Slashdot Mirror
Apple Tries to Patent iPod User Interface
harlows_monkeys writes "Apple's
trying to patent several aspects of the iPod user interface. This one is particularly interesting because the claims are written in fairly clear and simple language, easy to understand by anyone. If this one is granted, it won't be because an overworked examineer was confused by deliberate obfuscation by the application (which is what I think happens for a lot of the ridiculous patents). About half the claims are for things that were implemented in prior players (e.g., Archos), and the other half are for things that are in many other common device interfaces (DVD players, PVRs) and the only novelty is that Apple put them on a portable music player."
Inventors: Robbin, Jeffrey L.; (Los Altos, CA) ; Jobs, Steve; (Palo Alto, CA) ; Wasko, Timothy; (High River, CA)
Jeff Robbin was the primary author of SoundJam, licensed by Cassidy & Greene years ago. I worked w/ Jeff on some SoundJam and iTunes related software before Apple bought SoundJam (or whatever it is they did) from Cassidy & Greene. A landslide of credit goes to him for bringing iTunes to where it is today in a variety of categories (the most obvious being the UI). Although he probably wears additional hats at Apple, he's currently one of the iTunes senior engineers (if not the chief).
G-Force music visualization
If it was Microsoft doing this, we'd have seen a long judgemental rant with a biased link at the end. Good to see some things never change on Slashdot
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
So Apple is trying to patent some stuff they didn't invent?
I am stupid when it comes to most things related to patents.
What does this mean, does Apple secure exclusive rights to the specific combination of all the features of the iPod or to the individual features?
If this patent is approved what would be the impact on the portable music player market?
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
I see one of the three people in the inventors list is Steve Jobs. I guess the guy standing with the whip behind the engineers deserves some credit, but this is ridiculous!
*grin*
It's a pretty slick interface and one that would also be easy to copy. I can't fault Apple for trying to protect against a horde of Asian clone iPods. If a patent is granted and Apple has the common sense to only enforce it in obvious cases of someone copying the interface, then great. If they get the patent and then sue anyone and everyone who has something that sort of works like the iPod, then that sucks.
M
My Sony tuner from 1998 or so uses a wheel based interface for controling most of its digital features (everything that dosn't have a dedicated button). And that's a "music player".
Seriously lame.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
iPod sales are going through the roof. So much so that Apple doesn't even have enough stock to supply it's European market. I think Apple is being very wise and protecting itself from the likes of Microsoft, who I'm sure would take advantage of any "deliberate obfuscation" to find loopholes and use the same interface when they decide to produce their own BillPod.
Free Firefox news reader.
Unless I'm missing something this patent covers something that is already public knowledge (the IPOD interface), which (under aus law at least) isn't patentable. Of course this depends on the filing date of the patent.
Being, you know, a corporation which does research and follows the "patent shield" theory, Apple patents EVERYTHING they come up with. Including their interfaces. Including their *themes*. Go look over Apple's patents. They really do try the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.
Once it starts seeming like Apple is considering *using* said patent, then thi will be news. Until then, this doesn't tell us anything. I've never seen Apple attempt to use any of these patents. Even when they were harassing creators of Aqua schemes, they never resorted to patents, always arguing in terms of copyright...
It doesn't mean that they're _eliminating_ the competition; they're just FORCING the competition to make something _better_ instead of copying what Apple already has.
I see it as a somewhat good thing, I mean, they're not trying to patent the idea of "e$NOUN"
They're trying to patent something that they have created, a design, which is something vital to their business, why not?
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Could this be the beginning of the end of /.'s love affair with Apple? :)
Well, I mean, if you created something that helped a piece of hardware sell a lot, then you're going to want to make sure the world knows its yours.. and doesn't steal it also. Right?
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
If it was Microsoft doing this
If Microsoft were trying to patent the Apple iPod they'd deserve all the flames they could possibly get...
If this is a so-called "design patent," then it isn't a big deal. It would be a patent on a specific design and layout, not the underlying concepts of a music player, which can be implemented in many ways. I believe they have a design patent on their trash can icon, as well. Again, not a patent on the idea of a trash can, but one specific design (a metal wire basket in OS X).
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
What makes you so sure Jobs didn't have some sort of legitimate hand in designing the iPod?
In a web browser, a system with the intent of turning into DIGITAL DATA and eventually a system of PIXELS that resemble ENGLISH characters in a FORM. These characters will be uploaded onto the INTERNET where they will be POSTED on the popular SLASHDOT website in hopes to gain a MODERATION of funny or insightful.
Patents are getting ridiculous.
Perhaps if I went searching through old articles, I would find someone posting that the Segway wasn't worthy of being patented, because it used gyroscopes, handlebars, wheels, and even a grip-throttle - all of which everyone knew had been around for ages in other devices.
Perhaps a flying car wouldn't be worthy because it used parts from cars and airplanes, both of which have been around in some form or another for a hundred years.
See where I'm going here?
If you take enough different ideas or things from enough different places, and put them together in a way that hasn't been seen before, and the result is something that significantly improves upon what had been seen before, to the extent that people look at it and say, "Wow, that's sure new and different," you've basically had an original idea. Sure, you've been standing on the shoulders of giants - but so has everyone else.
1) Apple can do no wrong. Drink the Kool Aid, bathe in the warm glow of the Reality Distortion Field, and shut up.
2) This patent seems to involve the graphical display of content and features of a MP3 player through a hierarchical menu structure and through playlists.
3) They are patenting a feature on a physical device, not a software method. They're not patenting the software. The technology they are patenting is embodied in a physical device.
4) A patent can be based on other work, even other patented work. If any previous art that Apple has built on is patented and that patent is owned by another company, Apple must still pay that other company. If a third party wants to license the technology, they must pay both Apple and the other company.
5) Patents mostly suck, unless Apple applies for them, because of 1).
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
patentable. Of course this depends on the filing date of the patent.
Which, had you FOLLOWED THE ONLY LINK IN THE ARTICLE, you would know was: October 28, 2002
The original iPod was released... when? 2001? So this patent was filed after the iPod had been available for some time, it would seem.
Once you become a multi-billionaire you too can take credit for inventing a popular device.
There is a downside to this perk however. Gates knows this....
I mean, Apple has spent a lot of time and money in perfecting the look and feel of the iPod. And now they want to protect that. How's that a bad thing?
Michael is an experienced Nazi. He can hijack domains, modbomb threads, troll stories, and post utter shit all at the same time.
Apple has a pretty strong claim on the idea of dragging a GUI interface icon into a trash can to signal a request to delete a binary object... so much so that in MS-Windows, they clearly label their similar object as a "Recycle Bin" instead.
Apple is pretty much here describing what's unique about the iPod UI so that anybody else who wants to make a competiting music player had better design their own UI rather than copy the iPod's. It's not that hard, just avoid the using the same menu structure and same "spin and click" structure and you'll be all set.
This is a utility patent application.
Thats no excuse for utter hypocrisy.
Been here long?
It's okay if Apple does anything bad, because well, You gotta FIGHT TEH MAN.
"About half the claims are for things that were implemented in prior players (e.g., Archos), and the other half are for things that are in many other common device interfaces (DVD players, PVRs) and the only novelty is that Apple put them on a portable music player."
As we were told where I work: If you come up with a new way to package / use existing technologies, you CAN patent that.
Patenting the iPod interface is okay. But Apple should open up it's media format and DRM technology. This in turn would be good for everyone.
