wnurse said:
I sure hope they don't as that will be setting a bad precedent. Does that meant they can come sue me next for Connoisseur? How would I afford that one?
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
I sure hope they don't as that will be setting a bad precedent. Does that meant they can come sue me next for Connoisseur? How would I afford that one?
similar?*^*&^*&%
It looks to me like they displayed the two players so that they look as similar as possible my itunes looks very different and I dont really think the online pics look that similar.
patrick0brien said:
It looks to me like they displayed the two players so that they look as similar as possible my itunes looks very different and I dont really think the online pics look that similar.
The key is the fact guy knows he showed this software to someone back in 95 at the trade show who now works on the itunes development team. I am assuming since he made this claim he must have some proof to the fact.
This is how companies get in trouble by hiring someone who has prior knowledge to something and does not disclose it. I have been part of patent investigations and the lawyers will ask if you have ever seen or have prior knowledge of an idea that was patented or to be patented. If you have been predisposed to an idea, it might not be patentable.
For those who said patent kill innovation, this is not true, I have seen cases where someone saw another patent and developed a better product to get around the existing patent. If an idea is worth the money smart people will develop a better idea to cash in on the idea and not infringe on someone else's patent. Some patent spur on more innovation.
As someone pointed out, even thought what we all know today as a common interface or idea does not mean it always that way. In 95 when this guy had this idea there were no similar ideas so it was new and unique. You can not write the guy off. BTW, he first showed it in 95, and submitted it back in 96, I am betting he has notes that take the idea back before 95, this is usually how it works. Most people do not run out an patent an idea as so as they have it. As long as you have documents that back up when you originally had the idea.
One last point, this is a test case and if it goes well you can bet he will go after every other company who has a similar idea.
This is how companies get in trouble by hiring someone who has prior knowledge to something and does not disclose it. I have been part of patent investigations and the lawyers will ask if you have ever seen or have prior knowledge of an idea that was patented or to be patented. If you have been predisposed to an idea, it might not be patentable.
For those who said patent kill innovation, this is not true, I have seen cases where someone saw another patent and developed a better product to get around the existing patent. If an idea is worth the money smart people will develop a better idea to cash in on the idea and not infringe on someone else's patent. Some patent spur on more innovation.
As someone pointed out, even thought what we all know today as a common interface or idea does not mean it always that way. In 95 when this guy had this idea there were no similar ideas so it was new and unique. You can not write the guy off. BTW, he first showed it in 95, and submitted it back in 96, I am betting he has notes that take the idea back before 95, this is usually how it works. Most people do not run out an patent an idea as so as they have it. As long as you have documents that back up when you originally had the idea.
One last point, this is a test case and if it goes well you can bet he will go after every other company who has a similar idea.
To many lawyers....
Seriously america has waaaay to many lawyers not just talking about this case either if you want to get something done in this country you need to hire an army of blood sucking atorneys who do not contribute to society they just pull money and resources from the system without actually producing a single thing. I understand some lawyers are needed but the numbers we have are ridiculus everything is a law suit.We consider lawyers to be members of high socitey but we shun plumbers, electrions, and construction workers ext. as lowly. Even though it is these people who truly drive our society. We could not live withought the working classes listed above but we would do fine without lawyers.
(worlds longest run on sentace
)
Seriously america has waaaay to many lawyers not just talking about this case either if you want to get something done in this country you need to hire an army of blood sucking atorneys who do not contribute to society they just pull money and resources from the system without actually producing a single thing. I understand some lawyers are needed but the numbers we have are ridiculus everything is a law suit.We consider lawyers to be members of high socitey but we shun plumbers, electrions, and construction workers ext. as lowly. Even though it is these people who truly drive our society. We could not live withought the working classes listed above but we would do fine without lawyers.
(worlds longest run on sentace
)clayj said:
what evidence?
he claims apple or soon to be apple people were there where is the actual evidence?
mj_1903 said:
What precedent?. that patent violaters have to pay?. Please.
Apple will pay because they violate his patent, not because they want to be nice.. if they wanted to be nice, this would not have gotten this far.
There is no precedent to be set here. If apple is found to be violating his patent, they will pay. Simple.
I personally think that there are some serious problems with patent law in this country. After looking at the AppleInsider article, I wasn't convinced that there's really a case against Apple. The primary problem is that nobody can really seem to draw the line between what is innovative, and what is simply a trivial and/or universal component of a much larger intellectual work. Part of the problem is that most people (including myself) don't have a full grasp on how the system works - and therefore I think it's valuable to get opinions from people with real experience.
I dont think Apple will have to fight this much. I think the suit will be thrown out and the judge will laugh and the media will ridicule Contois.
Im going to patent something that will display things in random order except it wont be called Shuffle, it'll be called, Chaos View. Not only that, but when you double click an item in chaos view, it will correspond with entirely different files and folders.
I will make lots of money.
Im going to patent something that will display things in random order except it wont be called Shuffle, it'll be called, Chaos View. Not only that, but when you double click an item in chaos view, it will correspond with entirely different files and folders.
I will make lots of money.
My local record shop also organizes music by tpye / style. They havea row for Jazz, Rock, Hip Hop, etc. AND they have a computer there, I bet they stole that idea from these guys too. In fact, I have heard some libraires have a system of organization with categories... this thing is big. Clearly a conspiracy.
a lot of you are missing the point
The whole point of the patent is to be as broad and vague as possible. Writing the patent takes a great deal of time and effort, and usually years to be filed. I'm willing to bet he has some documents showing evidence of his ideas before 96.
He doesn't even have to have a claim to have lost any money to sue for patent infringement. The bottom line is that the patent lawyers write the patents to be broad / vague to have the best chance to protect the given intellectual property.
