Patent Suit Filed Against Apple Over iTunes Interface

[MacEyeDoc]

Digression: MacRumors is a home to me. /. too an extent too. I've been reading these sites for years and I totally understand that patents, software patents especially, have been playing a significant role in development and the computer industry over the last decade or so. I come to these places to relax, to read the latest rumors etc, and to occasionally contribute here and there.

On every site I go to these days, on just about any given day, there is a patent story. Everyone picks up their pitchforks and torches and announce that the patent system is horribly broken, all lawyers, patent attorneys in particular, are scum, how attorneys just do it all to get rich and screw over their clients, ad nauseum. If I let it get to me, my apologies. But it's gotten to the point where I can't read a damn thing anymore without someone making a comment like the one I replied to.

No one has an intellectual, objective discussion about this stuff. Do I really have to turn my back on these sites I've called home because no one will take the time to calm down and learning something before hitting reply?

I gotta say, I kinda understand how a Microsoft employee feels. It's pretty crappy.

</frustration>

For the record, not a lawyer yet. Halfway through school, been working in a patent firm the last 2 years.

And nothing I have said should be taken as legal advice. If you have a real legal question, contact an attorney. 99% of them will be happy to talk to you about this free of charge.

-p-

ok, we hear you. But do step outside for a moment. If you had written a great app, and then saw someone else using it as their own, wouldn't you cry foul right away? Why wait 5 years? It tones down the authenticity a bit. Like if you gave a girl a secret present, but some other guy took the credit for it, and then they fell in love, got married, and had kids, and then 5 years later you come along and say - "hey, you know that present that started it all, I really gave it to you" - wouldn't people be naturally sceptical?

 

[psxndc]

What's funny to me is you don't see Coke and Pepsi suing over who put lime in their cola first.

Just greedy and rediculous.

Huzzah! You have stumbled on the double-edged sword of the patent system. You get a monopoly, but only if you disclose your invention. Which do you think is more valuable: the formula for coke as a patented formula, sealed up as a monopoly for only 20 years, or the formula as a closely guarded trade secret that has no durational limits? If someone made a product that tasted like coke with lime and they though the formula was misappropriated, now or 50 years from now (much longer than patent protection), they could sue if the trade secret had in fact remianed a secret.

Greedy indeed...



-p-

 

[modernpixel]

No one has an intellectual, objective discussion about this stuff. Do I really have to turn my back on these sites I've called home because no one will take the time to calm down and learning something before hitting reply?-p-

I couldn't agree with you more. The feel of Mac forums has gotten downright disturbing. There is no opportunity for intelligent debate, lest you step on an evangelist's toes and be struck down by their mightier-than-thou sword. Intelligent posts get ignored, or replied to with seething hatred - while the poorly spelled, idiotic posts get lauded and those users get to join the Secret Society of the Mac Elite and are befriended by the forums.

Why can't you like a company's work and also judge it objectively? Why is everything black and white around here when it comes to Apple? I mean, when you go to the supermarket you prefer and buy meat, and you come home and find out the package you purchased happens to have gone bad - do you say "I love that supermarket, there is no way they'd do anything negligent, they are THE BEST SUPERMARKET!" and then cook and eat the meat anyway?

Companies do things wrong, all of the time. Apple has made bad mistakes. Apple isn't the holiest of holy corporations built from pure and heart-driven kindness and love for their customers and all that is right in the world. They are a company who's job it is to make money. Period. Otherwise, they'd be building technology that solves world hunger, poverty, cure disease, end wars...whatever. Steve Jobs is NOT Mother Teresa or Jesus Christ or even Oprah. By most accounts, he isn't even a particularly nice person.

Get a grip folks. Nothing is black and white in this world. Nothing. There are shades of every color in between to confuse and muddle the matter. And that's why a forum can be a fantastic place for debate.

Here are two samples illustrating the difference between good and bad debate:

1.) Good debating posts might start like this: "I've read portions of the patent, I don't think his claim is specific enough and here are my reasons why..."

2.) Bad debating posts often start like this: "THIS GUY is so STOOPID! It is so redeculus. He Should die!!!" (The word is spelled ridiculous, by the way, as in: Misspelling ridiculous is a ridiculously common mistake.)

We all have our stupid posts, but just think of how much more interesting these forums would be to read if we had 3 or 4 pages of engaging debate instead of 305 pages of pat-you-on-the-back-for-your-idiocy-and-for-being-a-mac-freak-like-me posts.