Not so much for Apple, but much more for the slashdot crowd. Two common themes are present from the slashdot crowd that I've met,
1. Apple is uber-cool. Steve Jobs can do no wrong, He is our master and overlord. I'd gladly give Mr. Jobs a hummer if I ever was lucky enough to meet him person. If Mr. Jobs thinks patents and copyrights are OKAY, then I think they're okay too ! OH ohh, the new iPod is cool cool, TAHNK OYU STEVE JOBS, I LOVE YOU.
2. Patents are bollocks, top to bottom, side to side, it doesn't matter, they're all evil.
So, whats the slashdot crowd to do ? Implode I hope, especially the iPod crowd.
Yeah, thats why windows has a "recycle bin". Although if you think of it in terms of disk space and not files that can make sense too.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I can just see the day when Donald Trump patents his signature expression--
Me: So, boss, what did you call me in for?
Pointy-Haired boss: You're fired!
Donald Trump: That'll be $35, please
Me: haha!
Ads? What ads?
When you first read the patent application it states 'multimedia asset player. It isn't until you get to paragraph the it expands the description with 'portable, pocket-sized' descriptor. Paragraph also includeds 'home interface' in the working description below.
13. In a portable, pocket-sized multimedia asset player, a method of selecting and playing an multi media asset from a group of multimedia assets stored therein, comprising: displaying at a home interface, a playlist list item corresponding to a number of playlists stored in the multimedia asset player, wherein each playlist is a user customizable group of multimedia assets, an artists item corresponding to all of a number of artists each of which is associated with at least one of the stored multimedia assets, and a songs list item associated with each of the stored multimedia assets; highlighting a desired one of the playlist list item, the artists item, or the songs list item; receiving a selection of the highlighted item; and automatically transitioning to a second interface based upon the selected item.
Apple blew it when they added 'pocket-sized' to the description, it the patent had been granted as just a 'multimedia asset player' it could possibly be applied to notebooks. As it is could this be applied to PDAs? and does the patent also apply to the "home interface'?
If at first you don't suceed, try RTFM or Man pages.
While maybe the app will then lead to a lawsuit, I don't think pPod has anything to do with the app itself. If you'll look, the app was filed in 2002. ... I don't think Apple has that kind of foresight exactly.
I made a vague attempt to read the patent document, but lets face it those aren't written for mere mortals.
So what's the actual invention they are trying to patent?
Seriously.
United States Patent Application 20040055446
Kind Code A1
Robbin, Jeffrey L. ; et al. March 25, 2004
Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player
Abstract
In a portable multimedia device, a method, apparatus, and system for providing user supplied configuration data are described. In one embodiment, a hierarchically ordered graphical user interface are provided. A first order, or home, interface provides a highest order of user selectable items each of which, when selected, results in an automatic transition to a lower order user interface associated with the selected item. In one of the described embodiments, the lower order interface includes other user selectable items associated with the previously selected item from the higher order user interface.
Inventors: Robbin, Jeffrey L.; (Los Altos, CA) ; Jobs, Steve; (Palo Alto, CA) ; Wasko, Timothy; (High River, CA)
Correspondence Name and Address:
BEYER WEAVER & THOMAS LLP
P.O. BOX 778
BERKELEY
CA
94704-0778
US
Assignee Name and Adress: Apple Computer, Inc.
Cupertino
CA
Serial No.: 282861
Series Code: 10
Filed: October 28, 2002
U.S. Current Class: 84/615
U.S. Class at Publication: 084/615
Intern'l Class: G10H 001/18; G10H 007/00
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method of assisting user interaction with a multimedia asset player by way of a hierarchically ordered user interface, comprising: displaying a first order user interface having a first list of user selectable items; receiving a user selection of one of the user selectable items; and automatically transitioning to and displaying a second order user interface based upon the user selection.
2. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second order user interface includes a second list of user selectable items associated with the selected item.
3. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second order user interface is a proper subset of the first order user interface.
4. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first list of user selectable items includes at least a playlists item, an artists item, and a songs item.
5. A method as recited in claim 4, wherein when the selected item is the playlists item, then the second list of user selectable items includes a list of configurable playlists.
6. A method as recited in claim 4, wherein when the selected item is the artists item, then the second list of user selectable items includes a list of all artists and a list of particular artists.
7. A method as recited in claim 4, wherein when the selected item is the songs item, then the second list includes a list of all songs.
8. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the transitioning is pathwise bidirectional.
9. In a portable media asset player, a method of selecting and playing a media asset from a group of media assets stored therein, comprising: displaying at a first user interface displayed on the portable media asset player a first number of items each of which is associated with a particular grouping of the stored media assets; receiving a selection of one of the first number of items; automatically transitioning to a second user interface displayed on the portable media asset player based upon the selected one of the first number of items wherein the second user interface includes a second number of items each of which is associated with the selected item.
10. A method as recited in claim 9, further comprising: selecting one of the second number of items; automatically transitioning to a third user interface displayed on the portable media asset player based upon the selected one of the second number of items wherein the third user interface includes a third number of items each of which is associated with the selected one of the second number of items.
11. A method as recited in claim 10, wherein when each o
There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in patenting all those technologies because they combined them into one box. If my neighor patents the pencil, and my other neighbor patents the eraser, but I put them together, I'm allowed to patent the pencil-with-builtin-eraser. I believe it's called a combination patent.
I wonder if they'll patent that dirty little battery life feature too
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
errr.. have you read the patent application.
Here is the summary:
That sounds an awful lot like a menu system to me.
I don't have an IPod. Could someone with some experience of them fill me in - is there anything especially clever and non-obvious about the design of the menu system that warrants patent protection?
Dan.
You mean copying what Apple has already copied?
Come on, putting old stuff in new device ISN'T an invention. Should I able to get a patent for PONG if I port it to a new Nokia phone??
In short?
Customizable menus.
Microsoft: garbage. Apple: the revealed word of God.
Even shorter Andy55: Thank you, Steve, may I have another?
Please don't read the summary. The summary doesn't get any legal protection and is just there to give a general idea what the patent is about. If you want to know what they are trying to patent READ THE CLAIMS!!
It's times like this that I wish the flash tag was still around...
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Yep, that describes a menu system. However the text posted is not part of the claim(s) section of the application.
Claims cover what is "patented" and nothing but the claims and "best mode" disclosure are relevant to the patent *assuming it issues*.
Anybody want to post a link to the app? I don't have the time or the inclination to search the USPTO database to find this application (somewhere in the thousands of Apple Patents / Patent Applications).
Sigless and proud of it.
Why can't we have outrage over all the non-innovative cloners not taking innovative risks to make life better for end users? Why can't we have articles like "dell refuses to innovate" or "Gateway poo-poos idea that would make things easier for end users because it was deemed too risky"? Why can't we have these kinds of articles in addition to "Apple sues dell for copying their innovation" or "Apple threatens gateway for look-and-feel infringement"?
Why can't we be outraged over Creative Labs or Diamond Rio or anyone else not being the first to make an ergonomically excellent hard-disk based portable mp3 players with a superior UI? Why can there only be outrage over Apple preventing these people from copying the UI that they themselves weren't willing to make in the first place?
