Apple iTunes Patent Settlement Hints?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

In September, reports emerged (http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-6111700.html) that Apple and Contois Music Technology reached a settlement over an iTunes interface lawsuit (http://news.com.com/Apple+sued+over+iTunes+interface/2100-1047_3-5755956.html) based on this patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5864868.PN.&OS=PN/5864868&RS=PN/5864868) filed in 1996.

The company sought damages and an injunction against Apple for the infringement of the existing patent. The last word of the suit came in September, when after a 15-hour negotiating session, a settlement was reached but remained confidential:

"We're glad to get back to teaching music and selling musical instruments," said Dan Contois, a brother of David Contois, who works in the 35-year-old family-owned business. "The terms are confidential. We can't discuss them."


Interestingly, the lawyer involved in the case issued a press release today (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061130/lath054.html?.v=80) commenting about the implications of this patent and suggests that Apple has control of it.

The patent covers the system and methods for allowing users download media from a remote database and playing on a a local device -- essentially the methods for purchasing songs online. According to Starkweather:

"I believe that, with this patent in hand, Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos.

digg this (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Controls_Key_Online_Downloading_Patent)

[Digitalclips]

Wow! :eek:

I bet the brothers are quite large AAPL stock holders now.

[MrFirework]

This is HUGE news. Wow. Apple is in what they call, "The Catbird Seat".

[arn]

I find the press release a bit odd...

details still arn't clear. I would assume based on the settlement, Apple would have full rights to use it... but I'd be surprised if they signed over the patent to Apple which is what this quote essentially suggests.

What's the incentive for that?

arn

[Dunepilot]

I don't like this one little bit, even if it ends up being good for Apple.

[Digitalclips]

I find the press release a bit odd...

details still arn't clear. I would assume based on the settlement, Apple would have full rights to use it... but I'd be surprised if they signed over the patent to Apple which is what this quote essentially suggests.

What's the incentive for that?

arn

Maybe a lot of $ and I wonder if the patent lawyer got some of the $ too since it seems it was his brains that put this all together in the first place rather than the actual invention.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061130/lath054.html?.v=80

[zeppiecr]

Just came across bloomberg that apple applies for patent on a cellphone ipod combination...it was just made public today

[Digitalclips]

I don't like this one little bit, even if it ends up being good for Apple.

Better Apple has this in hand than MS! Can you imagine?:eek:

[killmoms]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

[longofest]

Patents like this tend to be fuzzy territory. If Apple did decide to go after other folks in this case, they could very well get ruled against and get the patent struck down as being "too broad".

Either way, I'd like to see Apple stay away from using its lawyers for once. However, maybe they can use the threat of a lawsuit as leverage to get the cell carriers to play along with the iPhone...

[flyfish29]

I find the press release a bit odd...

details still arn't clear. I would assume based on the settlement, Apple would have full rights to use it... but I'd be surprised if they signed over the patent to Apple which is what this quote essentially suggests.

What's the incentive for that?

arn

I think the incentive is that the Brothers got huge bucks easily without huge lawyer expenses and in return Apple who we know already knows how to sue can use their clout to get financial returns based on the patent. No small music store is going to have the resources to get the financial potential out of a patent such as this.

I think this is great news- (mostly cause we ALL KNOW what MS would have done had they received this patent!) now whether apple decides to do major things with it or just keep it to themselves has yet to be seen. I wonder if they will just hold onto it and if they start losing ground might then decide to do something about it. time will tell.

[pagansoul]

It may be that the owners don't want to be bothered with law suits and handed it over to Apple as long as they get a % of the take. It saves them the paperwork and hassle and leave a company who is equiped to go after those who will use the service. Having to constantly fight for action on patent infringement is not something a small company wants to get into.

[Gasu E.]

I find the press release a bit odd...

details still arn't clear. I would assume based on the settlement, Apple would have full rights to use it... but I'd be surprised if they signed over the patent to Apple which is what this quote essentially suggests.

