Sidebar Sidebar
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

blaskillet4 said:
Silly question... I keep hearing that itunes has been out for "4-5 years"... What did you fellow mac users use before that to play music? Quicktime?... This is a legitimate question... :confused:
Click to expand...

I used to use MacAmp, myself. I don't remember it as being a great application, particularly.
 
Two things.

1) Who in the hell rates this positive?

2) It's a little late in the game to be pulling a rabbit out of your ass, no?
 
iMeowbot said:
Uh huh. Einstein's refrigerator patent. Note that Electrolux build a model just like it invented a little bit earlier :D
Click to expand...

Classic, great example.

This lawsuit is strange for many reasons already listed. I had a class a few terms back where we spent a few weeks briefly covering the outlinging and application steps of patents in the US and it was quite enlightening. When filing for a patent you WANT it to be as vague as possible to cover as many future developments as possible, however it is the duty of the patent office to decline articles that are simply too vague.

I think the problem here is that someone slipped up early on, and his patent should never have been awarded in the first place. He is using iTunes as a target but really to add solidity to his case he should have filed long ago, and he should have targeted something more concrete using the same interface.

Either way, I don't see this going anywhere very quickly at all. It is quite sad that Apple continually gets hungup wasting money on fools like this. The reality is I assume that many major companies have this same problem, we just all read about Apple because we are on a Mac site ;)
I'm sure M$ has the same problems daily, but I really don't care about their problems.
 
macnulty said:
Jules Verne should've patented the submarine. This patent summarizes the point if you can imagine it patent it, no creation required.
Click to expand...
Just for your information. Jules Verne didn't come up with the idea for a submarine. They already existed, even though not many knew of them. They inspired him to write his famous book...

You can see a german article here about the submarine that probably was the inspiration for the Nautilus...

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,359448,00.html

The submarine was built in 1864. Vingt mille lieues sous les mers was published in 1870.

groovebuster
 
Hattig said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well if you read the thread, or even the 5th page (where you posted this quote), the argument is that "No, Winamp didn't exist when this patent was filed, and if it did, then it didn't exist within 1 year before the patent was filed.
 
efoto said:
I think the problem here is that someone slipped up early on, and his patent should never have been awarded in the first place. He is using iTunes as a target but really to add solidity to his case he should have filed long ago, and he should have targeted something more concrete using the same interface.
Click to expand...

One problem here on Macrumors is that we don't have the whole story, just outside reports of court filings. We don't know what negotiation attempts may have been made beforehand, and we don't know what other companies may have been approached and how they responded. Reports even conflict over what product is at the root (iTunes or iPod or both)!

These things typically crop up after negotiations have failed, and once it reaches this stage the parties are usually advised to shut up aside from the usual "we believe our opponent's claims are without merit" boilerplate.

Either way, I don't see this going anywhere very quickly at all. It is quite sad that Apple continually gets hungup wasting money on fools like this. The reality is I assume that many major companies have this same problem, we just all read about Apple because we are on a Mac site ;)
I'm sure M$ has the same problems daily, but I really don't care about their problems.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help much that Apple did more than their share to make this type of suit trendy with the whole Microsoft thing (after giving them a freakin' license) :D
 
Jetson said:
There's a saying in the corporate world that a patent isn't really a patent until it's been tested in court.
Click to expand...

That isn't just a saying; it's the law. The onus of enforcing patent claims in on the patent holder. The means for enforcing them is through the courts.

Claim 1 is pretty clear and (in my opinion) non-trivial. It is the iTunes browsing interface and iTunes is the only player that I know of with such an implementation. It is irrelevant if he had to drag the sliders in order to enhance the likeness; that ability was provided by Apple. The other infringed claims, such as transferring media to a media playing means, seem pretty trivial today.

On the other hand, the previously mentioned smalltalk example is pretty good for demonstrating prior art.

As mentioned, patents are intentionally broad. They are so because any claims are limited based on the exact wording. A textbook example--no, seriously, it was in my textbook--is those handy cardboard sleeves for drinks at Starbucks or some coffee shop of your choice. There are no less than three patents for them. The first covers sleeves with semi-spherical dimples. The second covers corrugated sleeves. The third covers something like oblong dimples. Although the functionality is the same, the other patents were granted because the first holder didn't think of all possible embodiments of his invention. (The first holder, Jay Sorenson, still made millions.)
 