Why can't we have outrage over Open Source/Free Software projects caring little about things like interface design or not coming up with innovative UI's? Why can't we have articles like "linux distribution spends $700,000,000 on dot-com buyouts and $50 on usability research" or "$DESKTOP_PROJECT coordinator tells HCI person with legitimate UI complaint 'quit whining about what you get for free' while telling industry pundit 'quit spreading M$ FUD About Linux Being Hard To Use'"? Why can we only feel outrage over articles like "Apple threatens $DESKTOP_PROJECT over copying Expose" or "Apple Sues Linux Distribution For Copying Aqua Theme?"
We shouldn't be pissed about Apple trying to horde and brutally protect it's innovations, we should be pissed about them being the only ones creating innovations worth hording and brutally protecting.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Find out who the examiner is and send him all the data on this and public domain stuff that does this, he has to accept valid information.
Come on slashdotters! You can do this!
The link in the story is straight to the app. Here's another one to save needless scrolling as you read this: 2004/055446A1
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Michael Sims, Domain Hijacking and Moral Equivalency
by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.
The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.
Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.
Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.
After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.
I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to delete my name from the site if he wasn't going to transfer the domain. Again, I received no reply.
In November 2000, Sims took the Censorware Project site offline again, with a message saying "Due to demands from some of the people who contributed, in however minor a fashion, to this site, it has been taken down." Judging from some email I received from him at the time, this meant me.
Its a sad thing, both because we got some good work done and because some of the other members of the group were eager to continue and in fact have continued working, while deprived then of the Censorware Project site, name, email aliases and public recognition. Within a few months after, we relaunched the site, with the orig
The claims of a patent each act like "mini patents". Companies usually cram an application full of them to save money over filing a bunch of separate patents.
However I'm not sure they put each feature in a separate claim. I'd have to read the patent, which I won't, because reading patents increases your liabilities under patent law.
Youre new here arent you?
That's one of those topics that we cant discuss around here.
I've often been curious about this. While I respect and understand the rights to a company patenting it's user interface be it tangible or software, I ponder how much this effects inconsistency among interfaces. I'm sure many of you have been in a rental car and gone to set a preset or change the radio station and have given up in frustration as not to hit another car trying to figure out the new interface. Certainly this was true for a while in the early 90s among games when they had to use different key combinations for different actions and such. Just how much does patenting of interfaces effect inconsistency among interfaces.
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
Wait...didnt Apple invent scrolling?
You there, with the mouse...prepare to be sued.!
Prior art is what's needed here, and apple zealots can suck eggs...if it's really them who caused this mis-moderation.
db
Cig:
ôô
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
If this were about Microsoft, we'd have Microsoft Martyrs describing why this is acceptable, pointing out that a profit must be made, and decrying anti-Microsoft opinions and criticism. Oh. And judious use of the term "slashbot".
As it is... this is a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft... but the Microsoft Martyrs still get a chance to cry about the injustices layed at the feet of their corporate hero.
you know, if Nintendo can patent a gamepad with a cross-shaped directional button (check it out, no other gamepad has it), I guess Apple can very well patent their scroll wheel.
If we admit that Apple's patent is reasonable, we should also admit that OneClick is reasonable.
Frankly, I don't think that UI elements should be patentable. It's already extremely difficult to write software without infringing on a patent. I can't even imagine how hard it would be to design user interfaces without infringing on any mechanisms.
May we never see th
Had Apple patented the Trash Can, it would probably stand up. Instead they tried to use copyright, "trade dress", etc. That's why others could copy the functionality, but not the actual icon.
Is it just me? Or do the first couple of points on the article seem to be referring to any hierarchical menu?
Surely they can't patent the idea of a hierarchical menu system???
Mod Parent up, deserves 5!
Very interesting, so as I understand it you cannot copy someone else's design exactly, but if you change it enough you're ok.
Although he read the summary rather than the claims, he did get the right idea as to what they are trying to claim. Here's the first claim:
If they do that, then they risk getting their patent overturned in court.
My understanding (IANAL and all that) is that that isn't how patent law works. You're allowed to take your patent and hide, and when you see fit start suing as selectively as you please. On the other hand, you must agressively pursue trademark infringements or risk losing it. This allowed Unisys to lie in waiting while GIF became popular and then come out and ambush the big guys. IBM is known to not pursue violations of their "small" patents till they decide its time to kill someone at which point they can almost always find something out of their huge portfolio of patents that their victim is violating.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
Because what they're trying to patent is a ripoff of existing designs at the time. Hierarchical menus were already used in players on the market.
All Apple is trying to do is lay claim to core IP that is both obvious and non-innovative. Since such applications are not really scrutinized, the patent may issue but it could never be valid. Such a patent would be useful in a portfolio or against a weak opponent only.
This would be a good opportunity to ask something I've been wondering about patents for a while: to infringe on a patent, do you only have to violate one claim (in which case this patent covers everything which has a second-level menu, and should be thrown out as overly broad / prior art) or all of them (in which case, because it specifically talks about MP3s, you could happily take their UI and throw it lock stock and barrel into an OGG player)?
Except that Apple didn't specify actual menu structure or the wheel ("spin and click") in the claims, so avoiding those things would have no bearing on infringment.
This is absolutely not a design patent.
I guess Apple doesn't need to design their own UI when they enter an existing market but their competitors should.
Not to take the wind out of your sails because I agree with your insights but the Cocoa UI you are referring to hasn't to do with Cocoa but with QUARTZ which is proprietary, and rightfully so. I'd hate to think of the comments from Andrew Barnes, Peter Graffanino and the rest of the brilliant engineers who made Quartz happen, if Steve walked in one day and said, "I've have an epiphany! Let's give the world Quartz via Open Source." I'm sure Freedesktop.org is counting on that never happening.
The Cocoa APIs are freely available and accessible, on-line. GNUstep implements the Openstep Standard that NeXT and SUN co-drafted and released in 1994.
The claims seem to be filed October 28, 2002. If I'm not mistaken, this is AFTER the iPod came on the market for the first time. (confirmed using Google)
My understanding is that this makes their own claims invalid IF they are applicable on the existing iPod at that time.
If history is any indicator, the portable music player market could forget having a user interface even remotely similar to Apple's in any shape, form or fashion. If they did, Apple would unleash the lawyers and sue them into oblivion.
Apple tried "unleashing the lawyers" before (over their desktop UI) and they failed in court. Ultimately, they didn't invent either the desktop UI or the iPod UI and if they cause enough trouble, they will lose.
The US Patent Office has issued many questionable patents where prior art existed, and the excuse so far has been the patent was written to obfuscate, or was confusing, so they didn't pick up on it.
The USPTO doesn't make that kind of excuses. They have, in the past, issued patents for clearly written applications with prior art, and they will continue to do so.
I could be wrong, of course, but I have yet to see any evidence that this applies to the iPod as we know it. That seems to be mostly an assumption.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
You only have to violate one claim of a patent to be infringing, but as I'm pretty sure that the more claims you are infringing upon, the more you may have to pay if you are found to be infringing.
It is important to note just for the sake of clarification that dependent claims contain all of the limitations of the claims that they depend on. For example if you have a claim set which contains:Claim 2 actually includes A, B and C from claim 1 as well as D from claim 2. To be infringing upon claim 1, you only have to have A, B and C, but to be infringing upon claim 2 you have to have A, B, C and D.
Another important thing to note when talking about infringement the preamble of a claim. Claims usually start with something like "A system for X comprising", "A system for X consisting", etc. The section before consisting/comprising is called the preamble, and many times it doesn't carry any legal weight when determining the scope of the claim. The general rule is that if the rest of the claim does not refer back to the preamble in any way, the preamble is ignored.