What's the incentive for that?

arn

Patent rights are frequently sold and reassigned, for the reason that the original developer is a small operation that doesn't have the resources to go after every violator, and would prefer to just get a guaranteed amount of money upfront. Apple has much more incentive than the developer to defend this patent vigorously; in Apple's case, it is not just a matter of royalty payments, but also a tool to assist in controlling the market. The developer was clearly just interested in getting a significant cash settlement, and Apple was willing to give them one, as long as Apple could also exploit the patent as part of it's overall business strategy. It may also be the case that the developer was promised a fraction of any future revenues Apple derives from royalties or settlements related to this patent.

Later: As usual, I'm too late :-)

[arn]

It may be that the owners don't want to be bothered with law suits and handed it over to Apple as long as they get a % of the take. It saves them the paperwork and hassle and leave a company who is equiped to go after those who will use the service. Having to constantly fight for action on patent infringement is not something a small company wants to get into.

I suppose so... I guess if they are given a small percentage of potential future licensing, it would be a good incentive to not have to legally pursue it all.

arn

[Thanatoast]

Apple shouldn't push too hard on this. I don't want to have to lump them with the RIAA, MPAA and cell phone theives. Let good karma take its course.

[bigandy]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

i agree. but then again i'm not a fan of software patents at all right now. :rolleyes:

[tk421]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

Agreed. This is garbage. People have been downloading stuff on the internet, and before that on networks, for a long time.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Software patents, especially generic ones like this, are a Bad Thing™. Period. It doesn't matter if it's Apple or anyone else that controls it.

[Lancetx]

If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

Yeah, because Creative and especially Microsoft have well defined reputations for stifling innovation and for holding patents over their competitors heads for ransom, Apple is not nearly so notorious for such behavior.

[twoodcc]

I don't like this one little bit, even if it ends up being good for Apple.

i wouldn't say i don't like, or at least not yet. but yeah, something doesn't seem quite right, that's for sure

[lmalave]

Just came across bloomberg that apple applies for patent on a cellphone ipod combination...it was just made public today

:eek:

For the love of all that is holy - PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS!!!!!!!

I just looked on the Bloomberg site and don't see anything. Did you see this on the Bloomberg TV channel?

EDIT: Never mind, found it!:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=AAPL:US&sid=aniBLH_PxAU8

[MacinDoc]

I suppose Apple may consider this an ace up its sleeve to be used if the Zune ever gains a significant market share.

Mind you, Apple is not yet in a position to tell Microsoft where to go...

[evilgEEk]

I could be wrong, but if Apple is indeed in control of this patent now, I don't think they'll use it to start suing everybody. They'll use it as leverage against various companies to play with Apple, such as movie studios.

[arn]

:eek:

For the love of all that is holy - PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS!!!!!!!

I just looked on the Bloomberg site and don't see anything. Did you see this on the Bloomberg TV channel?

EDIT: Never mind, found it!:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=AAPL:US&sid=aniBLH_PxAU8

We've already posted a story on this: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061130102841.shtml

please leave comments there.

arn

[macfan70]

This from Bloomberg - An iPhone Patent from Apple.
Not on Page One yet?

We've already posted a story on this: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061130102841.shtml

please leave comments there.

arn

[lmalave]

We've already posted a story on this: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061130102841.shtml

please leave comments there.

arn

Oh - that's all the Bloomberg story was referring to?

Meh. I was hoping for a more interesting patent, like maybe something having to do with the form factor. The part I'm most curious to see is how Apple will integrate a scroll wheel into a phone. Slider? Clamshell?

[Tymmz]

this is ***p. i guess.

i think i don't like software patents at all. but i haven't thought much about it.

[dashiel]

guys this is fantastic news! yep, that's right fantastic. i'll be honest i usually loathe these types of patents, they're exceptionally lame and are clearly used by companies/individuals incapable of actually making something.

in this case though think beyond microsoft/creative/napster et. al. think bigger as in universal music group. can you imagine the negotiations now.

universal: we want a dollar for each ipod sold
apple: no.
universal: fine we're pulling our catalog from itunes
apple: you know, we sort of own the patent on purchasing music online (not to mention movies, games, etc...) what good is owning all that music if you've got nowhere to sell it?
universal: #@$%

[vansouza]

If Apple now ownes these rights; look out everyone who tried to take a bite out of Apple... great news

[princealfie]

I don't like this one little bit, even if it ends up being good for Apple.

