Patent Suit Filed Against Apple Over iTunes Interface

[psxndc]

As for your comment of European countries of beeing more socialist - that is probably true - but remember also that "socialist" (in the positive sense) also means for the greater good of the public.

Oh I know. I make no pretenses that U.S.-ians are capatilist and very self-centered when it comes to making money. But I wasn't implying that people get patents because THEY are interested in the greater good. I was saying the system is designed to promote the greater good. Americans just like getting limited monopolies on things and charging people for it. That's capitalism.

Example: there is a lot of methods to make a camera take a digital image. But it is the concept of the digital image in the first place that is the invention here and deserves the patent (which Kodak got in the 70s or so, and still holds I believe). There is no way of circumventing that invention. You may find different methods of taking the photos, but that is merely evolution that will take place anyway.

You're making my point for me but in reverse. The digital photo should NOT be patented. You are correct that it would be difficult to circumvent the abstract concept of a digital image. But ways of taking them should be patentable. If methods 1, 2, and 3 are patent protected, you should discover method 4. That's innovation!

And how is it beneficiary if you have to make something more complicated to circumvent an existing patent than just making the first thing better?

I didn't say more complicated, I just said different. A design around may lead to a less complicated solution.

If the better way is to create a whole new procedure, then someone will do that - you do not need to force them.

I'm not saying that it won't happen or that it is more likely to happen with the patent system. But your original point was that patents stifle innovation and I pointed out that they don't. They encourage design arounds. You're right that I don't need to force them, but it does encourage them. They may have found it on their own anyway, I'm not denying that.

-p-

 

[iMan]

- About incentives for developement... The medical field is the best (and the worst) example. Medical research is amazingly expensive (because of the people, but mostly the machines etc...) You cannot research for free, and the funds for research provided by private funds and/or governments are no match for the needs of today. Without patents (and the promise for a company to be rewarded for that), we would still be looking at developments of the penicilline. And btw: for the same reason, we'd be using optical microscopes and writing our results on paper, because nobody would have had enough money to develop better means.

Objection, your Honour! This calls for speculation. There would be no evidence whatsoever that medical research would not be where it is today without patents. Yes, it is expensive. But who is ultimately paying for this anyways? I firmly believe that there would in fact have been an alternative way for this research. There are many other fields in which there is done ridiculously expensive development - governmentally funded or sponsored.

On the contrary - I would argue that medical science suffer under the patentsystem, and the commercial burden. Pharmaceutical companies does not have enough incentives to research what is really needed, but focuses mainly on where the money is to be had; i.e. rather than focus on plagues and diseases of the poorer third world countries, they have an unproportionate funding of research to counter selfinflicting lifestyle disorders of the rich western world; i.e. viagra. Medical problems that actually would be better solved without the use of any pharmaceuticals in the first place.

 

[Zoboomafoo]

On the contrary - I would argue that medical science suffer under the patentsystem, and the commercial burden. Pharmaceutical companies does not have enough incentives to research what is really needed, but focuses mainly on where the money is to be had; i.e. rather than focus on plagues and diseases of the poorer third world countries, they have an unproportionate funding of research to counter selfinflicting lifestyle disorders of the rich western world; i.e. viagra. Medical problems that actually would be better solved without the use of any pharmaceuticals in the first place.

i'm sorry. this is a bit asinine. you have to be incredibly myopic to think pharmaceutical companies aren't trying to solve actual medical problems that face the world over. cancer, hepatitis, osteoporosis, cholesterol, diabetes and leukemia are all being investigated by companies like vertex, genentech, eli lilly, pfizer and merck. these are major players in the world throughout, and believe me there is a HUGE incentive for them to produce drugs that solve these problems. unless you think that my cure for cancer could only fetch 50 cents on ebay.

these companies spend HUNDREDS of millions of dollars on this research and the patent system is the only way these companies can hope to recover this cost.

the patent system is the way a company can invest a billion dollars of research and avoid someone from buying a pill, analyzing and discovering the chemical make up of the pill and selling it themselves. do you want to pay a billion dollars in research so that someone else can sell it and not pay you a nickel?