Give it some thought. Of course, most of the people who need to read this have not gotten this far... so the problem goes on.

 

[psxndc]

I firmly believe that it was the lack of the legal profession's understanding of what software is and how it is built that has led to this mess. And, now that there are attorneys that have come from a software background, it seems like most are more interested in making a living by supporting the system rather than pointing out how insane it is.

Nothing personal... this subject always hits a nerve with me.

I understand. The venom felt towards us hits a nerve as well. But as for not understanding it, first, let me say that of all the patent attorneys I have worked with over the last 2 years, all have engineering bachelor's, if not masters, from MIT (and this is more than 10 attorneys). I'm actually hard pressed right now to think of one that didn't go to MIT for at least one... anyway...

Before you can take the patent bar you MUST prove that your degree is from an accredited science program. Check out http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/examregist.htm and click on the PDF. Section III lists the type of degree you must have to even sit for the patent bar.

Personally, I don't do it to "support the system" I just find it more interesting work than sitting in front a monitor coding all day. Think about it: you get to hear about an inventor's cool invention before anyone else. And a good lawyer won't let a bogus patent application get filed. It's honestly too hard. You spend a lot of the client's money, the PTO makes the process long and drawn out, and in the end, the client may not get anything. Things slip through. They do. But the number of decent patents far outwieghs the bad apples.

I don't expect to convince you, but we're really not all scum-sucking bottom dwellers. Most of us just want to make a living doing something we enjoy.

If you want to blame anything, blame Office Space. Seriously. "Hey guys, what if we're still doing this when we're fifty?" After hearing that, I got out of software. I couldn't stomach sitting in my chair, banging out code for the next 30 years. And no, I didn't want to do management either.

-p-

 

[psxndc]

...iTunes has its own private algorithms for indexing and searching through your media collection. These algorithms are different than the ones that the Windows Media Player and Musicmatch use, for example, and it's what contributes to the differences in performance. I could go on and on.

Yes, I realize the patent in question does not cover these issues, but that is not my point. My point is that what software patents claim as "inventions" are nothing of the sort... they are just ideas. They do not provide anyone with the means to build them....

Meant to touch on this... The standard is would one of ordinary skill in the art be able to implement it. If you tell an engineer to "sort the list by band name" do you really expect to need to tell him to use a quicksort algorithm (or whatever your preferred sorting algorithm is)? Do you need to explain to him how to use CreateWindow()? No, because he is of ordinary skill, he can figure it out.

I understand what you are saying: that implementations are so specific and made up of so many components that the patents don't really tell you how to implement any specific solution to a problem. But this gets back to my equivalents post. If one guy uses quicksort and another uses bubblesort (yikes), the second guy doesn't infringe is he does everything else the same?

The argument against patents is actually a commerical one: put everything out into the market, prevent copying using copyright, and let the best product win.

Patents are a property right though and property theory is used. You have a right to that property and you have the right to exclude others from using it. "Landowners" want as much property as they can get for their investment.

(There are several areas of theory that the law has evolved from. Contracts theory is one, Property is another, each with their own quirks)

-p-

 

[angelneo]

I doubt I can diagnose what is wrong with my car better than a mechanic can.

;-)

-p-

In a way, if you are the driver, we often tell the mechanic that the brakes isn't feeling tight enough, the steering is stiff so on, as we are the people using it. Mechanics, even though knowing how the car works, sometimes do not know how the person, using that particular vehicle, needs. Mechanics sometimes become presumtuous as they think they know everything about the vehicle but they are not the one driving that particular vehicle.

I used to work as a mechanic before so I would know a little in that area.

Anyway, in terms of software patents, those people who approved and examine the patents sometimes become bogged down by the bureaucracy/system and then in turn neglected the people who are affected by it. They somtimes forgot that these patents are to encourage innovation and invention, and not to hinder it.

 

[psxndc]

ok, we hear you. But do step outside for a moment. If you had written a great app, and then saw someone else using it as their own, wouldn't you cry foul right away? Why wait 5 years? It tones down the authenticity a bit. Like if you gave a girl a secret present, but some other guy took the credit for it, and then they fell in love, got married, and had kids, and then 5 years later you come along and say - "hey, you know that present that started it all, I really gave it to you" - wouldn't people be naturally sceptical?

I cannot guess as to why it took so long. To be honest, the guy could be exactly what everyone says he is, lying in wait nefariously for iTunes to gain marketshare enought to extract a big licensing fee.