Another important point is the word which follows the preamble, which is usually consisting, comprising, or including. Comprising and including are open-ended, which means that in the previous example if you had a system with A, B, C and E you would be infrining upon claim 1. Consisting is close-ended meaning that if you had the A, B, C, E system you would not be infrining upon claim 1. Basically in closed-ended claims you can avoid infringement by adding features, while in open-ended claims you can not.
As far as examination goes, each claim is treated independently and a subset of the claims that are filed can be allowed even while the others are rejected.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
So... it's the same interface as my mobile phone (a Nokia bought about 18 months ago, but older Nokias had basically the same interface for a few years), but applied to a multimedia asset player? I fail to see how that's an innovation worth protecting.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but the scroll wheel interface has been done plenty of times on other devices, eg car audio, av gear, so why's it so patent worthy because it's on a portable MP3 player?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Great, trying to slashdot the examiner as well?
hey, what kind of moblie phones do you exactly use in the US, rotary dial? My very first, gritty Mitsubishi from 5 years ago had a hierarchical menu (and clumsy too); only, it didn't have a sweeping animation on transitions ;-) Last week I played with an SE P800 and it does much more that place calls :-) The SE T610 is another one I've seen (nasty slow interface... shame, shame), don't you have these in the US (ugh, must be savages!)
My current gritty (and dog old) cell is a Siemens M30... it's a complete prior art: hierarchical, up/down/click to enter subsection thing... the only "design" attribute I give to the iPod is having a wheel adding a sexy circular motion to a very rigid UI. It's a kind of Zen thing I really like.
So, although typing on a TiBook I must laugh at Apple's claims.
Ciao
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
I think the main problem with the patent system is that the "non-obvious" standard is mostly ignored by patent examiners. The standard for a novel idea is supposed to be something like "non-obvious to someone skilled in the field".
I mean, PLEASE!!! Applying well-known user-interface techniques from other domains to a new domain (mp3 player)??? That isn't obvious to one skilled in the field?
I hate the patent system. And yes, I have applied for/received a patent -- but it takes alot of time & money. I can't possibly afford to patent every stinking idea at the level of those being applied for by Apple. In effect, the patent system is being used as a mechanism for established companies (with cash flow) to lock out small players. A horribly anti-competitive system!
Here's a link to a CNN article about it.
Come on, putting old stuff in new device ISN'T an invention.
You have absolutely no idea what a patent is, do you?
Since 1994, Donald Knuth has lobbied against algorithm patents. Perhaps we ought to ask whether interface patents are not just as destructive of freedom and human rights.
Do interface patents "take away [our] right to use fundamental building blocks" (in Knuth's words)?
Here is the text of Knuth's letter.
I don't understand how Apple can patent something
like this. Since the user interface technology used
in the ipod and covered by the patent has been
around for the last 3 years at least, isn't this
'prior-art'?
Hope they won't patent the iPod mini's design or Limecat mini will be affected :
http://etudiant.epitech.net/~bret_a/limecatmini/
...on their CD and Minidisc players - for exactly the same purpose as Apple do on the iPod, to move quickly between songs. The implementation is different (generally like a volume knob) but Apple's innovation here is just a combination of two things with some industrial design; it's not so great that it should patentable. I can scroll through things on my notebook's touchpad by dragging my finger down one side; this has been standard on notebooks ever since I had one.
Incidentally the 'scroll wheel' in some form or other is pretty much universal on any Sony product, including their Vaio notebooks and Clie PDAs. My last Vaio had one on the side; they've now moved it to between the mouse buttons and it is effectively now just a mouse scroll wheel. AFAIK, Sony never tried to patent the idea.
Im going to patent a "knob" and the "On/Off" switch; then everyone in the world will have to pay me $699 in order to use it provided of course they agree with the EULA .
The wankers over in Redmond are about to release thier self-proclaimed "iPod killer" brick and since it's been proven time and time again that they aren't interested in innovating (just copying and/or smothering). So maybe it's a protective measure against Billy & Co. Apple has been Redmond's R&D lab for many years. Don't beleive me? Go here and read the part about "New graphics with the Desktop Composition Engine". It still goes on to this day.
I'd be a little worried if I were Apple. I mean, look at Microsoft's track record - they missed the boat on the GUI, office productivity apps, the internet and now the search engine. They missed the mark early on only to copy and then dominate those respective areas (don't you dare take Google away you bastards!). In typical fashion, Microsoft slowly looks at the digital music phenomena and says to itself "hmmm...there's something bright over here...let's exterminate it".
Apple may be setting themselves up to take MS to court if they end up having to. At least the EU has proven that they aren't blinded and seduced by corporate money like the current U.S. administration. Admittedly, I have no idea if a U.S. patent makes a rats ass bit of difference over in the EU.
Claiming essentially that those who oppose software patents never had anything worth patenting, (whatever that means, part of the problem) does not make it true.
If it was Microsoft doing this, we'd have seen a long judgemental rant with a biased link at the end.
No if this was Microsoft doing this we'd have gotten exactly what we got...
A short judgmental summery.
I realise the tin foil hats are in fassion for Slashdot it really is out of place when your defending Microsoft.
I don't actually exist.
examineer
ha, sounds like they outsourced their HR to Disney
In what days do you consider iPod to be a better implementation of preceding players?
Thanks for the link.
The claims (and they reference and incorporate another "provisional" patent filed in July 2002) certainly seem to describe a method of selecting information from a menu / indexing system. The patent should fail as obvious given prior art. All utility patents must be for matter that is, "new, unique and nonobvious".
I also question the "best mode" disclosure: "[0034] While this invention has been described in terms of a preferred embodiment, there are alterations, permutations, and equivalents that fall within the scope of this invention. It should also be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing both the process and apparatus of the present invention. It is therefore intended that the invention be interpreted as including all such alterations, permutations, and equivalents as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention. "
I don't think you should be able to waffle on best mode. But, I haven't done any applications in recent years and I can't say if this waffling on the best mode disclosure has become standard practice. I know of dozens of patents held invalid for failure to disclose "best mode", though....
Bottom line: if this issues, it will fail in a court challenge. (A great insight on my part where 90% of all patent challenges result in finding the patent invalid....it's sort of like how 98% of taxpayers lose in tax court)
It's not a design patent. RTFA before you start talking about irrelevant stuff.
Sound like patenting hierarchical menus on a media player to me. Also sounds like a template for bogus patents. Remember all those patents for doing [blah blah] ON THE INTERNET? Somebody is probably rushing to patent all those ON A MULTIMEDIA ASSET PLAYER right now.
I'm with you that this doesn't seem like a very patent-worthy innovation. But when you think about it, when you go to a fast food restaraunt or coffee joint, even the plastic lids on the cups are patented. They've been patenting things like that for as long as I can remember. And what's the difference from lid to lid? Basically just a little industrial design. If that's the standard, then yeh, I have to say the iPod is at least as innovative as the plastic lid I got on my last cup of coffee.
one player, but that is not a big deal.
I mean, it was innovative and original to put them all together to make the iPod, so a patent on the interface for music players is not out of the question.
I mean look at hand guns.... some one invented the pistol grip before it was ever conceived for the hand gun, some one invented the hammer, the barrel, the rotary chamber, the self contained cartridge, and the site, but numerous people had patents on handguns.
so using elements from other innovations is not a bad thing.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Given that Windows doesn't implement that, the Nomad Zen didn't (does it now?) implement that, and many other music players don't implement that, no, it *isn't* obvious.