 

[psxndc]

On the contrary - I would argue that medical science suffer under the patentsystem, and the commercial burden. Pharmaceutical companies does not have enough incentives to research what is really needed, but focuses mainly on where the money is to be had; i.e. rather than focus on plagues and diseases of the poorer third world countries, they have an unproportionate funding of research to counter selfinflicting lifestyle disorders of the rich western world; i.e. viagra. Medical problems that actually would be better solved without the use of any pharmaceuticals in the first place.

From the CEO of Pfizer about patents not being the cost problem when trying to treat AIDS victims in sub-saharan Africa where they are GIVING AWAY drugs.

Developing MERCK's AIDS drug required a new facility and bringing out one successful drug (where 10,000 others candidate druges fail) costs on average $400 million.

-p-

 

[DGFan]

I do not assume that - on the contrary I try to make a point (obviously not very good) that it is not of benefit for the general public.
I agree with you completely - patents today benefits the large corporations, and works against both innovation and the public. It gives exclusive rights to a select few.

Yet here we are, discussing a small inventor suing a large corporation over an invention.

AIDS medicine for instance is one example: it is possible today to produce medicine that would help solve a lot of the problems poorer countries in Africa have with AIDS - or at least let help them over the powercurve. But they can't afford the prices for this medicine offered by western pharmaceutical companies controlling the patents. These companies are not willing to sell the medicine cheaper to these countries (even under guarantees that the medicine will not be re-exported), and they will not license the production under any reasonable circumstnances. We, in the west obviously can afford the price they demand, given our wealth, we get helped - the industry gets even richer, and the poor and sick gets... yup.

One could go on. Point is (all detail and minor issues aside) that patents ultimately rarely benefits the greater public - nor is it in any but larger corporations interest to use them anymore.

Do you seriously think that companies would be willing to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs if the day it hit the market other companies could reverse-engineer and sell the drug? In other words, would the drug even have existed were it not for the patent system? Think about that.

There are really only two ways to fund such research: 1) have patents to encourage private companies to do it or 2) provide government funding. I'll take properly incentivized private funding anytime.

 

[DGFan]

Objection, your Honour! This calls for speculation. There would be no evidence whatsoever that medical research would not be where it is today without patents. Yes, it is expensive. But who is ultimately paying for this anyways? I firmly believe that there would in fact have been an alternative way for this research. There are many other fields in which there is done ridiculously expensive development - governmentally funded or sponsored.

On the contrary - I would argue that medical science suffer under the patentsystem, and the commercial burden. Pharmaceutical companies does not have enough incentives to research what is really needed, but focuses mainly on where the money is to be had; i.e. rather than focus on plagues and diseases of the poorer third world countries, they have an unproportionate funding of research to counter selfinflicting lifestyle disorders of the rich western world; i.e. viagra. Medical problems that actually would be better solved without the use of any pharmaceuticals in the first place.

I fully expected you to continue on and start talking about the proletariat, Lenin, etc...

Look, there's no perfect system. But the incentive to make money has, on balance, been a good driving force.

 

[DGFan]

Acutally, I believe the reason the medical industry doesn't give AIDS medication to poor african countries is it wouldn't do a lot of good - now hear me out before anyone gets upset. My understanding is that the current triple cocktail of medicine is extremely time sensitive, and must be taken twice a day at the exact same time every day. The unfortunate truth is that many people in poor african nations do not own watches, and/or can not tell time. Kinda awful though isn't it? An inability to tell time, or monetary resources to won a watch condems you.

But enough on that tangent

If they can't grasp the need to use condoms (which are often available but mocked or otherwise ignored), I wonder whether they can keep up the pace of taking AIDS drugs.

On the other hand, whether the government should step in and force mandatory licensing of patents in an emergency is a different issue than whether we should have patents in normal circumstances.

 

[iMan]

I fully expected you to continue on and start talking about the proletariat, Lenin, etc...

Look, there's no perfect system. But the incentive to make money has, on balance, been a good driving force.

I also expected an all out american cynical "cash is king" blow to my "leninist" point of view in these matters, so we are about even then

What is rather peculiar to a lot of us europeans is that it seems rather like a clockwork that americans believe that money - or the incentive thereof - would always gain the better result. I am sorry to say that also here in Europe we seem adapt this culture more and more - again (we had our share in history - look where that got us... )

I don't know how to work this... seems like most here feel it is unthinkable for great things to be invented or done if there isn't a huge amount of cash in reward... If anything; the monopoly of patents is the thing that mostly reminds me of Lenins thoughts in this whole case. How little faith you all have in both capitalism and humans.

