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
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...
If it issues as is (which is unlikely) then they will have protection for what is listed in the claims section, nothing more, nothing less.
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!!!
Patents are filed with broad claims and specific claims. Other companies get to comment on the claims. I had a quick look at the site and it wasn't clear whether this has been granted, but the filing date is Oct 28 2002 so prior art must obviously predate the filing date.
It looks to me like the broadest claims cover 'multimedia player' so will cover video/audio players. Who knows of the claims which ones Apple expects to succeed with, and with which they are trying it on.
Actually this claims priority to US provisional application No. 60/399,806 which was filed July 30, 2002.
US Patent law also gives the inventors a year after the invention is made public to file an application without the public knowledge of that invention being held against the inventors. After 1 year, the invention would be rejected under 35 USC 102(b).
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
That article linking to by the parent looks like a very big find... it may be the exact reason why Apple is filing this application. See, in order to take a patent infringment case to court, you first have to have your patent registered.
The pPod program is a $20 program for WinCE/PocketPC devices that is a software emulator of an iPod's user interface, right down to the concept of a virtual scroll wheel (by tracking finger movements in the designated circle on the touchscreen) and displaying the user's music files in the same menu structure as an iPod.
The writers of the program are ripping off Apple's design work, and not even trying to hide the fact that they did so. This application may be the forerunner to a court case...
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.
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".
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.
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.
Can you say 'FireWire'? I knew you could.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
To copy and paste a previous post of mine which replied to an AC which brought up the same point:
Actually this claims priority to US provisional application No. 60/399,806 which was filed July 30, 2002.
US Patent law also gives the inventors a year after the invention is made public to file an application without the public knowledge of that invention being held against the inventors. After 1 year, the invention would be rejected under 35 USC 102(b).
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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.
...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.
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
It's not obvious, at all. A post I wrote earlier. Apple/NeXT's column view is very different than anything I've seen, or heard about, in OS browsing. Not in Linux, not in Windows, not in DOS, not in OS/2.
And with the iPod, it didn't exist in the (predecessor) Nomads and Lyras, and I'm fairly sure it was in the Archos!
Those devices were playlist centric, in which you either selected playlists, or songs in playlists, an an explorer style folder view, which is *very* different than Apple's disclosure view, and very different from Apple's column view.
The iPod has implemented in hardware Apple's Finder's column view. Take a look at it, and tell me it isn't genius, if you ever handle an iPod.
GPL Deconstructed
Of course, elements of the automotive UI were patented, the most famous be the intermittent wipers patent. Many aspects of early telephone and telegraph dials were patented.
Or gigabit ethernet (dating back to the first rev dual g4's and standard in most PowerMac's now?
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.