Apple iTunes Patent Settlement Hints?

[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]

Another way of looking at it...

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.

 

[50548]

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

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.

 

[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

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

 

[quandmeme]

No release it

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.

 

[50548]

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.

 

[50548]

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!