I really like this. This means that Apple can finally knock out M$ and charge them for ZMP. Congrats! :p

[840quadra]

Wait a second!

Isn't this patent almost exactly the same as the style menu system patent that Creative is holding over Apple Computer for the iPod interface ?

The pictures on the linked page's image content look quite similar to the diagrams provided in the creative lawsuit. (well to me) Could Apple perhaps be using this patent control to be used to nullify the lawsuit or action from creative ?

Either way, I hope Apple doesn't go after other companies with this new control. It would be as annoying and stupid as Creative going After Apple for their iPod interface!


BTW the site appears to be quite slow today ( for me ) Is macrumors working with Apple to release new MacBook Pro's today ? ;)

[fixyourthinking]

I could be wrong, but if Apple is indeed in control of this patent now, I don't think they'll use it to start suing everybody. They'll use it as leverage against various companies to play with Apple, such as movie studios.

EXACTLY! (good thing)

[princealfie]

M$ Zune -> Universal = $1
M$ Zune Marketplace -> Apple = $1.

[MacIke]

This is a hand of Texas hold em.

Apple drew an ace and a queen.
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K

Next K

Last A.


This is the one patent that will bring Movie and the Record people to thier senses and be happy with what they have. Not to mention Apple can always nail M$ and the Zune.

Or the better yet . . . Apple selling at 99 cents and everyone else at 1.19.

I have to agree with others . . . I am not sure this should even be allowed.

[princealfie]

This is a hand of Texas hold em.

Apple drew an ace and a queen.
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K

Next K

Last A.


This is the one patent that will bring Movie and the Record people to thier senses and be happy with what they have. Not to mention Apple can always nail M$ and the Zune.

Or the better yet . . . Apple selling at 99 cents and everyone else at 1.19.

I have to agree with others . . . I am not sure this should even be allowed.

Because it's too good for us Apple users. It's like the 2nd coming :cool:

[savar]

Patents like this tend to be fuzzy territory. If Apple did decide to go after other folks in this case, they could very well get ruled against and get the patent struck down as being "too broad".

Either way, I'd like to see Apple stay away from using its lawyers for once. However, maybe they can use the threat of a lawsuit as leverage to get the cell carriers to play along with the iPhone...

Yeah, I would hope that Apple doesn't chase down everybody else just because they have the power to -- if what this lawyer is saying is even true.

The way he talks about it, it sounds like an absurdly broad patent...just another abuse of an over-worked, under-funded USPTO.

[macfan70]

M$ Zune -> Universal = $1
M$ Zune Marketplace -> Apple = $1.

The look on M$ Face -> Priceless

[rxse7en]

Apple doesn't need to do anything to make the Zune fail. It's doing it on its own from what I can gather from the lack of news on it.

B

[Much Ado]

This is a hand of Texas hold em.

Apple drew an ace and a queen.
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K

Next K

Last A.


This is the one patent that will bring Movie and the Record people to thier senses and be happy with what they have. Not to mention Apple can always nail M$ and the Zune.

Or the better yet . . . Apple selling at 99 cents and everyone else at 1.19.

I have to agree with others . . . I am not sure this should even be allowed.

My Poker skills are very dodgy, but doesn't that equal 5 Kings on the table?

[BRLawyer]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

You may thank the stupid practices first pushed by the USPTO (and recently lobbied towards the EPO), in order to safeguard what one may call IPR protectionism spread out to a TRIPS-regulated world...

Software patents should be granted only in a handful of cases, as the basic requirements of the law and the main principles applicable to patent protection are not fulfilled AT ALL for most cases.

