hmmfe said:
True. I assumed Pepsi and Coke cost the same and it is a very limited definition but my original stance remains. I just couldn't be bothered going way off topic describing the intricacies of complex economic terms.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Patent Suit Filed Against Apple Over iTunes Interface
- Thread starter Daveway
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True. I assumed Pepsi and Coke cost the same and it is a very limited definition but my original stance remains. I just couldn't be bothered going way off topic describing the intricacies of complex economic terms.
Since I deal with patents often I will answer some people's questions.
Why 5 years? Because not that iPod is successful this guy is looking for a piece of the pie. He hopes to stop distribution of iTunes until Apple licenses the patent from him. If he sued when iTunes was first released no one could predict how successful it would be so the license fee would be less than it would be now. $$$
The pictures don't mean anything in terms of patent law. The one legal ground is what is contained in the claims. The body, introduction, examples, drawings, and pictures are just filling for clarification. The question for the lawyers will be whether using iTunes with an iPod is an "obvious" extention of this patent.
Why 5 years? Because not that iPod is successful this guy is looking for a piece of the pie. He hopes to stop distribution of iTunes until Apple licenses the patent from him. If he sued when iTunes was first released no one could predict how successful it would be so the license fee would be less than it would be now. $$$
The pictures don't mean anything in terms of patent law. The one legal ground is what is contained in the claims. The body, introduction, examples, drawings, and pictures are just filling for clarification. The question for the lawyers will be whether using iTunes with an iPod is an "obvious" extention of this patent.
If this vague patent is enforced, then more than just iTunes can be sued. This guy can sue any maker of digital music devices and software that catalogs or organizes music, like Delicious.
It boggles my mind that someone can get a patent for the way information is organized or searched for. That seems ridiculous.
It boggles my mind that someone can get a patent for the way information is organized or searched for. That seems ridiculous.
Thanks skubish. So does it have legs then? Could he actually win the case or is there no way of telling because not enough info has been released?
My knowledge of this law is vague at best, but if you have a patent or a trademark, and fail to defend it, do you not eventually lose the right to defend it?
I.e. Can the court throw this guy out based on the fact that there were lots of other programs that "infringed" over the past few years, yet he has not (to my knowledge, anyway) bothered to try and file suit against those, and therefore can't just start doing it now?
I.e. Can the court throw this guy out based on the fact that there were lots of other programs that "infringed" over the past few years, yet he has not (to my knowledge, anyway) bothered to try and file suit against those, and therefore can't just start doing it now?
grubesteak said:
I think you hit the nail on the head, grubesteak. This lawsuit is as over as the Pistons-Spurs series.
Well let's all keep in mind that the one of the most important reasons patents are granted is that someone wants to "officialise" a great idea that no one has thought about yet.
The patent may be vague and simplistic now, but back then when it was invented, it was innovative, new and novel implementation of ideas.
Most certainly should people be allowed to patent the way information is organised and searched for, if that way has not been invented before.
No one except for a visionary few could see the way it would permeate our society in the future.
Let's not look back at these patents with 20/20 hingsight and say, "Oh, that's soooo obvious! That patent is too universal! Too vague!"
I think people in this forum are over-simplifying the patenting process, with such claims as this following:
If you say it is so simple, why not try to REALLY patent it? If it gets approved (and I doubt that greatly, since there is a checking process if the idea has already been patented, or it is at the time of application, too generic and vauge), if you believe it has great value and you can litigate any future possible infringers, I say great for you!
You just became an inventor!
PS. Correct me if I'm wrong: Ideas themselves can not be patented. You can only patent implementations of ideas.
MontyZ said:
The patent may be vague and simplistic now, but back then when it was invented, it was innovative, new and novel implementation of ideas.
Most certainly should people be allowed to patent the way information is organised and searched for, if that way has not been invented before.
No one except for a visionary few could see the way it would permeate our society in the future.
Let's not look back at these patents with 20/20 hingsight and say, "Oh, that's soooo obvious! That patent is too universal! Too vague!"