SoundJam and the iTunes interface

I'm attaching a screenshot of the last version of Soundjam (2.5.3) from 2001 (3/9/01 to be precise). I have not been able to locate my original CD (yes, I still have it). :)

The whole reason, as I understand it, that Casady & Greene stopped selling SoundJam was because Apple swooped in and bought the app and the developers responsible for it and they metamorphosed it into iTunes.

A lot of interesting information here: http://panic.com/extras/audionstory/

For those who don't remember, Audion was one of the other MP3 players for the Mac and it too had a similar interface.

Those hard coding dudes at Panic started working on it in 1999, and released 1.0 on 8/16/99. According to their story, SoundJam was released "mere weeks before Audion".

So there we have it. Will they try to sue Panic next??? Or Casady and Greene who have long since gone out of business??
 

Attachments

  • SJPlaylist.png
    SJPlaylist.png
    4.5 KB · Views: 222
psxndc said:
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.
-p-
Click to expand...

the argument FOR patents is: let someone control an idea so that someone comes up with a BETTER idea. "further the progress of science" seems pretty quotable as the basis for the patent office.

quick/bubblesort. it depends. if he claimed quicksort, he's kinda screwed. you can argue the benefits of bubble v. quicksort and probably contest it is a modification.

that said, if someone tried to patent something whose only modification was a sorting algorithm, i'd reject his ass.

-----

on to other people - there's a good chance i'm going to leave the patent office for the specific reason i can't patent anything. so don't say i'm no einstein ;)

patent examiners have a short amount of time to process a case. for the itunes interface patent, if it's a design patent, then the examiner would have maybe 4 hours to search and communicate a response to an application. after 4 hours, you're below production level and this could get you fired.

how do 2 patents that conflict get patented? there's over 7 million U.S. patents alone to pore through. you try doing this in a day.

businesses are allowed to request a reexamination of a patent (which i'm sure the patent at issue here will undergo) to try to get it 'unpatented' or some version thereof. and believe me, apple will search for days and weeks to build a strong reason as to why this should not be patented.

examiners make mistakes, appeal boards and the like are all part of the process.
 
Karma Shmarma

mac-er said:
iTunes has been out for how long?
4 or 5 years?

Should've brought your lawsuit when it first came out if it infringed your patent.

Though it sound a lot like way back when when Apple sued MS for taking elements of the GUI....karma sucks, doesn't it Apple? :rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...

They lost, didn't they?
 
iMeowbot said:
It doesn't help much that Apple did more than their share to make this type of suit trendy with the whole Microsoft thing (after giving them a freakin' license) :D
Click to expand...

Ha, good point. Although it probably shouldn't default in this manor, Apple probably set themselves up for a little hurt making mistakes like that.

robotrenegade said:
Another case of broke rednecks trying to steal from a large company.
Click to expand...

Ouch, a little harsh....but true :)
 
Zoboomafoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. Wasn't knocking the people, but knocking the structure and processes in place that you all have to follow. Just seems as if you and your fellow co-workers are cogs in the machine to keep the legal system humming - and profitable.
 
autrefois said:
They've already started moving in that direction...http://www.bioscienceworld.ca/view.html?id=308
Click to expand...


Sorry sir, that cell split in your family member that caused their cancer is patented. You need to pay us 1.2 Million dollars in damages.

Please note that we are truly sorry to hear your family member is suffering, please be sure to send your check on time.

[/sarcasm]

This is too bad. I guess I will have to add that to my list of things to not steal, or have happen.

If it does i will call 1-800-4-BIOLAW for legal protection.. (I bet that is patented too)
 
Small Observations

I just have a few questions, Is not iTunes a Free Application? I can go to any apple store and get a free CD with iTunes on it, I can download it for free on the web. The ways iTunes makes money, selling music from the Music store, not mentioned in the patent. Itunes for OS X sends media to several devices not just the ipod. iTunes also brings some money because it is included with the purchase of a new computer or through the purchase of iLife. So, Basically the application itunes makes little money but it is one of the "Devices" which has brought millions to Apple through the popularity of the ipod and the music store. I am not a lawyer or a Judge so I can not say if this suite has any basis or not, I personally do not feel as though it does from the information I have found. I personally feel as though someone is trying to cash in on someone else's success. I also feel as though many people are making the mistake of not looking to the past for information to back up their claims.

Moronboi
Switcher - no ipod in the mix - It was all about Photoshop

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Remember Rome burned twice.
 
Are you nuts?

psxndc said:
I think the patent system can and does work. It needs some adjustments, and they may be behind the curve in terms of when they were really due, but I don't think the system is indefensible.

Example: shorten the term for software patents. 20 years in the software world is an eternity. Give someone a monopoly for, say, 5-10 years. That gives them a headstart on the competition, gives the PTO time to grant/reject the patent (usually a 2-3 year process alone), and give the inventors a limited time in which to sue infringers.

I think it can be saved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-p-
Click to expand...

5-10 years for a software patent? Might as well make it 75 years. The only way I would accept a software patent would be to make them last only 6 months at most.

Software patents are evil and wrong. Period. See this article for a good example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html

Why do software companies patent ideas? What would happen if book publishers started patenting ideas about characters? There would be outrage. But what is so different?
 
csubear said:
Sounds like a submarine patent.

Step 1: Patent some thing vague
Step 2: Wait until someone make something even remotely close
Step 3: Wait until they made alot of money
Step 4: SUE
Click to expand...
Actually, there are two more steps in the "Submarine patent" process:

Step 5: Offer to settle (for a much smaller amount than you sued for)
Step 6: Laugh all the way to the bank

The worst thing is that it is often much easier for large companies to settle than to fight. The mere threat having a clueless judge order a company to stop distributing their software while the drawn-out (and expensive) legal process takes place is enough to force many companies to simply settle for whatever the extortionists are asking for.

Software patents (including design patents on software) are both a tool for con-men to swindle money from others, and a way for large companies to drive their competitors out of business. I spent a while lobbying against them when they were being mooted here in Australia, but they were unfortunately a fixed condition of our FTA with the US, so we can look forward to this sort of fun down here as well.
 
Just another reason why intellectual property patents are garbage.

I hate software patents.

People who patent simple ideas are bastards.

People who claim that their simple ideas are novel are bastards.

People who are stupid should not get money for it.

Everyone support open source.
 
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!!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

WOAH!! i totally had that SAME idea! did you see the product that i haven't created yet and rip off my idea?? you B@$†@$&!! i'll see you in court....
 
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?" :p
Click to expand...

Your statement is so stupid on many levels i was dying laughing

1. The airplane was invented a long time ago.. you can draw whatever you want, nobody cares.

2. Did you patent the airplane?.

As to all you amateur lawyers stop frothing at the mouth. I don't know if they guy has a case or not but couple of points.

1. It is irrelevant how long itunes has been out. If you violate a patent and the person doesn't sue you right away does not automatically give you the right to continually violate the patent.
2. A patent holder can sue anyone who violates his patent. He can also choose not to sue. So the fact that apple is sued and no one else is, is irrelevant to whether he has a case or not. All a patent holder has to do is establish the validity of the patent in one case. He doesn't have to sue EVERYONE who has violated his patent to establish validity.
3. Very likely, he has been in discussion with apple. Suits are expensive. You have to hire lawyers, it can drag on in court for years (see linux suit). There is not a company on the planet who wouldn't try to reach a deal with the patent violater first. Any good lawyer would tell you to do that. Suing is usually a last resort.
4. Itunes does not have to exactly resemble his drawings. The people who are saying that itunes does not resemble his drawings are really showing themselves as having no clue what patent law is. His drawing is merely one visual representation of his ideas. Itunes would be violating his patent if it implements his ideas, regardless of how it implements them visually. Example, sorting music by genre can be done different ways but at the end of the day, it is still sorting music by genre. It would still violate a patent that covers sorting music by genre, regardless of how the patent holder represented his idea to the patent office.

I'm willing to bet apple gives this guy money. His patent is too generic for apple not to be violating it in some way.
 
iTunes interface Patent

Apple was issued a patent on May 4 2004 for the interface design of iTunes.
iTunes interface patent
This patent clearly denotes a method for selecting an item in the first of three columns and having it narrow the contents of the second column and so on.
The patent references many other patent documents including the one filed by Contois.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back