So much for novelty and industrial application...:rolleyes:

[mahonmeister]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

I agree with you there. I really hope Apple doesn't try and bully other companies with this. Don't sink to Universal's level.

[Evangelion]

Yeah, because Creative and especially Microsoft have well defined reputations for stifling innovation and for holding patents over their competitors heads for ransom, Apple is not nearly so notorious for such behavior.

Didn't Apple drag Microsoft to court over Look 'n Feel issues in Windows? Even though the only similarities seem to be windows, icons, menus and pointer (AKA, WIMP).

Software-patents should not exist, period. Patents like this are a BAD thing, regardless of who owns them.

[hagjohn]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

I agree. I find the story a bit disturbing.

[kddpop]

No one should have control of a patent like this. Generic, unused software patents like this should be destroyed. If someone else like Creative or Microsoft had gotten this patent all of you would be crying foul. :mad:

+1

[MrFirework]

I don't like this one little bit, even if it ends up being good for Apple.

Let's be rational about this. If M$ got a hold of this they'd absolutely body-slam Apple with it... over, and over, and over and...

... it's in the good guys' hands. This is HUGE against Creative, M$ and any others that would try to use completely underhanded tactics just to chip away at Apple's farily-gotten market share. I don't belive Apple will be evil about this. I think it's just a giant "missle defense" system they can pull out at any time against M$ and the like.

For the first time in a long time M$ can't just push the little guy around.

Rejoice, Apple fans, and be glad.

[psionic001]

This is a hand of Texas hold em.

Apple drew an ace and a queen.
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K

Next K

Last A.



Would read better as:
Apple drew an ace and a queen. (of hearts)
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K(hearts)

Next J(hearts)

Last 10(hearts)

Then a royal strait flush for Apple = Unbeatable position at the last minute...

Is that what you were trying to convey?


Also...
I was under the impression that if Apple holds this patent, then it is ther obligation to enforce and protect it. If they don't then they loose it.

[cazlar]

Could Apple perhaps be using this patent control to be used to nullify the lawsuit or action from creative ?

IIRC, the settlement with Creative gave Apple the rights to some of any further licence fees from the Creative patent. So Apple have nothing further to fear from that particular patent, and will actually benefit if it is successfully "extended" to other companies in the future.

But yes, this current patent may just be held back as a defensive patent.

[SeaFox]

Apple shouldn't push too hard on this. I don't want to have to lump them with the RIAA, MPAA and cell phone theives. Let good karma take its course.

Really. Lets see Universal demand their extortion money now.

You want a dollar for every iPod, eh? Nah, I think we'll just take your music off iTunes, and every other music store as well.

[andiwm2003]

guys this is fantastic news! yep, that's right fantastic. i'll be honest i usually loathe these types of patents, they're exceptionally lame and are clearly used by companies/individuals incapable of actually making something.

in this case though think beyond microsoft/creative/napster et. al. think bigger as in universal music group. can you imagine the negotiations now.

universal: we want a dollar for each ipod sold
apple: no.
universal: fine we're pulling our catalog from itunes
apple: you know, we sort of own the patent on purchasing music online (not to mention movies, games, etc...) what good is owning all that music if you've got nowhere to sell it?
universal: #@$%


you make a good point there.

nevertheless i voted this rumor negative because a) the idea is so obvious and should not be patentable and b) apple paid for a obvious thing

but well, if it can be used to kick the music execs butt's then at least something good comes from it.:p

[karlfranz]

Yeah, because Creative and especially Microsoft have well defined reputations for stifling innovation and for holding patents over their competitors heads for ransom, Apple is not nearly so notorious for such behavior.

Obviously somebody here doesn't remember one of the most notorious software court battles when Apple sued MS for copying the "look and feel" of its OS over a decade ago...

[MrFirework]

Obviously somebody here doesn't remember one of the most notorious software court battles when Apple sued MS for copying the "look and feel" of its OS over a decade ago...

I don't even know where to begin. Going from text-based OS's to folders, desktop, menus, and on and on and on... that was a suit Apple should have won! If the jury had had a better understanding of computers at the time we'd have no Windows, and no M$ today.

