Patent infringement (part 2)

Patent infringement (part 2)

After a lot of comments on my blog asking about the code I decided to try getting it released one more time. Thus I mailed Digital Landmark Services again, telling them this is just a hobby project, and will (in its current form) never be a replacement for Shazam. Also, I explained a lot of people hated Shazam and deleted the application after reading this blog… the only thing they got out of it is bad marketing.

So I asked them for a peaceful solution, I’ll release the code, tell everybody Landmark Digital Services is a good company after all, and that’s it, both will benefit.

This is the reply I got:

Dear Mr. Van Rijn,

I am an attorney for Landmark Digital Services. Thank you for your response and attention to this important matter. As we have stated in detail in previous communications, we would like you to refrain from releasing the code and to remove the blogpost explaining the algorithm. While we appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions, we have already made our position clear and hope you will respect our interest in our IP.

Woodcock Washburn

WHAT!? They tell me again to remove the blogpost, this is crazy! A blogpost describing an algorithm can never be infrigement of intellectual property. The whole idea of a patent is to preserve an idea, to write down what it does and how it works for future generations. A patent has to be publicly available for this sole reason. This isn’t protecting their intellectual property, this is plain censorship.

My reply to the email was short an concise:

I’m sorry, but I can’t comply.

Good luck.

This was a week ago, lets see what they come up with this time…