Hiroshige said:
Well, Einstein was a patent examiner and he found it so easy that he spent a significant amount of his time at work developing his theories. So, you, you're no Einstien!
You're obviously clueless. The PTO in Einstein's day didn't deal with a fraction of the patent applications that come across an examiner's desk today. I'm on the other side of the table, the guy trying to get patents for clients and it's not as easy as everyone here thinks. There is often two or three back and forths with the PTO where the examiner finds art that is relevant and the applicant has to narrow their claims to actually get anything.
People aren't perfect, including patent examiners. How would you like it if for every mistake you made, be it on a test, or at work, was posted up for the world to see and a bunch of people to piss and moan about?
Patent 101:
As said before, please, for the love of God, from now on when someone anywhere posts a patent story, skip the abstract skip the figures, and skip the written description. READ THE CLAIMS. They are what matter. Typically a patent agent/lawyer will reuse a written description from another application to save a client money. The specification merely has to support the claims, it does not have any real legal meaning outside that.
I don't know how anyone can say this is vague. It spells it out pretty clearly:
1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer, comprising the steps of:
a) simultaneously displaying on a display device, at least two individual data fields selected from music categories, composers, artists, and songs;
b) selecting at least one item from at least one of the data fields;
c) in response to step b), redisplaying all data fields not having an item selected therefrom with data related only to the at least one item selected in step b), and simultaneously maintaining all items originally displayed in the data fields with at lest one item selected therefrom;
d) selecting an item in the songs data field in response to step c), and
e) playing the selected song item from step d) on the computer responsive music device.
Whether you think it is novel or not, or non-obvious is another matter. But this is not vague. In fact, if I were this guys attorney, I wouldn't have made it a 5-step claim. That's pretty narrow since a person/company has to infringe every element. Additionally, for the examiner to reject this claim based on novelty, he had to find a single piece of art that listed every element. Not three, not four, all five and with the ordering language used in the claim "from step d)" etc. That's a high standard.
As for obviousness, that is when two or more references together disclose the claimed invention, the examiner has to show that there must have been a motivation to combine the references. Showing a kiwi and a strawberry together does not indicate a motive to create strawberry-kiwi fruit juice.
In the US, we have a first-to-invent system with a one year grace-period before the filing date which the inventor can claim they had invented the claimed invention. So since this was filed on Feb 16, 1996, the inventor may be able to claim that he had invented it as far back as Feb 16, 1995. Please show me music jukeboxes BEFORE Feb 16, 1995 that would knock this out. And I don't mean vague references, I mean documented references. Journal articles, trade publications, manuals, etc. Seriously, go find one. Now you have the job of an examiner. Please repeat several times a day. Good luck.
A patent's true purpose is to benefit the public. Benefitting the inventor is a nice idea, but the bargained-for exchange is that the inventor gets a temporary monopoly on a claimed invention in exchange for telling the world how to make/reduce to practice his invention. It does not just protect him while he brings it to market. There is nothing that says anyone has to work towards producing their invention. If they can describe it enough where someone else of ordinary skill in the art could take his patent and create the invention, then that invention is his to do whatever he wants with it. I mean, how would you like it if I told you how to use the land your house sits on?
Lastly, for everyone that thinks the judge will laugh in his face, think again. Patents are presumed valid. That means that the defendants have to show that they are not infringing. The burden of proof is on them (and they will likely argue both non-infringement and invalidaity).
Now if what I've said isn't inflammatory enough, try this: the next time you click reply to a software patent post, please please please stop for a second and humor me. Instead of replying, go read some part of 35 USC, the patent statutes and read the footnotes. It's ok if you don't understand it your first time around. No one does. But you will be able to contribute a much more intelligent reply the next time you do hit reply instead of waving your fist and gnashing your teeth about something you are (all) clearly clueless about.
Sorry, I used to be the same way, but since I started law school and working at a firm, I can't even read these stories anymore. People harp and complain about how broken the system is yet they know nothing about the system at all.
-p-
And unless you are a Patent Lawyer please don't take the "reported" rumor as evidence. Let the courts decide and us to laugh before we get our panties in a twist. 