Please understand I am not defending the individual. I cannot know what is going on in his mind. I am simply trying to calm some of the fervor that people feel when something like this comes up because people don't take time to learn about the subject at hand and just jump up and down a bunch instead.

That said, he may have sent Apple's lawyers a letter, waited to hear back, got caught up with life, still waiting 6 months later, sent another letter, they told him to come in and discuss. He did 3 months later. They told him not interested. Maybe HIS lawyers dragged is out because they got caught up in other work. I really have no idea.

*shrug*

-p-

 

[iPost]

I don't expect to convince you, but we're really not all scum-sucking bottom dwellers. Most of us just want to make a living doing something we enjoy.

If you want to blame anything, blame Office Space.
-p-

Yes, we all want to do something we enjoy, which is why I got into the software business twenty-five years ago. There's a pretty good chance that you're all using (or have used) some of the software that I have written and designed.

I got into the biz because I like creating things. This was back in the day when they actually let developers design the software ;-) Now, it's all done with graphics designers, interaction designers, usability engineers, and product managers. (Not that that's entirely bad ;-) But, when I have an opportunity to design and build a software package for a client, I have to worry about infringing on someone's patent just because someone, in this world of billions of minds, might have thought of something similar at some point in time. If we did the same thing to artists, musicians, and authors, we would never see a new work of art, new book, or new movie because someone somewhere would claim that they thought of it first.

 

[iPost]

ok, we hear you. But do step outside for a moment. If you had written a great app, and then saw someone else using it as their own, wouldn't you cry foul right away? Why wait 5 years?

But where was that great app? Is there anyone that really thinks that anyone at Apple had ever seen it or their design before? If anything, the three column design of iTunes looks like it was taken from the File Viewer application (http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.htmld/Workspace.html) that shipped with NeXTStep way back in... what was it... the late 80's?

Nobody copied anything from these guys. They don't deserve a dime from Apple.

 

[jydesign]

What about the fact that iTunes navigation behaves much like Mac OS X "Columns View" of a finder window - from the multiple panes, down to the preview, and in the case of a QuickTime movie the play controls?

I was trying to compare the dates of OS X to this patent date to see if he ripped off OS X finder or if the converse could be insinuated by his claim. It's interesting as early betas of the OS appear in the same year he filed his patent: http://www.macos.utah.edu/Documentation/MacOSXClasses/macosxone/macosxhist.html

 

[mozmac]

Just want to throw in my two cents. First, I think this is a bunch of bs, like everyone has already mentioned. So much of iTunes was dirived from Mac OS X and NeXt itself. Second, iTunes was largely based off of SoundJam MP (which I LOVED!), and that program came out like, six years ago. So...nice try guys, but maybe you should claim that Michael Jackson tried to seduce your software. I think you'd have a better chance.

 

[iPost]

What about the fact that iTunes navigation behaves much like Mac OS X "Columns View" of a finder window - from the multiple panes, down to the preview, and in the case of a QuickTime movie the play controls?

I was trying to compare the dates of OS X to this patent date to see if he ripped off OS X finder or if the converse could be insinuated by his claim. It's interesting as early betas of the OS appear in the same year he filed his patent: http://www.macos.utah.edu/Documentation/MacOSXClasses/macosxone/macosxhist.html

Yes... just pointed this out right above you ;-) The Mac OS X Finder evolved from the NeXTStep OS (File Viewer) that Steve Jobs brought with him (from NeXT) when he came back to Apple. That's the navigation model that iTunes is based on.

 

[moose.boy]

Hmmm. Just before the release of Tiger we had tiger direct attempting to sue apple for something trivial.

Just before the release of iTunes we get some company trying to sue Apple.

Could it be a sneaky ploy to get everyone interested in iTunes a few days before it's release date ?

 

[ericdano]

-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.

Oh GOD! Cry me a freaking river. Why didn't he sue all these other companies as well? Geez. Can I scratch out some art (and no product) and patent it? WTF!

 

[fraggle]

I've started to patent all carbon-based lifeforms. I don't think anyone has done that...

Well, I think I count myself as prior art

 

[JackSYi]

I really don't see this lawsuit going anywhere. IMO, these guys do not have a product out there, and why did they take so long to file this suit?

 

[840quadra]

ok, we hear you. But do step outside for a moment. If you had written a great app, and then saw someone else using it as their own, wouldn't you cry foul right away? Why wait 5 years? It tones down the authenticity a bit. Like if you gave a girl a secret present, but some other guy took the credit for it, and then they fell in love, got married, and had kids, and then 5 years later you come along and say - "hey, you know that present that started it all, I really gave it to you" - wouldn't people be naturally sceptical?