Column view:
Proposed implementation in a news reader and a mockup.
Nautilus has no plans on implementing column view in v2.6.
A critical look at column view. In the reviewer's words:
It's an old idea from NeXT, but new to OS X, and new to much of the world. I don't know if it's worth patenting, but really, until the iPod, no one else had *tried* to copy this browsing mechanism. In that it *is* new, useful, and non obvious, I think it passes the threshold of being patentable.
GPL Deconstructed
The Apple patent application has likely only been published for a limited time (it still hasn't even hit the 18 month mark). Any IP department worth salt regularly looks at the published applications and patents in the gazette to see if anything reads on their products and inventions.
So at this point Creative, Archos, and anyone else who thinks they invented the "invention" or publicly used/sold this "invention" prior to October 28, 2001 will be sending into the USPTO documentary evidence of that fact. That's what the publication of the application is for.
if it's an "old idea from NeXT" then how can it also be a new idea?
Dan.
It was so non obvious, that no one else did it until Apple's iPod!
Have you used an iPod? Have you used Apple's Finder? Specifically it's 'column view'? They're the same. You drill down a hierarchical list via columns of objects, until you get to the object you want. The only prior art I can think of is... NeXTStep's Workspace explorer (whatever they called it)... and Apple's Finder in OS X.
It is totally non obvious, Apple's implementation, and it's genius in it's simplicity.
GPL Deconstructed
No one's ever implemented it in a music player!
GPL Deconstructed
Please don't read the summary. The summary doesn't get any legal protection and is just there to give a general idea what the patent is about. If you want to know what they are trying to patent READ THE CLAIMS!!
;) )
I did read through the claims (although i don't have time to digest them fully - there are a a fair few in that patent
I didn't see anything in the claims that seemd to do anything other than detail, in excruciating detail, how the basic system described in the summary could be implemented. I quoted the summary because I thought it represented pretty well the oeveral patent.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out where in the patent there is anything that is really novel enough to justify a patent.
I don't classify allowing access to music by playlist, artist and a list of all songs to be something so inspired that it deserves protection.
Dan.
So I can pick some random UI elements that are already found in other appliances or in PC software and patent them for use in portable media players?
If this is really possible then it is more proof that the Patent system is completely off the rails.
When hover cars are invented, will there be a rush to patent various existing elements of wheeled vehicles in the context of the new type of vehicle?
"Method for steering the vehicle by means of a rotational direction selection device"
"Method for enabling the driver to observe to rear of vehicle while driving by means of optically reflective device"
"Method for entering and exiting vehicle by means of hinged element of body-shell assembly"
Dan.
First we have one person trying to smear Apple by highlighting the summary and now we have another paraphrasing the claim!
Although I am not a lawyer and I love my iPod, I can state with no bias that there is nothing evil about this patent.
Hey, if Apple was the type of company that put their profits ahead of their customers would John Lennon or Albert Einstein have endorsed them? I think not.
This may just be my impression, but I think that this can largely be chalked up to one thing.
Normally, patent stories are news because they are unreasonable. The patent section is generally used as sort of an activist central to highlight abuse with the faulty U.S. patent system.
In this case, however, the story is news because Apple is doing it. They weren't posting it specifically becuase they found it actively unreasonable; they were posting it becuase Apple were the ones who filed it, and the filing concerned a newsworthy piece of technology, and the filing could have impact on other technology-- for example, the pPod software.
As a result: normally the patent stories, everyone's intial reaction-- and thus the tone set for the discussion is-- "Oh, that's absurd". In this particular case, however, one's initial reaction is: "Oh".
I suspect that if Slashdot were to run a story tomorrow along the lines of "DaimerCrysler tries to patent new lock-reducing wheel drive shaft flange configuration" we'd see a lot of "Oh" reactions as well.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
What I find so interesting is that when an article comes up that has an "unacceptable" company (e.g., Microsoft) who patents something they consider ridiculous, we hear constant screams of outrage. We hear the patent office needs an overhaul.
Now, when someone in the "acceptable" camp such as Apple patents something like a user interface design, I see nothing. I read through all of the top moderated comments (there were 275 at the time I posted this) and there was almost zero questioning of this.
I've been reading Slashdot for a really long time, and it's been very interesting to watch the collective "morals and values" shift over time. It used to be that anything which wasn't truly Free was shunned by the collective. They were anti-business, anti-government involvement. Then Apple came along with its shiny colors and pretty user interface that ran UNIX. A huge amount of people in the collective dropped the Free banner and decided Apple was okay to use. It's as if they just changed their value system overnight when they saw OS X. (Now, I might as well say that this isn't sour grapes; I never carried the Free banner, I have a Powerbook, I have Linux servers, and I even (gasp) have a Windows machine. I'll also say that I thought the One Click patent was pretty silly and I think patenting a user interface like the iPod's is silly.)
I'm finding that I only read the comments now for laughs. I know precisely what they're all going to say before I even click through. I maybe read the comments on one out of every thirty articles. I used to admire some of the Slashdot collective for their insightful comments, but now a lot of what's marked as insightful is only marked so because it supports the current Slashdot collective thought.
I can't wait to see the next article where Microsoft or Amazon or some other "evil corporation" patents a UI or business process concept. We'll hear the outrage and 0x0d0a and I will probably just shake our heads.
still no broadband for gays or niggers. Sorry.
Your analogy is a bit off, there.
If you successfully melded a steering wheel with a VCR, sure, I say, feel free to patent it!
The only other interface before the iPod that displayed this hierarchical navigation method was Apple's OS X Finder's column view, or NeXTStep's Workspace column view.
How is that for prior art?
GPL Deconstructed
"If they can't directly copy the iPod interaction design then *GASP* they would instead have to innovate and come up with a new and perhaps better way of going about playing music on a portable device."
The problem is that Apple didn't invent this type of interface themselves; they copied somebody else's UI and polished it.
Sort of like the Macintosh.
Don't get me wrong, its a nice user interface, but it doesn't seem patentable the way apple describes it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
" I think any Apple engineer will tell you that Steve plays a direct role in many of Apple's high-profile products."
They have to tell you that or they'd be looking for a new Job.
Gates has his own flaws, but ego isn't one of them. Jobs is a kook.
"I think Apple is being very wise and protecting itself from the likes of Microsoft"
No, Apple is protecting ridiculous margins on their products.
Hard to fault Apple, but don't be stupid and defend them.
" and can you blame them? "
Yes. They're doing it. Its stupid, its greedy, they're doing it.
So yes, yes we can blame them.
You can't justify every behavior under the banner of corporate profits. It allows any kind of amoral behavior to be justified this way. Ultimately, that's bad for society. We're bearing the fruits of that today, where it seems coroporations make the laws, not our representatives.
All you have to do is say "This is apple's they invented it, they should defend it" and you get +5 insightful.
people, that's not insightful; we need a moderation of "kneejerk".
No matter what you do to patent, the big boys like M$ will still copy your interface. Save your lawyer expense and move on.
Is a portable music device really so far from a desktop computer to make your car -> VCR analogy more apropriate than my car -> hover car analogy?
p hoto_to ur/Pages/Image3.html
The only other interface before the iPod that displayed this hierarchical navigation method was Apple's OS X Finder's column view, or NeXTStep's Workspace column view.
How is that for prior art?
Well, any example of the idea previously being in circulation is enough for prior art, so I'd say that this idea is not novel enough to justfy a patent.