 

[DGFan]

I don't know how to work this... seems like most here feel it is unthinkable for great things to be invented or done if there isn't a huge amount of cash in reward... If anything; the monopoly of patents is the thing that mostly reminds me of Lenins thoughts in this whole case. How little faith you all have in both capitalism and humans.

Since we started discussing drugs, has anyone here seriously considered what would happen if a company invented a drug but couldn't protect it with a patent? More likely than not, the company would try to mask the active agent by include many, if not hundreds, of inactive, or ineffective ingredients. Companies would probably spend millions of dollars on such deception because it would be suicide to release a product otherwise. What the patent system does is require the company to publicly disclose all the details. Remember, the public disclosure is one of the primary benefits of the patent system.

 

[iMan]

Yet here we are, discussing a small inventor suing a large corporation over an invention.

The question is more like: Is there any invention in the first place? I have not seen it - only a not accomplished idea for something...

Do you seriously think that companies would be willing to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs if the day it hit the market other companies could reverse-engineer and sell the drug? In other words, would the drug even have existed were it not for the patent system? Think about that.

There are really only two ways to fund such research: 1) have patents to encourage private companies to do it or 2) provide government funding. I'll take properly incentivized private funding anytime.

No one is saying others should just reverse engineer it. I might even agree that some sort of patent system is good - but the way it (not) works today, we are better off without - in my opinion.

Besides, you assume a lot. You assume that private funding and/or thirst for money always cater to the worlds needs. You should remember that pharmaceuticals and other companies develop, produce and sell a lot of products that are not patented. You also assume that once a product is out - wham - other companies overnight is able to just reverse engineer, set up a production line and hit counters with a similar product.

Would you please then also explain why private funding or the commercial monopoly of patents is so superior to government funding?
Please also explain then why the US government is finding it useful to fund research of billions of dollars for equipment with the ultimate aim of killing people and destroy anything, exploring space, oceans and earth - but not medicines? (well, I know they do fund medical research - but you apparantly dislikes that idea for some reason...).

It is not at all possible that the patent system actually drains more resources than is necessary for this research? That it unnecessarily increases the cost of research and development? What if the government did fund and decide what to research, and then let private companies actually produce the medicine - it is entirely possible that the research is as good and focused and most certainly cheaper for the society. I would even say competition to get production would also lower that cost...

 

[iMan]

Since we started discussing drugs, has anyone here seriously considered what would happen if a company invented a drug but couldn't protect it with a patent? More likely than not, the company would try to mask the active agent by include many, if not hundreds, of inactive, or ineffective ingredients. Companies would probably spend millions of dollars on such deception because it would be suicide to release a product otherwise. What the patent system does is require the company to publicly disclose all the details. Remember, the public disclosure is one of the primary benefits of the patent system.

Like the tobacco companies and Coca Cola actually did with their products
It is also entirely possible to have public disclosure of a products content without a patent. You would still need to get it approved as a drug for instance (at least in my country).

 

[DGFan]

Like the tobacco companies and Coca Cola actually did with their products
It is also entirely possible to have public disclosure of a products content without a patent. You would still need to get it approved as a drug for instance (at least in my country).

Yes, currently companies can choose to take measures to keep their invention a trade secret (as Coca Cola has done - although I am not sure if that is an invention), allowing them to control it indefinitely (as long as it is a secret). Or, they can have an enforced monopoly on the invention but they have to relinquish it after 20 years.

In my scenario, the content of the drug could certainly be made public. But it would probably include hundreds of other things that are unnecessary for the actual curative powers of the drug. If such measures were outlawed you could probably wave goodbye to private drug research funding.

 

[iMan]

Yes, currently companies can choose to take measures to keep their invention a trade secret (as Coca Cola has done - although I am not sure if that is an invention), allowing them to control it indefinitely (as long as it is a secret). Or, they can have an enforced monopoly on the invention but they have to relinquish it after 20 years.

In my scenario, the content of the drug could certainly be made public. But it would probably include hundreds of other things that are unnecessary for the actual curative powers of the drug. If such measures were outlawed you could probably wave goodbye to private drug research funding.

