Patent Suit Filed Against Apple Over iTunes Interface

[pkkrusty]

silliness

All the points seem to have been covered by the previous posts. Patenting songs listings sorted by Artist, Album etc is just silly. I hope the judge throws it out and slaps Dave with a nice fine for wasting Apple's time and money.

Over-generalized GUI descriptions in a patent shouldn't be allowed. Has anyone been the the Patent website and seen if this patent has pictures submitted in the application?

Because I developed a GUI EXACTLY like iTunes, even better than Dave's software idea, and I posted a flyer up a WWDC five years ago with a picture. Some Apple guy must have seen it and copied it. Yeah.

 

[katanna]

Two things I don't get...
1. How can you copyright simple ideas like sorting music or "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player"?? Why not sue the maker of every music player??
2. iTunes has been out for at least 5 years... why wait this long?

I don't get it!

Matthew

 

[nagromme]

iTunes browsing is a left-to-right hierarchy of NESTED (like folders) groupings...

Source > Genre > Artist > Album

...which is exactly the same concept as the NeXT column-view file browser built into OS X.

Apple should sue them for that

(Yes, I know this came first. So give them a piece too!)

I also love how they customized iTunes to LOOK (not function!) more like their mock-up

 

[homerjward]

oooooohhhh, woooooooow, column view.....apple's been using it since before os x or itunes

 

[Mass Hysteria]

Looney Tunes

 

[TheSpaz]

This is rediculous! Why can't software be similar? There are a lot of software out there that does the same exact thing with a different interface, why should this be any different... It sucks that the guy drew up a nice diagram... but, it's his fault for not getting it made into a program. Why doesn't the guy who invented the web browser sue Apple... there's a back button, a foward button a refresh button... oh my goodness... it's just like every other web browser out there. Why is iTunes different?

 

[jared_kipe]

Thats such a vague patent. Might as well patent searching and media devices/software, wonder why the ipod isn't listed in the suit.

 

[fatbarstard]

Big Fat Yawn

Patenting Software is a dumb idea and it is entirely possible for two people who have no connection with each other to have the same or similar idea - happens in science all the time.

This guys looks like a golddigger and should be dispatched forthwith. Any company that has a successful product always finds someone claiming to have had the idea first. Great to have the idea, but it is what you do with it that counts and he has had plenty of time to claim infiingement.

We are at version 4.8!!! And 4.9 is about to be released...

He should go and find another idea and this time do things right rather than rely on a patent.

 

[Whyren]

Guess this means Apple's making too much money

Sounds like that lawsuit filed saying someone had patented the way color is manipulated through a program...subsequently bringing the lawsuit to any company with an image-editor, etc.

 

[hulugu]

This is just yet another example of the USPTO inability to deal with software patents, the decription and diagram are extraordinarily vague, and furthermore cases like this defeat the entire purpose of patents in the first place.
Patents are not for ideas to be held in situ, they are to protect the inventor while he takes the product to market. Furthermore, Mr. Contois applied for the patent in 1996, but by 1997 Nullsoft released Winamp which is remarkably close to Contois description and yet when he was given the patent in 1999 he failed to defend it. Furthermore, he failed to defend it even after iTunes was established as a part of iLife.
I hope he loses his suit to discourage the kind of submarine patenting that appears to have been the rage in the late '90s, patents are to protect the inventor for a limited time to bring a product to market, not to trap companies as they begin to make money.

 

[rosalindavenue]

No question this is extortion-- but the root of the problem is that the United States Patent Office actually granted the patent in the first place. There are lots of examples of this:

British Telecom hyperlink patent

Page full of examples of software patents

 

[Huckleberry]

SoundJam

Hmmm...

Casady & Greene's SoundJam begot iTunes. Does that factor into this?


~Huck

 

[mad jew]

Opportunity cost...

Opportunity cost is an economics term used to describe the cost of doing one thing instead of another. Example: I buy a Pepsi, a Coke is my opportunity cost. But I agree with what you were saying otherwise, I still don't think there's room for a lawsuit though.

 

[zang]

Can he technically sue if Apple hasn't made money off of iTunes the player? I mean, I realize they make a marginal amount off of money off of the iTMS, but that's simply a webpage displayed within iTunes...