Looking at the Finder Column view:
http://astcomm.net/~chris/osx/screenshots/
I have to say that I don't see what all the fuss is about. It reminds me quite a lot of the Windows Start menu (which is, ultimatley a folder browsing tool - just limited to one folder tree)
I think I would rather have a Windows-style treeview explorer, so I can have different branches of the folder tree expanded and drag stuff between them.
I can see that this approach would work well on a media player, but I don't think that spotting that an existing approach will work well in a certain area is enough to grant someone exclusivity on using that approach.
Dan.
Doesn't Apple actually have a patent on the idea of a "trash can icon"? It seems Windows and everybody else can get away with a drag&drop target as long as they call it "Wastebasket" or "Recycle bin" or "Dumpster". Even Steve Jobs had to call it a "Recycler" (an image of the recycling logo) when he made the NeXT.
I do think it is strange that Apple has gone the direction everybody else has and made a "pretty" wastebasket icon (most Linux desktops get away with this and can call it "Trash" because the name is a "user option", apparently). It looks like a modern designer office wastebasket. One problem is that such wastebaskets are designed primarily to be non-obtrusive and hide their function. I don't understand why OS/X did not keep the "american suburban aluminum trashcan" as the icon, it was quite recognizable and immediatly identifiable as a trash container, and they seem to have a lock on that, as I have not seen anybody copy it for fear of Apple. They could draw it in 3D and make it all shiny and bright and new, but it would be more of a link to their past and I would think users would like it.
From all the descriptions here if granted that patent could apply to:
Any type of menu, XP Start Menu, Mozilla file menu etc.
They are also trying to patent the very playlists themselves IMHO Mp3's were the first format out that enabled playlists created from the tags in the songs.
I had expected to see a patent on the physical interface itself as I thought it was very unique and worthy of a patent. However the process of the playlists are hardly new and worthy of a patent at all.
Nobody will flame them because everybody on slashdot loves Apple (why?), but this is preposterous. Not only because the claims are incredibly weak and, if accepted, would show that you could probably patent taking a crap in this country, but more importantly because the creation of an Apple monopoly on scroll-wheels and other obvious UI elements prevents the improvement of them by other companies, as well as the production of low-cost alternatives to the iPod by foreign competitors. This is bad for the consumer, bad for the world of ideas, and ultimately bad for the music player industry as well. It's just another way for Apple to suck cash out of trendy college students without having to really innovate, or, in an alternate way of looking at it, sic the law on competitors who are producing a better product. This is exactly what Microsoft does, this is exactly what the RIAA does, this is exactly what SCO is trying to do. But go ahead, defend Apple.
But the prior art doesn't exist on another media player. That's why I used the VCR->Steering wheel example. You can't find another MP3 player that uses this interface.
That Apple wants a patent on it is because it is non obvious. You don't think that's enough, so we'll have to disagree on that.
The difference between the Start menu and the Column View is that you can navigate bidirectionally in it, up and down, while the Start menu is a downward flowing tree, you can only navigate one direction.
If you haven't seen it in action, it's hard to explain the subtleties. Like the treeview explorer, you can navigate different branches and drag stuff between them. Nothing stops that. The difference is that the column view navigates faster than treeview because the target for the mouse is much, much, bigger than a single folder in treeview... really, the only example I can think of that is analogous is mouselook in Quake! When I'm using drag and drop in the Finder in column view, it's like moving the mouse in quake to control your direction of movement, whereas in the Explorer you have to fully expand your destination before you can drag and drop your items.
That's it I guess; in the Explorer you have to fully expand both your source and destination before you can drag and drop. In Column view you only need to fully navigate to your source, and the act of navigating to your destination is the process of drag and drop...
GPL Deconstructed
The empeg has similar navigation, though it doesn't fill the entire screen. The empeg was in production in 1999, long before the iPod.
And it took things one step further. Hierarchal playlists to go along with the hierarchal navigation of other menus.
Looking at this patent though, the empeg wouldn't be prior art because they specificially state one of the menu displas artists, playlists, etc. The empeg has no such concept, and instead simply lets you use the hierarchal playlists to set your music lists up however you want. I personally have mine genre first. then artist, then CD. I also have a few links to the same music in a few places to make it easier to find things when not using search.
The patent system has gotten off track. If the automobile were designed today, Henry Ford would have patented the steering wheel, gas pedal, and shift lever. Every time you got into a different car, the controls would be all different. You would wreck because you couldn't find the brakes in a panic situation. We shouldn't have to use half-assed non-ergonomic UIs, just because one company took the good one first.
The entire concept of a "UI" should be considered prior art, in all it's wonderful permutations. Unless someone comes up with something wild like something that screws into the flesh of my arm, it's all been-there-done-that. Buttons, wheels, dials, switches, etc etc etc.
I had to do a google for empeg, having never heard of them. A car mp3 player? Is that right?
So the empeg had a column view style hierarchy browser in 1999?
From the empeg website, it looks like they're defunct? Or what?
GPL Deconstructed
But the prior art doesn't exist on another media player. That's why I used the VCR->Steering wheel example.
;)
Yes, I understood that, but what I really want to know is - do you think that a media player is sufficiently different to a computer that your analogy of taking a steering wheel from a car to a VCR is really fitting?
To me, media players are just really stripped down, ultra portable computers. I don't think anyone desevres to get exlusivity on a particular user interfgace model just because they ported it over from larger computers first.
The ultimate decider for me on patents is whether the person who wants the patent has had to make a big investment/risk in order to develop the innovation they are applying for a patent on. That's the whole idea of patents, isn't it - to encourage people to invest in developing new ideas by reassuring them that they will be able to benefit from them.
Now, there are some elements of the IPod which Apple clearly does derserve to beenfit from having developed. However, I don't think this menu system is one of them - the yahve simply taken an idea that works in one application (computers) and applied it to another very similar application (media players) I don't think that is enough investment/risk to warrant exclusivity. They'll get the benefits of being first which should be enough for them in this case I think.
The drag-drop experience you mention works perfectly fine with the windows explorer treeview - you just have to go to the source folder then drag the files to where you want them, keeping the mouse button held down as you move it over each folder in the tree to open it. The whole area around the folder icon and the folder name is the target - not just the icon.
Lucky nooone has patented "method for tranfering files between folders using a single drag action" isn't it?
Dan.
Haha, I should have tried that in Windows... figures that if it would work on the Mac, it would work in Windows too ^^
Anyway, I don't know if they deserve to have the patent, but I do think it was non obvious and revolutionary, for an MP3 player, an half a million other people evidently do too...
GPL Deconstructed
Apple would just need to show the court that they where sellig it first, have clear prior art, and then counter sue the former patent holder.
This patent deals with some previously done stuff, and it is certianly not Scotish*
"*If its not Scottish, it's CRAP!" - Mike Myers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have sony clie, and it has a build in wheel to select things in hierchy base manner, and may i add in a visual-icon manner as well. It plays Mp3. the way I select the music is via the wheel, and I push down on the wheel to "ok". My Sony Clie features are much older then iPOD, does Sony has a leg to stand? Cause it would seem like prior art (in identical manner) is showned here!?>
Thanks
That doesn't even follow. That is probably the worst attempt to make a straw-man analogy I've ever seen. "Oh god, Apple is patenting cats!"