... I can't go on... if you don't see the difference here...

[sabbath999]

Creative has a serious challenge to the iPod's menu system in the works, a case that it could very well win... Apple can use the patent that they have acquired in this recent deal (if indeed they now own it) as ammunition back against Creative... i.e. you owe us royalties for every single thing you have done except the Soundblaster....

[mattster16]

Creative has a serious challenge to the iPod's menu system in the works, a case that it could very well win... Apple can use the patent that they have acquired in this recent deal (if indeed they now own it) as ammunition back against Creative... i.e. you owe us royalties for every single thing you have done except the Soundblaster....

Didn't Apple already settle with Creative on this issue? I could be wrong. But I would assume the settlement contained language nullifying any future lawsuits from either corporation on user interface issues.

[lorductape]

as much as I dislike the fact that apple got sued, this creates the possibility of microsoft getting sued... zune marketplace... and they could sue for MORE, because microsoft must have known that there was already a case like this that infringed on a patent that they themselves are infringing on. any zune owners, please let us know how similar the z.market is to itunes.

[markerstore]

I don't even know where to begin. Going from text-based OS's to folders, desktop, menus, and on and on and on... that was a suit Apple should have won!

You mean Xerox, right?

[shen]

You mean Xerox, right?

no, he doesn't. go look up the history.

[BRLawyer]

Didn't Apple drag Microsoft to court over Look 'n Feel issues in Windows? Even though the only similarities seem to be windows, icons, menus and pointer (AKA, WIMP).

Software-patents should not exist, period. Patents like this are a BAD thing, regardless of who owns them.

The original lawsuit on look and feel was totally legitimate, and had NOTHING to do with patents...it was about form, about copyright...and about Sculley signing a horrible licensing contract with MS.

[gekko513]

Software patents, especially generic ones like this, are a Bad Thing™. Period. It doesn't matter if it's Apple or anyone else that controls it.
I agree. If Apple really is in control of this patent now, I hope they have the sense to only use it to scare off anyone who might have similar patents that Apple may infringe upon.

[TheBobcat]

I don't know all the details of said patent, but one would think it has to be more specific than just the idea of downloading music for replay.

Apple has had this for a few months now, you would think they would have done something with it by now.

[iMeowbot]

Also...
I was under the impression that if Apple holds this patent, then it is ther obligation to enforce and protect it. If they don't then they loose it.
That's for trademarks. Patent holders can be more selective, some companies accumulate them mainly as ammo for counterclaims when they get accused of infringing.

[elppa]

get in...

Good news in my opinion.

Will keep Apple strong, healthy and profitable.

I am worried about what MS intend to do with the Zune not now but in a few years. This could be a useful device to rein their monopolistic ideas in a little.

[karlfranz]

I don't even know where to begin. Going from text-based OS's to folders, desktop, menus, and on and on and on... that was a suit Apple should have won! If the jury had had a better understanding of computers at the time we'd have no Windows, and no M$ today.

... I can't go on... if you don't see the difference here...

The original lawsuit on look and feel was totally legitimate, and had NOTHING to do with patents...it was about form, about copyright...and about Sculley signing a horrible licensing contract with MS.

Excuse me, but regardless of whether it's copyrights or patents, the original Apple lawsuit was about M$ "stealing" the "look and feel" of the Mac OS. This case was indeed very similar in nature.

Contois claimed there were 19 specific interface aspects of the iTunes software that were in direct violation of Contois' patent. These areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.

As part of their exhibit, Contois showed the image below to show the similarities in the "look and feel" of the device they demo'd at the '95 COMDEX and '96 NAMM trade shows and the iTMS.

http://images.appleinsider.com/images/itunes-suit-exhib-a-061305.jpg

BTW: Looking back, it seemes most agree that John Sculley was the worst thing that has ever happened to Apple.

[kcmac]

Apple has had this for a few months now, you would think they would have done something with it by now.
Universal is already passing along the tariff. MS is the first victim. haha;) :D

If this is all true, I am happy Apple has it in their control. Whether they use it silently or openly, reasonably or unreasonably (words?) will be found later. Nice guys don't finish first. And this game is barely getting started.