To consider something more close then: Apple is well known to patent almost anything they do nowadays. Do you think that Apples R&D and innovative approach are dependent on this?
I know Apple had a bad experience with Microsoft releasing Windows, but that did not stop the Mac from being a successful computer, nor did it kill Apple.
Apple is today largely dependent on frequently releasing "innovative" products. They use quite a lot of money on R&D - but in my opinion, the patents they seek are more a formality than important to the business. Still, you always see other companies trying to copy - but if I am not wrong, they are almost without exception put down by copyright/trademark law rather than patents - if at all. A lot of companies try to copy Apple all the time - also legally. Apple is driven to steadily innovate their products in response, driving development forward.
On the other side; if they did have a patent for the GUI for instance... or an mp3 player, they could actually relax. They did not have to develop to any extent, because there would be no competition do drive them, they could take their time, reaping the benefits as it went - and Panther would probably have released in 2007.

See - only now does things happen to Internet Explorer once again. MS relaxed, they had a working monopoly and there was no need to improve a working software... everybody had to use it anyway, why waste time and money. Now they react, with the rise of Firefox (and Opera). In commercial control all monopolies work this way. As I see it monopolies are capitalists wet dream, and patents are the legal way to get them off.

I still firmly believe that patents (in current form) does no good to neither research nor development.

 

[DGFan]

Besides, you assume a lot. You assume that private funding and/or thirst for money always cater to the worlds needs. You should remember that pharmaceuticals and other companies develop, produce and sell a lot of products that are not patented. You also assume that once a product is out - wham - other companies overnight is able to just reverse engineer, set up a production line and hit counters with a similar product.

Like I said, companies will definitely spend a lot of effort trying to obfuscate their actual product. This is a cost that would work to offset any savings that might come about by abolishing the patent system. This is above and beyond any harm that would occur from decreased incentives.

Would you please then also explain why private funding or the commercial monopoly of patents is so superior to government funding?
Please also explain then why the US government is finding it useful to fund research of billions of dollars for equipment with the ultimate aim of killing people and destroy anything, exploring space, oceans and earth - but not medicines? (well, I know they do fund medical research - but you apparantly dislikes that idea for some reason...).

Actually, a lot of the research that goes on in the military space is done by private companies. The government often does fund these projects after a certain point, but it's worth keeping in mind that the government is usually the only buyer for these products. This customer relationship does not exist in most other areas.

It is not at all possible that the patent system actually drains more resources than is necessary for this research? That it unnecessarily increases the cost of research and development? What if the government did fund and decide what to research, and then let private companies actually produce the medicine - it is entirely possible that the research is as good and focused and most certainly cheaper for the society. I would even say competition to get production would also lower that cost...

The problem with government funding of projects is that it generally has to go through a single body to get approved (there may be multiple overall bodies but a single field probably has a single body). That generally means fewer ideas will be tried. The benefit of the free market funding is that anyone with an idea and money can try it. If the only way to fund projects that makes economic sense is government funding there will be fewer ideas tried (see: Soviet Union, among others).

If you think military research is such a great model, I encourage you to study the history of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

 

[DGFan]

I still firmly believe that patents (in current form) does no good to neither research nor development.

It's a lot easier to justify that view if you limit yourself to the world of software. Once you venture outside that constraint, your view becomes *much* harder to justify because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

 

[iMan]

It's a lot easier to justify that view if you limit yourself to the world of software. Once you venture outside that constraint, your view becomes *much* harder to justify because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Why is it any different to other things? Just because we are not that used to this in software yet? There is huge amounts of money being spent on software development as well. And where is that evidence you talk about? There is nothing that proves patents increase innovation at all. That is just an assumption.

Actually, a lot of the research that goes on in the military space is done by private companies. The government often does fund these projects after a certain point, but it's worth keeping in mind that the government is usually the only buyer for these products. This customer relationship does not exist in most other areas.

I never said the research aren't going to be done by private companies either. They should. And they probably will do a lot of research by themselves as well, to keep themselves attractive. The government is - in a lot of places in the world - more or less the buyer of most medicine as well. At least in our part of the world, the government pays for most medicine - but that really does not matter. The government is the representative of the public - us. So no matter what, we pay for everything. So I am real concerned about getting most from my money, and I am not so sure I do that with the patent system - at least when I see the cash some pharmaceuticals are raking in (and what they use them for).