You know, patents aren't the devil. Poorly awarded patents are stupid, but that doesn't make the process inherently something to mindlessly oppose.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
...but I think that if anyone deserves to get patents for their stuff, it's Apple.
Competitors have been shamelessly ripping off Apple's ideas and designs for decades, with almost total impunity-- I say it's about time they started patenting as many of their innovations they possibly can to try to prevent that from happening.
and nothing will change unless everyone starts making a federal case out of each patent that seeks to patent an idea, not an invention.
Why does every Linux Desktop UI has to look like Windows or Aqua?
You mean there is a Linux desktop that looks like Aqua, with magnifying dock and genie effect and expose and visual design tools on the par with Interface Builder?! Pray give me a link!
Why is Dell's Digital Jukebox, an iPod competitor, white-- when just about EVERYTHING ELSE DELL MAKES is dark in color?
As most Slashdot users probably already know, there has already been a ripoff of the iPod UI, designed to run on Windows-powered handhelds. Apple got that shut down.
The Expose feature in Mac OS X 10.3 has already been ripped off for Windows users. Initially it was even called WinExpose, but has since been renamed to WinPlosion (it is not known if that was at the behest of Apple Legal or not). Don't be surprised if Microsoft steals Expose as well and it shows up in Longhorn, whenever that ships.
Let's not forget the shameless iMac-lookalike PC clones that Apple had to smack down years ago via "trade dress" suits.
I can't find the links now, but there's at least one company cranking out PC cases that have a metal mesh front panel and look suspiciously similar to the Power Mac G5.
It never ceases to amaze me how these Apple competitors simultaneously cannot deride Apple's stuff loudly enough and copy it quickly enough.
Disclosures are defensive: they protect you against subsequent patents on some technology you are already using.
Patents are always offensive: you get them in order to be able to threaten to sue someone. And if you use bogus patents as bargaining chips in negotiations when someone else makes a legitimate patent claim against you, that is just as sleazy as if you try to assert a bogus patent directly.
.. he runs a porn site. he doesn't need to think.
Care to elaborate?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm as cynical as the next guy, but there is reason for the seemingly polar opposite views on this topic not actually being opposite in terms of ideals. (full disclosure - I am a long time mac user)
The patent system is largely corrupt, but it is the current system and failure to take advantage of the quirks (or flaws) of the system will lead to someone else eating your lunch. Apple is leveraging patent in a way that was questionably intended by the designers of the patent system, but that is very consistent with modern business practices.
Apple has some credibility for doing the right thing because 1) they don't have the market share to screw over everyone and survive for long and 2) they'd probably have a much large market share if they hadn't already made the mistakes of being too idealistic and not leveraging the system with Windows taking a big chunk of their market and then subsequently sitting on their laurels creating underpowered crap led by a man know best for selling sugar water. They've paid their dues, and they have survived, and you have to let them do what they need to do to survive. (Unless you think they shouldn't survive, which is a different discussion)
I still think that all of these applications should be individually denied, and only accepted as a whole if at all. Many of the components of the iPod design are obvious by themselves, but the whole implementation had no peer in the market when it emerged, and still doesn't.
I also think that a lot of other crap that gets thrown against the wall of patent shouldn't stick, but when playing against a bunch of thieves the only way to survive is to know how to steal. I think it's sad that the system is so messed up, and I'm also saddened that Apple has to stoop to this silly level to protect themselves, but I see this as a pragmatic self preservation move on the part of Apple. Microsoft patenting XML is a little more dubious when you try to rationalize it from the point of view of self preservation.
So patents are bad, and Apple is using patents to survive are not necessarily conflicting views. So long as your reason that Apple is only patenting like this until such time as a more rational system can be implemented. What they do with this patent will go much farther in showing their true motives. But back to my original point, these views are not mutually exclusive. They are just views with dramatically different scope as to what behavior should be and can be changed.
-theed
I was also thinking that this would be a really good case for the 5 year patent. Apple deserves to rake in some cash for implementing a really nice player. 5 years from the date of filing would be 2007 according to what was said earlier in this thread. If Apple hasn't cashed in on the design by then, well then someone else should be allowed to do so. If they have cashed in on the design then they have received their reward for innovation and all material should be immediately delivered into the public domain.
That's my view and I'm sticking with it.
-theed
Their application describes in mind-numbing detail the hierarchical menus and interfaces used on the iPod, and mentions that the scroll wheel and buttons exemplify a means of navigating them.
If they get this patent, you can still use a scroll wheel, and you can still make a player that's remarkably similar to the iPod. You just can't up and clone their menu tree. Big hairy deal.
Does Apple innovate?
Cool UI, FireWire, SuperDrive, etc (long list).
Does that long list include the iPod's interface?
Well, that doesn't seem to have a B&W answer. Not because I'm an Apple whore, but also because the patent system is pretty fucked up. Assuming Apple is wrong (in a slash-dotter's eyes), bitching at just them doesn't solve anything anyway. Bitch about what's allowed to be patented (yeah, I'm syphoning blame from Apple). You shouldn't expect companies to follow ethic guidelines, you need harder rules.
Also, ask yourself: If you invented the iPod & iPod-interface, and someone tried to copy it exactly, would you let it go? People who copy the interface are basically trying to get a free ride off of Apple's work.
If company-A makes something cool, they probably spent time & money to do it. If company-B copies company-A's cool gizmo, and sells an equal number as company-A, they make more money than company-A did because they didn't have to spend money on design. Result; company-B is more successful due to parasitic product-design strategy.
Is that fair?
I'm sure apple wont sue anyone who uses stylistically different hierarchal menus on mp3 players, just the ones that copy them pixel-for-pixel, so I'm not worried.
Conclusion: Patents on blurry issues like UI might not be cool, but getting your product ripped off by lazy designers isn't cool either.
the batteries won't hold a charge" technology. A feather in the cap of "planned obsolescence".
The iPod uses almost the exact same UI and the Neuros, I wonder if Neuros will have to license it from them.
It looks like they are trying to patent the idea of hiarchial trees. Which have been around a very long time.
Go ahead mod me down I don't care.
It's certainly part of the "Apple curse" that anything they build will get attacked by some members of the PC community, claiming it's only "liked because Apple fanatics praise everything the company does".
IMHO though, this just strikes me as jealousy. (Wow - someone actually has a business that's so well liked by their customers that they're excited whenever they release a new product?! That's just not right! We have to tear that down A.S.A.P.!)
The fact is, I *rarely* meet a non Apple user who doesn't at least say "Wow, that really is a nice app/feature/design!" if they really sit down and give the products and software a good look.
The Apple "iApps" are a prime example of this. The point isn't that you can't find flaws in them if you try hard enough. (The new iPhoto, for example, has a bug where photo previews often look blurry... Clicking away from one and back onto it again sometimes makes it snap into focus. Annoying!) But *overall*, they give users a usable, clean interface that's hard to describe as anything but "sensible".
Even if you don't personally like the way iTunes organizes your music library, the point is - it DOES organize it for you. Not every program does this, you know. It lets you create custom playlists based on all sorts of criteria, has the ability to cross-fade the end of one track into the start of the next (nice for playing MP3 songs ripped from "live" albums where normally, you hear a sharp cutoff when the audience is clapping at the end of a song), has easy, *built-in* ability to write to CD (as music or data format), and lots of other good stuff you want in a player. Plus, it's free.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.. so Apple should be flattered that rival companies are attempting to copy the iPod's design.