[70355]

This is a hand of Texas hold em.

Apple drew an ace and a queen.
Universal (et el) have two Kings

First three cards

K A K

Next K

Last A.


This is the one patent that will bring Movie and the Record people to thier senses and be happy with what they have. Not to mention Apple can always nail M$ and the Zune.

Or the better yet . . . Apple selling at 99 cents and everyone else at 1.19.

I have to agree with others . . . I am not sure this should even be allowed.

Hey Einstein, that adds up to 5 Kings. Maybe you should practice your "creative" writing elsewhere. :rolleyes:

[Glenny2lappies]

Software patents, especially generic ones like this, are a Bad Thing™. Period. It doesn't matter if it's Apple or anyone else that controls it.

Software patents should be outlawed. Full stop/period.

Software just isn't patentable; it's the standard big companies going after the smaller ones. OK, ironically in this case it was the small one that took on Apple. Now Apple has the patent....

[shawnce]

Creative has a serious challenge to the iPod's menu system in the works, a case that it could very well win... Apple can use the patent that they have acquired in this recent deal (if indeed they now own it) as ammunition back against Creative... i.e. you owe us royalties for every single thing you have done except the Soundblaster....

Apple already dealt with that issue and in an interesting way...
Apple, Creative settle patent lawsuits (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060823-7575.html)

[SiliconAddict]

I'm going to be pissed if Apple does go after anyone else. Such actions are Microsoftian to its very core. :mad:

[quandmeme]

Wouldn't there be some mileage for pr purposes saying that we think this is overbroad so we are releasing it to the public domain?

If they can't wield it as a sword or swing it like a shield make it a bouquet of flowers!

[dusanv]

This is a really bad idea. Apple just showed it's willing to feed patent trolls (well, that actually happened with the ridiculous 1-click licensing from Amazon). This will only encourage the trolls. To all those that say this is good for Apple: it isn't. For every ridiculous patent they buy there are three more similar ones around the corner. They are just inviting litigation.

[BRLawyer]

Excuse me, but regardless of whether it's copyrights or patents, the original Apple lawsuit was about M$ "stealing" the "look and feel" of the Mac OS. This case was indeed very similar in nature.

BTW: Looking back, it seemes most agree that John Sculley was the worst thing that has ever happened to Apple.

No, they are not similar at all because patents and copyrights are treated on totally different legal grounds.

It's perfectly legitimate and accepted by almost all jurisdictions around the world (as well as jurists) that copyright applies to computer programs, as an expression of art (be it source code itself or the manifestation of such code as a computer program/interface).

Therefore, the lawsuit initiated by Apple was accurate, in the sense that it sought to discuss the licensing terms of the stupid agreement between Apple and MS. MS indeed stole the Apple's System "look and feel", but the judge at that time ruled that, among other things, such similarities were either covered under the licensing terms or not enforceable as an expression of the art as such.

But at least in procedural terms, copyright is and should be used for computer programs. The problem now is that PATENTS are used for the same purposes, disguised behind "novelties" that don't exist, "prior art" that is disregarded, and "industrial application" that is forged to make such fake processes look like real processes. Besides, the protection level of patents is way higher than that given to copyright, equating to a State-granted monopoly for, depending on the jurisdiction, 20 years. If we (and notably USPTO) were to follow patenting requirements, 95% of the software patents should be thrown into the trash, period. And most legal professionals surely know that, even if they don't admit.

p.s.: But yep, Sculley was THE worst CEO, alongside Mr. "Train Wreck" Spindler...he assured revenues for some time, surfing on Apple's previous successes...and then led it to its most grim horizon ever, trying to cover all bases without focusing on nothing at all.

[Uragon]

I dont get it, why is this bad or against Apple. Apple got sued, they reacted and settled the matter. I think, in a way we are lucky, that Apple was sued first. I cannot imagine if, let's say, Microsoft was sued first and got hold of the patent and I am not trying to say Microsoft is bad, it is just that their historical practices is not good either.