Agreed.

If they are into Software, for modern comptuers, they MUST have noticed Itunes years ago, and why didn't they then cry fowl?

However did iTunes have these features from the start? I can't recall as I just started using it 2 years ago.

 

[iMeowbot]

What goes around comes around. Apple regularly try to suppress competition with questionable interface patents. Their failed suit against Articulate Systems comes to mind.

 

[savar]

Clink

I think this suit screams extortion. There are some similarities, but there are only so many ways of displaying music info. Also the search method also in the suit is a standard view of a file system used on many systems.

This is garbage.

Contois has a patent (according to AI) covering
1) Selecting music to be played
2) Transferring music to a portable player
3) Storing music in a database
4) Displaying sorted records from that database

Is he going to sue Microsoft for Access, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.? Sorting database record based on particular fields should not be patentable in 1995.

Selecting music to be played is what every MP3 player on the market does. Again, should not be patentable.

Transferring to a musical player? Well granted I suppose this was an idea not already put in practice in large scale in the late 90s, but its like patenting the idea of flying to mars. Of course everybody has thought about it, but actually getting there is pretty darn hard.

What a travesty of the U.S. legal system..No, worse, a travashamockery of the U.S. legal system.

 

[iMeowbot]

Is he going to sue Microsoft for Access, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.? Sorting database record based on particular fields should not be patentable in 1995.

Patents are rarely about the components, but the combination of them. Take scissors for example. Whoever came up with those obviously thought of something novel and useful, but a pair of scissors is just a pair of knives bolted together. Does the fact that knives already existed mean that scissors weren't an innovation?

Lots of things seem obvious after they've been pointed out. But why wasn't the phonograph invented 100 years or more earlier, when clockwork was already around and people already knew that sounds caused vibrations?

Selecting music to be played is what every MP3 player on the market does. Again, should not be patentable.

There were no MP3 players like that when this patent was filed. Winamp came out a few months after the application was filed, and the first standalone MP3 player, from Compaq, also appeared after.

Transferring to a musical player? Well granted I suppose this was an idea not already put in practice in large scale in the late 90s, but its like patenting the idea of flying to mars.

Part of the complaint is that Contois demonstrated the technology art exhibits that Apple attended, using MIDI devices.

 

[autrefois]

I've started to patent all carbon-based lifeforms. I don't think anyone has done that...

They've already started moving in that direction...http://www.bioscienceworld.ca/view.html?id=308

 

[Dunepilot]

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.

I think Hulugu covers it all, really. I'm fed up with chancers like this trying to take the mickey.

Does anybody know what's happening with VLC and the EU debate on software patents? Don't forget to write to your MEP if you live in Europe!

 

[irobot2003]

I understand. The venom felt towards us hits a nerve as well. But as for not understanding it, first, let me say that of all the patent attorneys I have worked with over the last 2 years, all have engineering bachelor's, if not masters, from MIT (and this is more than 10 attorneys).
[...]
And a good lawyer won't let a bogus patent application get filed. It's honestly too hard. You spend a lot of the client's money, the PTO makes the process long and drawn out, and in the end, the client may not get anything. Things slip through. They do. But the number of decent patents far outwieghs the bad apples.
[...]
-p-

I think the problem resides primarily with the PTO not the patent lawyers. In my experience the examiners at the PTO are overworked and under educated. If they don't understand something, they won't admit it. They just stall. Then if the patent lawyer is persistent enough it eventually will go through.

I'm not a patent lawyer, and I don't work for the PTO...

 

[Hattig]

This patent won't hold up due to prior art. There were similar players with the same functionality this patent describes years before he filed it.

I agree totally. WinAMP surely had a version prior to that with the described features. Maybe he is hoping that Apple won't want to use other software as prior art?

Otherwise, I think the patent should be struck down because of the obviousity of it all - a patent has to be non-trivial to be enforceable, and when you are going against Apple you won't be able to walk over them.

I mean, what about all those CD cataloging applications (and simple databases and spreadsheets) that were even available in the 80s? That's all that interface is, with some controls to play the music now that computers are powerful enough to do it.

It is a retarded patent. Software patents and 'interface' patents (which aren't valid anyway as Apple know!) really shouldn't be granted until the patent office can see a running prototype of the described functionality.

 

[broken_keyboard]

This would never have happened if Einstein was still working at the Patent Office.