I think people in this forum are over-simplifying the patenting process, with such claims as this following:
paulypants said:I'm going to patent this:
A software program that organizes and distributes content on or to an electonic device, with controls and functionality built into an interface that allows a user to navigate the program.
Brilliant! Now everyone can pay me too!!
If you say it is so simple, why not try to REALLY patent it? If it gets approved (and I doubt that greatly, since there is a checking process if the idea has already been patented, or it is at the time of application, too generic and vauge), if you believe it has great value and you can litigate any future possible infringers, I say great for you!
You just became an inventor!
PS. Correct me if I'm wrong: Ideas themselves can not be patented. You can only patent implementations of ideas.
After G said:
You can control an iPod from iTunes. You cannot change settings (backlight, alarm, etc), but you can select songs from the iPod and play them through your system's speakers. Meanwhile, the iPod displays the "Do not remove/disconnect" screen.
Jules Verne should've patented the submarine. This patent summarizes the point if you can imagine it patent it, no creation required.
zv470 said:How can vague patents like this ever be granted? How stupid
well, patents are written as broadly as possible so as to give as much protection as possible.
if it isn't known by everyone, the claims are what matters here. i know the images look somewhat different, but the similarities between figures is not very relevant.
read the claims. if the claims, any claim, sound like what itunes does, then they have a case. that said, apple can challenge the patent to try to invalidate it.
as to how vague patents like this ever be granted? i'm a patent examiner ... we are under huge pressure to process a case and in many cases the time we have compared to the time we have available just isn't the same.
it's possible in this case that the examiner was in a hurry, was barking up the wrong tree, just couldn't find the right art, or this guy may just have had a novel idea.
it's a hard job, dont knock it till you try it.
In a side note: George Lucas files a patent claim against the International Space Station. Lucas claims that it impedes his ability to successfuly market his Death star plans to the Empire.
stephenli said:
That is such a purely theoretical statement.
Of course, theoretically he should. However, people aren't constrained by theory in the real world, but by the "doability" (is that a word? haha) of something.
Obviously, if I were him, I would sue those who I believe infringe most on my patent first. Then if I so choose to do so, continue to litigate the other jukebox software providers.
Jetson said:
Well, album art has been around as long as albums, and has been viewable on computers for years as well. As for the appearance... the shape is square because CDs ARE square. The position is NOT the same. The size is not either--unless you customize iTunes to MAKE it bigger like they have done. And the functionality? iTunes uses the lower portion of the Source list, and makes the height automatically fit the width of the list. You can click to view larger than that, drag-and-drop to edit, toggle between Selected vs. Playing art, or collapse the pane for a longer list above. None of which do I see in the patent mock-up.
It sure looks to me like these guys might have a case.
As to the delay: It looks like they've been working on resolving this behind the scenes in some way.
As to why they don't sue anyone else: Because they can sue anyone they want to, if they feel their patent has been violated.
As to whether the patent is valid: The USPO thought so, apparently.
As to all of y'all who are condemning software patents now: You have forfeited the right to comment on any litigation against Microsoft for violating software patents. If it's OK for Apple to violate a patent, it's OK for Microsoft to do the same.
As to the delay: It looks like they've been working on resolving this behind the scenes in some way.
As to why they don't sue anyone else: Because they can sue anyone they want to, if they feel their patent has been violated.
As to whether the patent is valid: The USPO thought so, apparently.
As to all of y'all who are condemning software patents now: You have forfeited the right to comment on any litigation against Microsoft for violating software patents. If it's OK for Apple to violate a patent, it's OK for Microsoft to do the same.
Your example is invalid because Boeing was building airplanes long before you were born, AND because you don't have a patent. This fellow DOES have a patent, and there's evidence that suggests that Apple employees saw his patented design at a show and then incorporated it into iTunes.rdrr said:Yes, and I have a cocktail napkin with a sketch of the first aeroplane that I drew when I was drunk... maybe I should sue boeing?
In the words of Mr Mackey "Patens are bad... mmmkay?"