 

[freiheit]

And now Apple has to waste money on lawyers to defend themselves.

No. Like most corporations, Apple surely has a stash of on-payroll lawyers for this sort of thing.

But it's also not in the corporate mindset to go to court over stuff like this -- it usually ends up as an out-of-court settlement for a few million dollars (like when Caldera had Microsoft on the ropes over DR-DOS and settled for something like $7M or when Spyglass got $8M out of MS over failure to pay royalties on the Mosiac browser code that built the early versions of Internet Explorer).

 

[jaseone]

Opportunity cost is an economics term used to describe the cost of doing one thing instead of another. Example: I buy a Pepsi, a Coke is my opportunity cost. But I agree with what you were saying otherwise, I still don't think there's room for a lawsuit though.

Yes but if Coca Cola is only thinking about Coke and it doesn't exist yet does the opportunity cost still exist? That is a very interesting question and I am guessing the answer will be "yes" based upon how bad the patent laws are over here at the moment.

 

[scheming]

this is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of, i don't think that after itunes has been out for as long as it has that this would come up... sorry but your lawyers cant be nearly as good or well-paid as the lawyers apple may be hiring to handle this negligible accusation.

 

[After G]

If people actually read the patent, it says that the patent is for a computer-based interface to a media device. Unfortunately, the iTunes interface does not "control" the iPod. The iPod has self-contained controls. And if it's the list/column view thing that people have been mentioning in previous posts, that's even MORE ridiculous.

Needless to say, I think this lawsuit is BS.

 

[grubesteak]

Um, and Apple is to blame for this how?

http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/

Lawsuit = yawn

 

[Jetson]

I don't think this patent is at all vague. There is a remarkable resemblance between iTunes and this guy's idea - especially with the album art window.

It's indeed possible that someone at Apple got the iPod / iTunes idea from this guy at a convention and simply appropriated it. I really hope that's not the case.

There's a saying in the corporate world that a patent isn't really a patent until it's been tested in court. Many companies feel that it's open season on ideas. They create a product, make a ton of money and if they get taken to court and lose, they pay off the owner of the patent and still come out ahead. Unsavory but true.

Then again, there have been cases where more than one person independently comes up with the same idea at the same time. I hope that is the case here.

 

[Surreal]

well, when did he show his software?
when was itunes released with the interface elements he is talking about?

i didnt read it all, so it might be in there..but those are the important facts. and what specific pieces he is talking about. i honestly don't think he is suing over a "general" look. what are his specific ideas that were particular to his patent?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Daveway

Opportunity cost.

The plaintiff claims loss of income due to the fact that he feels he should be earning the money and not someone else

Let's put ourselves in the shoe of this guy for a sec, you build this idea - and actually displayed it in a few places, then some year later, an idea that is eerily similar to yours is released. Imagin how that would feel.

His mockup looks like a mirror image of iTunes - and he's been writing Apple on this for a few years now, so it's not like this what is known as "Ambush Litigation". It looks like it's just that now there is a suit - and the news yelled it all over the place.

there might actually be a case here.

I think it shows that we have a patent system that needs review. Some ideas like this are just so common sense. What is next, some other party filing suit against this developer because they were able to get a patent on data tables?

 

[mad jew]

Yes but if Coca Cola is only thinking about Coke and it doesn't exist yet does the opportunity cost still exist? That is a very interesting question and I am guessing the answer will be "yes" based upon how bad the patent laws are over here at the moment.

I'm just saying that opportunity cost is the wrong term.

As for the original topic, something that doesn't exist should never hold sway over something that already does in the patent office but as you said, this isn't always the case.

 

[hmmfe]

Example: I buy a Pepsi, a Coke is my opportunity cost. But I agree with what you were saying otherwise, I still don't think there's room for a lawsuit though.

Since we are being picky here, your example is not complete. Puchasing a Coke would only be an example of opportunity cost if you had only $1.00 and the Pepsi and Coke both cost $1.00 each. Even so, opportunity cost usually does not imply merely a choice between two products (although it does fit the definition).

 

[Hugh]

Why now?

Am I missing something here. Why now? iTunes has been out for what 3(4?) years now and they are just now filing suit. I don't get it.


-Hugh