I suspect that Apple should stand by the performance, design and functionality of the product. In my limited experience with iPods, they seem to be quite the nifty device when compared to other handheld media players.
Besides, if Hollywood has already adopted the iPod as it's "hip accessory of the moment", don't you think people will flock to purchase it and not the cheesy competition? (Ignoring of course the Asian knock-offs).
... to participate in the patent process? Specifically, could you get the info posted on /. into the hands of the appropriate examiner? After seeing these stories so frequently over the years it seems that the examiners could use some guidance.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Didn't Tivo begin the simple interface? Or the palm in list view (models with jog dials too), or even the Sony phone that I had 5 or more years ago?
I had one of the original NEO-25 (3/4 the size of a brick) players and it meets most of the apple claimed functionality. And it was old enough they dropped new support for it before this Apple patent was filed. In this case it looks like Apple did not do their homework.
The NEO-25 supported hierarchical lists (drill down throgh folders of songs, playlists, etc.) And while it did not simultaneoulsy let you drill down by artist, genre, etc. you could certainly arrange things in any of those orders (I had songs, playlists, "xfer" and "misc" as my top level folders). And if you were wearing cargo pants it was pocket-sized. And it fit in my jacket pockets in any case. SSI America was the US importer I bought mine through but there was at least one other branding for the same player. And since it used FAT-32 (or could use FAT-32) you could actually create alias directories and support multiple organization arrangements simultaneously. Which reminds me, I still have to see if the iPod supports aliases/shortcuts/soft links so I can cut down on the number of copies of some songs that appear on multiple albums (where it is the same track, not a remix,live,etc different version).
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Draw a picture and say "We patent this thing called an iPod that we made from stuff"?
-m1chael @ work
I'm sure Xerox weren't happy that Apple copied everything they could from them way back when. They stole the concept of a modern user interface from right underneath their noses. Apple did not invent the UI - they were merely the first to have a popular consumer version.
Apple aren't innovators - they're just good at wrapping whatever technology they can steal (Xerox -> Mac OS, BSD -> OSX) or buy (NeXT) up in pretty packages which they sell by using overdramatic and heavy-handed marketing.
Their actual products are very poor value for money and several years behind the leading-edge. For crying out loud - Up until Mac OSX, Mac OS 9 didn't even have memory protection and pre-emptive multitasking between processes. Windows 3.1 had both of those in.. oh.. 1992.
Before complaining about obviousness and prior art, try to remember your first response when you saw the iPod. If you really looked at it and said "yea, I've seen lots of music players like that" or "i thought about that kind of design just the other day" then it was probably obvious or a reclaimation of prior art.
Most people I know saw it and said "wow." It was something special. It didn't look familiar: it was cool and everybody wanted it--at least until they saw the price.
Forget for a minute whether you think 14 years of protection is a good idea and remember that the iPod was truly original. Then write your congressperson and tell him or her how you want to improve the patent system to better promote innovation, production and the general good. Even suggest interfaces be excluded if you really want but don't say the iPod was just recycled ideas.
Patents, when they make sense, protect non-obvious ideas that would not have been created by ordinary practitioners with skills in the particular arts. Jeff Ullman's article on this subject is, IMO, one of the most sensible one can read (but IANAL).
You have to stand on the shoulders of giants, but from your high purchase, you need to reach up higher yet than someone with "ordinary skill in the art". And hence the problem many software patents. Many of them would be generated by ordinary practitioners with the appropriate research, time, and maybe beer. Although things become obvious after the fact, its clear from the reactions of scores of programmers that they already did think (or would easily have thought) up many of the "innovations" being patented.
On one hand, Apple created something that is truly easy to use. It deserves some protection so that it can extract revenue and continue to invest in future products that we can enjoy. Copying the iPod's concepts doesn't make the copier a good designer. It only helps consumers in the very short term.
The fact that Apple will create things and Microsoft copies them enough to fool casual consumers means that most people have more frustrating experiences with computers than they need to. As a result, Apple makes less money for making genuinely good products. If Dell and Microsoft can knock off anything Apple makes to the point that consumers don't see any reason to buy from Apple, Apple can't make money and the good ideas dry up. The industry as a whole takes the hit.
On the other hand, the concepts in the iPod (which actually incorporate some ideas from NeXT) will eventually become commonplace, so it would be silly to have them protected forever. Some ideas in the iPod are logical conclusions, but some are creative and quite unique.
This takes a very gentle touch.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
It snot that apple doesn't create good products, its that they really don't do anything original. Hear me out. As you said, Itunes sorts your libray into various catagories. Musicmatch had done that for years. All of the iprograms are not new ideas, just ideas that apple popularised by including them in the os.Then when they are in the OS they are hailed as being "Insanely great". They're not insanely great, just good. The marketing is so over the top,t hat their is a certian percentage of people such as myself that have to point out all of the non insanely good things about them. I guess. The company is called a cult for a reason. I think that a certain percentage of their users have built their own self worth into the company, that to say an apple product is just ok , or just "good" would be like saying that they are mediocre themselves. Apple is just a company, they make good prodcuts and bad ones.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Kinda like Microsoft Windows' Start Menu.
Kinda like M$ IE's Favourites Menu.
iPod, all your ideas belong to Microsoft
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
The company was bought by Rio, and their engineers are responsible for the Rio Receiver, Rio Central, Rio Karma, Rio Nitrus, and a few of the latest flash players.
Rio made a few thousand Rio Car units after they bought empeg, but they pulled out of the car market quickly.
If the patent is very broad, the empeg could fall under it. But, if it is so descriptive to literially mean exactly like the iPod interface, then noone really will get hit with this. Too hard to say, patent speak is too loose fitting in most cases.
http://riocar.org/upload/empeg1_low.mpg is a low quality MPEG of the first unit (Mark 1) in action with older beta software. The person here uses the remote for the demo, but the buttons on the front panel could have been used as well. The Mark 2 units added a knob that could also be used in navigation, bringing the interface oddly close to the first iPods, with a turnable control, button for it, then 4 other buttons.
No, the iApps aren't new ideas - but similar to Microsoft's Office suite, they provide a way to tie all the pieces together, cohesively.
When Excel first came out, spreadsheets weren't new ideas either. The "magic" was largely in the way it interacted (via OLE) with Word and Powerpoint. Change some data in your spreadsheet, and that chart you pasted into Powerpoint could automatically update itself to reflect the new values. Couple that functionality with a consistent interface across all the related applications, and the fact that they were fairly "usable" programs in their own right, and you had a smash hit.
Until Apple did the iApps, I don't think anyone was really trying to build a suite of media tools that worked together. As a Windows user using iTunes, of course, you're not seeing the whole picture. But on a Mac, it all comes together pretty seamlessly. If you want to create a slideshow of your photos stored in iPhoto, you can select background music right from iTunes playlists, use transitions and special effects from iMovie, and then tell iDVD to make a DVD disc of the results, complete with your own customized, on-screen menus. Heck, the music you created yourself using "Garageband" in the iLife '04 suite can automatically go into iTunes too, so that might be part of said slideshow.
Apple marketing is always "over the top", but that's no different than any of the other players in the marketplace. Certainly, Apple hasn't said anything more of a stretch than Intel's carrying on about the Pentium 4 giving you a "richer, fuller Internet experience".
The patent references priority dates based on a July 2002 application of which this is presumably a continuation in part. That presumably means that the technology they are trying to patent was developed months before that.
When discussing whether it's old hat, the question has to be whether it was old hat in 2002.