Also, this is too recent, let's wait and see,

[Evangelion]

The original lawsuit on look and feel was totally legitimate, and had NOTHING to do with patents

I'm well aware of that. Hell, there even weren't any software-patents back then. But the point is that Apple is no stranger when it comes to attacking other companies even though the claim might be questonable. As Wikipedia says:

"After long argument, the judge insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple came up with a list of 189 GUI elements; the judge decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement, and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea."

So your claim that the awsuit was legimate is 100% false. Now I know that you are a fanboy, but it would do some good to actually try to be objective here.

it was about form, about copyright

It was about Microsoft producing a competitor to OS X (aka, a GUI). Go take a look at Windows and OS X. Not much similarities. So why did Apple sue?

No, they are not similar at all because patents and copyrights are treated on totally different legal grounds.

I was not comparing patents and copyright, I was talking about behavior of corporations, and that Apple has been pulling crappy stunts in their past as well.

Therefore, the lawsuit initiated by Apple was accurate, in the sense that it sought to discuss the licensing terms of the stupid agreement between Apple and MS. MS indeed stole the Apple's System "look and feel", but the judge at that time ruled that, among other things, such similarities were either covered under the licensing terms or not enforceable as an expression of the art as such.

Um, Apple LOST that particular case fair 'n square, so how exactly does that prove that Microsoft "stole" the "look and feel"? Is it stealing if both Microsoft and Apple has a system that displays rectangular windows on the screen? How else could you do that? By using circular windows?

Fact of the matter is that the entire GUI-paradigm is focused around the WIMP-principle (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers). And since both Microsoft and Apple had a GUI that followed the same paradigm, Apple somehow felt tat Microsoft had stolen their "look and feel". Well, needless to say that the judge disagreed with Apple.

[BRLawyer]

Well, Evangelion, you misread my posts once more...I mentioned that Apple lost the lawsuit exactly because the judge thought most of the aspects were either licensed or not copyrightable, as YOU said.

This has nothing to do with "legitimacy to sue", considering that copyrights were and are used for software programs and expression of art, and that was my sole point of contention. Apple had FULL legitimacy to sue, and this of course does NOT mean "certain victory"...I am talking about procedural and legal legitimacy to sue, period.

Apple's legal department is famous for its active stance, and I never denied that. And what is the problem with that, if someone else is harming your R&D investments? None. The problem is on software patents, which break well-established principles of intellectual property rights in order to satisfy some other corporate and national interests, simple as that.

And by the way, one of the arguments used by Apple's defense concerned the mere licensing for Windows 1.0, not any other version. Needless to say, Apple lost the case and Sculley got evicted in due course.

As for your last point, MS DID NOT have any GUI until it got that license from Apple...and the similarities were more than obvious, as per Bill Gates's famous quote: "I want Mac on the PC, I want Mac on the PC"...

[Evangelion]

Well, Evangelion, you misread my posts once more...I mentioned that Apple lost the lawsuit exactly because the judge thought most of the aspects were either licensed or not copyrightable, as YOU said.

Why do you then say that Apple had legimate reasons to sue? If they lost, then their reasons weren't obviously legimate.

The problem is on software patents, which break well-established principles of intellectual property rights in order to satisfy some other corporate and national interests, simple as that.

For once, I actually agree with you 100% :).

And by the way, one of the arguments used by Apple's defense concerned the mere licensing for Windows 1.0, not any other version.

Microsoft had licensed tech from Apple. But many people forget that Microsoft had also obtained a license from Xerox, just like Apple did.

As for your last point, MS DID NOT have any GUI until it got that license from Apple...and the similarities were more than obvious, as per Bill Gates's famous quote: "I want Mac on the PC, I want Mac on the PC"...

Microsoft got a license for the GUI from Xerox, just like Apple did. So on that ground, Apple and MS were on equal footing.

[Linito]

Go apple Go!:cool: