely wrong, and should either be very carefully crafted by someone who understands legal documents and procedures, or it should be stricken completely. I question the need for such detail, especially in light of the fact that no competitors have similar sections. And, as someone noted here, even the Microsoft article has nothing like this at all. The fact that most of the Gracenote article consists of legal junk, not to mention other negative stuff, seems quite unbalanced. Take a look at the All Music Guide page. There is no mention of legal issues, though they have lost multiple lawsuits against people from whom they (allegedly, I suppose) stole data from. They have a far older and lengthier legal history than Gracenote, but you don't see squat about it.

In addition, the lawsuit section claims:

Until the Musicmatch case, Gracenote attempted to aggressively use its patents in an attempt to enforce a monopoly in commercial CD indentification services. The inability of Gracenote to enforce its patent in the Musicmatch case opened the market for competition, and a growing global group of companies continue to enter media identification and metadata marketplace.

This is supposition, and is not supported by any links that I can see here. It's just plain untrue, in any case. There were plenty of competitors at that time in 2004: freedb was founded in 1999, musicbrainz shortly thereafter, All Music Guide (which is a very old company compared to Gracenote) also offered a competing product, YADB which was started in 2002 by JRiver, and so on. The fact is, there was lots of competition before the 2004 court decision, a fact we knew very well. This statement in the article erroneously implies that this court case somehow proved the invalidity of Gracenote's patents and opened up the entire field for competition, which is obviously untrue. Even if it were true that the case somehow knocked down the patents in question, Gracenote has no less than eight patents regarding the technology (see the USPTO website for a listing); only some of those patents were even in play during the trial, so even if some had been found invalid there are more that would have remained roadblocks to anyone trying to replicate Gracenote's business. Steve Scherf 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Scherf, regarding your statement that the Mannatt lawyer for Musicmatch, Mr. Becker's CV is somehow misleading, I found this reference in the State Bar of California website. In their "Rule of Professional Conduct". Rule 1-400 refers to "Advertising and Solicitation". According to section (D), Mr. Becker is clearly prohibited from making an "untrue statement" from presenting information "in a manner or format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public", and from omitting "any fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public". Are you accusing Mr. Becker of breaking these rules? In this public forum? It should be noted that in the many cases listed on Mr. Becker's CV, there seems to be varying degrees of information for each case. It would appear that he won some cases, just participated in some, and he seems to vary the information depending on the case based on his success. Gracenote's own lawyer's CV page is almost identical, in that Mr. Coates' page "talks up" the cases in which he was successful, but the Gracenote case does not mention any such success. One would assume that Musicmatch did well, and Gracenote did less well.

The collection of legal documents that are posted at the Gracenote website is incomplete. The posted documents do not include Musicmatch's claims against Gracenote, nor many of the other documents relevant to a complete understanding of the case. The Order to Vacate document does not prove anything that you say it proves. All the order says is that the judge has decided to vacate, or set aside her earlier order at Gracenote's request. The decision to vacate could have been made for a large variety of reasons according to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, the judge may have decided that since Gracenote decided to settle for a relatively minor contract violation issue, the previous decision or decisions could be set aside since they are no longer relevant. Finally, whether or not Gracenote got its patents in proper manner or not is irrelevant to the fact that Musicmatch was found not to violate those patents, and to this day still operates its own media recognition service for Musicmatch Jukebox.

Your reference to other companies' is irrelevant to this discussion. However looking at the article I do note several references to legal and other issues. Regarding I did do a search on several search engines for legal problems for its owner, , but cannot find any reference to lawsuits you allege to have occurred. However, a quick seach of "Gracenote lawsuit" on returns many links which refer to Gracenote's lawsuits against its own clients, Roxio and Musicmatch. This propensity to sue customers is most likely one of the reasons why Gracenote has gained notoriety as a controversial company.

With regards to your comments below about the aggressive use of patents and competition opening up after the Musicmatch decision, I cannot find reference to prove this, other than the "Rants and Raves" reader comments at the end of your own interview at Wired. It appears that at least one of your competitors felt that Gracenote was quite aggressive in trying to prevent him from having a good business.

This is getting too long winded and I do apologize. Simonkoldyk, please note that much of what Mr. Scherf is stating is not the complete truth, and in some cases just not the truth. I will refrain from editing the article, but this exercise does show that an employee of a company, regardless of good intent, should not be participating in editing an article. And thank you again for being reasonable.Fatandhappy 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the statement that Gracenote "...attempted to aggressively use its patents in an attempt to enforce a monopoly..." is not an impartial statement. Patents are, by definition, a legal monopoly in a specific area, and stating it like this is intended to vilify Gracenote. Further, if one actually were to read Gracenote's patents, you would see that in no way would they bar anyone from entering the CD identification business. CD identification was around way before Gracenote ever existed (see the full text of the recent Wired interview for details on the history of CD identification), and could therefore not be patented. Gracenote's patents only cover additional methods that either aid in identification or are used after a CD has been identified. Nothing about the Gracenote patents would ever stop someone from starting their own CD recognition service, unless they tried to implement these patented additional methods themselves.

In any case the quoted statement is repetetive (lots of attempted attempts), and identification is misspelled. Steve Scherf 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please do not split my comments in half by inserting your own comments inside. It's very confusing and makes the posting record difficult to determine. Second, I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of lying at every turn. It's getting very old, and threatens to break up the civility that almost seemed to have appeared. I will refrain from escalating, but will say that you need to cut the rhetoric. I'll say again what I've said a number of times before - just as you claim I shouldn't be editing this article, neither should you. People with extreme bias should recuse themselves from editing topics, and that includes people on both sides. But as long as you're going to be here doing your best to hurt Gracenote in any way you can, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be here too.

Now, as for the verity of the the fact that the court overturned itself on the summary judgement, what do you think the vacation order refers to? And yes, Becker's text is deceptive. It says that Gracenote and MM settled after the summary judgement, which is technically entirely true. He just happens to omit the fact that the summary judgement was overturned, which sure makes his summarization of the case look good. I will not disparage Becker here. I admit that it could be a simple error and totally unintentional. But it is deceptive in a material way, because it omits a very important fact. The link to that page should be removed from the Gracenote article.

As for your statement that the documents are missing relevant information WRT the court vacating its prior summary judgements against Gracenote, you must not be reading the documents closely. Please refer to the order to vacate, page 2. There you will see it say, The following prior orders are hereby VACATED, followed by a list of two orders, dockets 683 and 779. It also provides the names of the two documents, to avoid confusion. Now please refer to document 683, aka "Order Addressing Parties' Cross Motions For Summary Judgement Re: Patent Infringement". If you don't see it, it says "document 683" at the top of each page, so there is no question this is the document being referred to. This is the summary judgement in which the court rules on patent infringement. Look at page 24, the conclusion section. You can read the entire document if you like, but the relevant points are here. The document says that it grants Musicmatch a summary judgement of non-infringement of patents '192 and `593. The order also asserts that in some areas the patents are invalid, and so on. Altogether a pretty nasty looking judgement for Gracenote, for sure. People who have a chip on their shoulder sure latched on to this one, and one can see why. So here is where summary judgement against two of Gracenote's patents was issued, and the "Order to Vacate" document is where the court reversed itself by stating that document 683 is vacated. I don't know how to lay it out any more plainly than that. So the statements, "...Musicmatch received summary judgement on all of Gracenote's patent claims.", "A summary judgement found that Musicmatch's CDDB replacement service does not violate Gracenote's patents." and "The inability of Gracenote to enforce its patent in the Musicmatch case opened the market for competition..." in the Gracenote article are deceptive and untrue. Further, since the text on Becker's page has also been shown to be misleading, the text linking to it should also be removed.

There can be no further disagreement on these points. The court documents prove everything that I've said here. I do not want to hear further claims that I am lying, that the documents are fake, or that crucial information is missing. These court documents show that the summary judgement against Gracenote, WRT patent infringement among other things, was reversed by the court. End of story.

It is imperative that this entire section be deleted, or be correct. Frankly, this is the section I care about the most, because of the glaring errors our GC has pointed out to me. It causes undue harm to Gracenote, and we are legally obligated to ensure it is factually perfect. Until it is, this discussion will not end. Believe me when I say I've got better things to do and really, really want to get back to actual work. I think the section should be deleted or limited to a few (neutral tone) sentences. The text tries to impart the message that Gracenote's patents were knocked down and that they suffered a substantial loss in the case. Since I have shown this to not be the case, the main thrust of this section is invalid and it no longer justifies dominating so much of the article.

FYI, Gracenote settled because the court limited the scope of the subsequent trial (the purpose of which was to determine the extent of musicmatch's contractual culpability - they had already been found in breach of contract on some counts) that had just begun, which affected total damages that Gracenote could collect from Musicmatch, and because it was revealed that Yahoo (one of our customers) was trying to acquire musicmatch. To collect the kind of damages we wanted, we would have had to appeal to the next court and start over again. After years of litigation, that was not a happy option. Plus, we'd be suing our own customer, Yahoo, which we didn't want to do because they were a good customer. We did not settle because our patents were hurt in any way.

Simonkoldyk, please let me know if any of this is unclear in any way, and I would be glad to help clarify. I look forward to seeing this section of the article fixed.