As for the timing of the suit. . .who knows, maybe he and his lawyers are taking their sweet time to do the proper research for their case.
The courts will decide. . .unless they settle
csubear said:
The whole point of the patent is to be as broad and vague as possible. Writing the patent takes a great deal of time and effort, and usually years to be filed. I'm willing to bet he has some documents showing evidence of his ideas before 96.
He doesn't even have to have a claim to have lost any money to sue for patent infringement. The bottom line is that the patent lawyers write the patents to be broad / vague to have the best chance to protect the given intellectual property.
As for the timing of the suit. . .who knows, maybe he and his lawyers are taking their sweet time to do the proper research for their case.
The courts will decide. . .unless they settle
Way over my head...
Seriuosly: How could Apple own a patent that in detail describe the iTunes interface and then be sued for infringing on another patent for the exact same thing?
There is something very odd about these patents... Clearly there is no control whatsoever anymore.
Interesting piece about software patents by R. Stallman:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html
Makes some interesting thoughts I would believe - the misconception that copyright and patents are the same, and also a funny analogue to how this would have worked for the literature. I personally don't really see a future if this software patent thing goes on anymore. It would not be possible for anyone to actually do nothing - all the cash would be in thinking vague ideas and hoping someone would bother actually doing the real work of making something similar in the future... it is not how it is supposed to be.
Seriuosly: How could Apple own a patent that in detail describe the iTunes interface and then be sued for infringing on another patent for the exact same thing?
There is something very odd about these patents... Clearly there is no control whatsoever anymore.
Interesting piece about software patents by R. Stallman:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html
Makes some interesting thoughts I would believe - the misconception that copyright and patents are the same, and also a funny analogue to how this would have worked for the literature. I personally don't really see a future if this software patent thing goes on anymore. It would not be possible for anyone to actually do nothing - all the cash would be in thinking vague ideas and hoping someone would bother actually doing the real work of making something similar in the future... it is not how it is supposed to be.
There's at least 2 things wrong here:
1) He was apparently openly demonstrating his idea months before the patent was applied for. Unless Contois privately showed the idea under NDA, I think he has a problem. Per our IP lawyers, once you publicly offer the idea for sale, you're screwed. The Cnet report implies it was shown on the floor at COMDEX in 95. The patent states it was submitted several months later in 96.
2) Apple was granted a patent for the iTunes interface which referenced the Contois one. It would appear that is some confirmation by USPTO that they thought Apple's iTunes interface design was not infringing on the earlier patent. The iTunes design was accepted as advancement over the prior art.
1) He was apparently openly demonstrating his idea months before the patent was applied for. Unless Contois privately showed the idea under NDA, I think he has a problem. Per our IP lawyers, once you publicly offer the idea for sale, you're screwed. The Cnet report implies it was shown on the floor at COMDEX in 95. The patent states it was submitted several months later in 96.
2) Apple was granted a patent for the iTunes interface which referenced the Contois one. It would appear that is some confirmation by USPTO that they thought Apple's iTunes interface design was not infringing on the earlier patent. The iTunes design was accepted as advancement over the prior art.
Maestro64 said:
Probably. But there is still an amount of time between 1996 and 2005. In this time iTunes is only the latest addition to a long series of software that does these same things - and in quite a similar ways.
As long as the guy did not make anything out of his idea in all this time - I think he should suffer the pain. There is unquestionably a lot of people that would also get this "idea" for a similar software in these years without knowing there already is a patent - they are doing the work of getting this done, they should benefit from any success they get as well.
The way I read the patent's claims, it's basically stating that the computer has the song database on it, the user selects the song from that database, and the song then plays on the device. I sort of view this like an external sound card with speakers attached; this device translates the binary data stream from the computer into analog audio that the speakers translate into sound. The focus of the claims seems to be on the device (aka external sound card) and how songs are selected and streamed to it.
I don't see where iTunes could be in conflict with the patent because iTunes isn't really used that way (at least by me). To support my "external sound card" theory, the third claim even mentions "player piano" that is controlled by the computer.
I don't see where iTunes could be in conflict with the patent because iTunes isn't really used that way (at least by me). To support my "external sound card" theory, the third claim even mentions "player piano" that is controlled by the computer.
American Bar association has estimated that there are aproximately 1,000,000 lawyers in america roughly 100,000 more than there were only ten years ago in 1995. In 1972 roughly 70% of the people in this country did not have lawyers and did not even know how to find one, yet America survived. The United States contains 70% of all of the lawyers in the entire world even though we are only 5% of the worlds population. TV is filled with lawyers preeching the evil of insurance companys who will try to cheat you of the money you deserve, not mentioning the handsome precentage they will take off the top if they win. As I said above I am not opposed to criminal deffense or prosecution lawyers these are obviously a necesary part of any modern culture. So if you plan on becoming one of these I retract my previous statement. I just have concern over a nation that supports an entirely parasitic class that does no enterprise itself but redistributes weath, pulling money from the rich, poor and middle classes.
Well, I don't know where it is, but I read it. Assuming he's telling the truth and can prove it (him, not me), it would lend credence to his claim.AP_piano295 said:
If that injunction for the iTunes distribution ever took effect. I feel like stooping to their level and filing a lawsuit for damages to my music listening and purchasing well-being. I use iTunes for my daily de-stressing. Lets get a lawsuit started from all iTunes users and go after them...LOL
But Seriously, this is freaking stupid. Besides iTunes is patented on its own.
Lets get a lawsuit started from all iTunes users and go after them...LOLBut Seriously, this is freaking stupid. Besides iTunes is patented on its own.