The problem with government funding of projects is that it generally has to go through a single body to get approved (there may be multiple overall bodies but a single field probably has a single body). That generally means fewer ideas will be tried. The benefit of the free market funding is that anyone with an idea and money can try it. If the only way to fund projects that makes economic sense is government funding there will be fewer ideas tried (see: Soviet Union, among others).

Well, there is a long way of comparing a communist state to the patentsystem and government funding - but if you insist: The Soviet had a lot of things that were superior to american plastic patentcrap; cameras, planes, guns, spacecrafts (hey they had to dust off some '60s rocket to go get these guys in space after all - because some US plasticstuff did not work...). The things did not always look nice, but they were mostly functional - and a lot more durable than slick looking american wares. You should be careful comparing yourself - US products aren't necessarily seen as good quality thorughout the world (average, but expensive - but that could not be the patents fault, no...).

If you think military research is such a great model, I encourage you to study the history of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

In general I think military research is lousy spending in the first place... I just made the fact that your government is willingly funding these (rather unnecessary) things (instead of medicine) - I don't say nothing good comes from this, but the military usually have their own agenda.


Hmm... kind of strange to find myself arguing against "monopolies" to an american - the world is not the same anymore...

 

[Arnaud]

About funding and methods and all...

Hello,

I'm glad to see the comments on the medical / pharmaceutical field pushed the debate in further corners...

But some comments about the last posts though:

- regarding the funding of research, it is not that it should be all private or all governmental, but it is more a matter of proportions. Nowadays, research is funded by both the private industry and the governments. In an ideal society, research could be funded mostly by governments, but if you follow the building-up of budgets nowadays, and the hard choices between education, army and research, you see there is already little margin for funding research. Take the private funding out, or reduce it to 10%, because of the lack of patents, and there wouldn't be enough left to research only on Viagra. I think nowadays the private funding is way higher than the governmental funding.(A lack of patents would open the market to competition, which could be good, but would bring the selling prices to production prices - because of the copiers -, therefore bringing muuuuch less money for further searches);

- iMan, you mentioned you didn't see the product in the patent from Contois. The thing is, you can patent a method, which is indeed close to the concept of an idea. Not all methods are patentable though (in Europe, you can forget about business methods), and they also must be new and inventive. What is the good of a patent on a method ? Dummy case: imagine there is a known pill on the market, made of several layers of components, which is long to produce; your R&D department spent months trying to improve it, and discovered (tested etc) that in the production line, you should first warm up the layer 3 before adding the layer 4 in a certain way, and that this precise step would allow layers 4 and above to be added much faster. The method you just proposed is new and inventive, nobody thought about it before (at least, a search of Prior Art says so) and it has some unexpected advantages. The pill is still the same, so you cannot patent it, but patenting the method here is a protection for your invention. (This is a dummy case, it is certainly arguable, but it's for an example);

- one of the hard facts about software patenting is that it consists mostly of methods, ie concepts, and inventive concepts are subjective; from what I understand from the patent of Contois, there is matter for a patent, as the idea is the use of two fields, and the adaptation of the second field to a first selection in the first field; there is no product, but I clearly see an advantage with this method of working.

- the laws regarding patents are really complex, but I think in the end rather fair. ("Rather" is because we talk about a system ruled by human beings). In Europe, you have a book (the EPC), with Articles and Rules; then guidelines; then case laws; then national specificities; then the boards of appeal for complex cases;

- I'm from Europe, and mostly socialist (I'd think); I try to help the next one - but only as long as the next one does not stab me back -. The communist system has lots of good basic values, but it doesn't work on a large human scale, mostly because of the "human" feature: there will always be one to try to take advantage of the others. In that case, I don't trust systems where everybody relies on everybody else. The system in the former USSR didn't make it; the system in China right now is not exactly an example. I guess it's the same with patents: make a free, non-patent system for 100 people, and 1 out of them will try to sell the product of others (see the variations on Unix and Linux etc);

- some months ago (or was it years ago?), Bush Jr decided to over-run patents on vaccines, because the patent holder was not able to produce enough of them during an emergency period; Jr proposed to other companies (and also companies from Canada) to provide additional supplies. Is my memory correct about that? What I mean is: the patent system can be over-run in case of need, but it is almost never done because of capitalists allegiance to companies (read: Bush Jr to election campaign funders);

- btw, Apple might never have had patents on either the GUI or MP3 players. The GUI was already used by Xerox (but if it was in-house knowledge, it might not be considered public, even with the visit of Jobs & al), and MP3 players were not either created by Apple;

- imagine this thread if Apple was owner of this patent and suing MS for something in Windows Media Player...

My conclusion: I wish we were all nice with each other, respecting each other's work; there would be no need for patents, and no blocks to research either. Now, it is not the case, the human factor is the worm in the apple - therefore I adapt, and think a fair protection system should exist -.
Now, what is "fair" ?

A.

 

[Arnaud]

Pun almost intended...

the human factor is the worm in the apple

Oh my, I didn't even think about a pun here !
"The human factor is the worm in the Apple" - maybe there is some sense to make out of that one ?

Yeah well...

A!

 

[iMan]

Arnaud: good points. I mostly agree with you.

The case with GUI/mp3 player patents - where merely "what-ifs" to show how a patent could effectively decrease development - whereas now since Apple do not, they are prey to be hunted, and increases development. At least that is my opnion

I agree to the fact you all make that a patent encourages to find other ways to do certain things. The flaw in my opinion, is that this causes a huge amount of possible patents. If a company finds a smart way to do a certain thing (a method if you will) that is merely a businessmodel - and possibly a trade secret. There will be a matter of time before others will create similar (if not completely idtentical) methods if you are successful. By accident two companies may actually use the same dollars at the same time to research and end up with the same result (theoretically). If one got the patent then, the other would have to do the whole process once more - if at all possible - wasting a lot of time and money, instead of the two competing further to better the final product and lower the production cost.

This is the risk of doing business in the first place - compared to my company's modest size we are using a lot of resources to improve our businessmodel. We experiment, take risks, use money - all focused, because we know that we have only so much margin for error. None of what we do are patentable in any ways, and for each thing we do, we gain only a temporary advantage - we really have to work hard to stay on top, and since we are small it is life or death that we do that constantly. It is hard work, but fun. Others copy some of our ideas (more or less) after some time, but that seems more of a compliment - we are already on the next step anyway With the possibility to patent, we might have earned some more money - but at the same; half the fun would be gone as well... (and the extra cash would probably only be used for patenting fees anyway

 

[Arnaud]

Tudum.

iMan: thanks for your last comments; each company has indeed its own special situation with regard to development and/or patenting, and patenting is not the only incentive for development either, as you clearly explained...

Good luck for your company then, and keep on enjoying your work
If you can go on without patents (and patent fees), I can only be happy for you !

Have a nice week-end (no need for a licence there...),
Arnaud

 

[iMan]

Have a nice week-end (no need for a licence there...),
Arnaud

Likewise
How do you spend weekends at the moon though? Looks intriguing - but somehow dull from a distance... but then looks could deceive...

 

[Arnaud]

The moon

How do you spend weekends at the moon though? Looks intriguing - but somehow dull from a distance... but then looks could deceive...

Yeah, I always get the same comments from the ones who don't know the other side of the moon...
(If I had said the dark side of the moon, we'd have fallen into a Lucas-themed thread...)

A

 

[greenfluke]

Baseless lawsuit. Copying everyone else is the best way to make software better. If you don't like something about windows, do it better. If you don't like something about mac os, do it better. You shouldn't be limited in your desire to improve things to having to worry about naming your variables differently enough to prevent lawsuits.

If this guy was ripped off, then he should have kept his idea more secret. If someone just happens to develop something independantly that seems like what you had just in your head with little or no code available, and no real product, then you should just cut your losses and move on.

NO software patents!

 

[Doctor Q]

If someone just happens to develop something independantly that seems like what you had just in your head with little or no code available, and no real product, then you should just cut your losses and move on.

You reminded me of the Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music case, where ex-Beatle George Harrison was found to have subconsciously copied another song, even though he supposed believed it to be original.

 

[dlech]

Suit has merit

It seems like the majority of posts don't particularly like this suit. Everyone seems to think that the patent was obvious...if you actually take a look at the patent, however, it was filed in 1995. I don't think anyone envisioned the type of music system the patent discloses back then - the inventor obviously had a real flash of genius when he came up with.

In addition, if you look at the claims, the iTunes / iPod is dead on.

And also remember that this patent had to get past a trained examiner at the USPTO before it issued, which means that in 1995 that examiner could not find anything obvious about it.

I'd say Apple is going to pay Mr. Contois a lot of money, and rightly so. I only wish I had come up with something like this back then!