Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins iTunes Interface Patent
phalse phace writes "There aren't too many details, but C|Net's news.com.com is reporting that Apple was issued a patent for its iTunes software interface on May 4. If you remember, Apple recently applied for a patent for its iPod interface as well."
While software patents have become increasingly common in the past few years--leading to long and contentious strings of litigation over seemingly basic computing techniques--not all companies are taking Apple's approach.
A RealNetworks spokesman said his company had not sought any directly comparable interface patents for its 10-year-old media player software, for example.
Of course RealNetworks has not sought any interface patents! How could you patent bloat, resource-hogging, and un-usability!?!?
Not trying to be funny, but has the command line been patented yet? It seems that many companies are trying to get a piece of a very limited "interface pie". You never know, one day some scummy group may claim that DOS, xterm, command.com, a unix console and my old Wyse 60 terminal infringe on their IP.
Trolling is a art,
Will Linspire be in trouble?
Thank god... Maybe Apple now can sue the makers of Lsongs because they completely ripped them off.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
MS pioneered it long ago.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Because even Apple knows where the real bozos work: in the patent office.
Maybe in their eyes, it'll keep history from repeating, when a lot of the early Apple UI elements were ripped off right and left.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Compare this to Compare this
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Any chance Apple is just building a defensive portfolio to keep the trolls at arm's length?
Who knows what kind of patents on music software are already out there... patent trolls line up to sue companies like Apple, and the latter can hardly be blamed for trying to insulate itself from such attacks.
Of course, if it were Microsoft, I'd be all outraged and stuff.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
How will this affect rhythmbox? For those who don't know, it's a free iTunes-alike for GNOME. I like it since mp3blaster is buggy without anyone trying to fix the bugs, xmms seems to have stopped innovating and everything else...well, sucks :)
It was also announced today that Apple is dropping their "Think Different" slogan in favor of "Apple: Patent Anything Different" in order to control the parts of the world not already under Microsoft's Iron Fist.
You're telling me. If Apple wanted to really annoy someone, they could say that since listboxes are a pivotal part of their interface, any use of listboxes must be licensed by Apple...
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Which, oh by the way, Apple actually paid to use...
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Designing a novel, useful, original UI is as difficult as any other aspect of product development in the business world. If I can patent the design of a remote control [which wouldn't send the /. crew up in arms] why is it such a logical stretch to patent the interface for a software product that has the same type of functionality? In the case of the iPod the interface is both hardware and software. Doesn't Apple deserve the benefit of developing it just like a carmaker would for a braking system or a drug company for a new medicine?
UI design is [b]hard[/b] and good solutions require careful development.
*glances for a second at SCO vs. IBM*
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Good. iTunes definitely has an innovative design. Although Apple bought the basis for iTunes from another company (Cassady & Greene's SoundJam program, which was great), they really took it to the next level...and then the next level after that. I haven't seen an interface for a music app than can top iTunes for power or ease of use.
Electric Monkey Pants
Why do you care? Do you own apple stock? Or are you just an apple fanboy looking to "protect" apple?
I'm not flaming (well, just a little by calling you an asshole, but you have to admit, you deserve it), just curious why you feel the need to worry about Apple's legal battle.
I understand OS wars, and you might even have a point if Apple ported to Linux, but from a consumer standpoint, this is a *good* thing.
And I'm a Mac user.
What is this ? is this supossed to be good news ?
Due to a mixup at the patent office, Apple was instead issued the patent to an unbreakable windows production method....
/two jokes in one!
I issue this post as a fair warning. I have a patent request pending on an interface component, called "generic power toggler", which I have ingeniously called "power switch". Anyone found using this innovative and unprecendented interface element will be sued to death
Thank you for your attention
In corrupt America, corporation patents YOU!
Rhythmbox is looks and feels close to iTune how it is going to effect it. As thay say Rhythmbox is an integrated music management application, originally inspired by Apple's iTunes
Let me explain /. (i.e, demented, twisted) logic to you:
If MICROSOFT does it, it's EVIL
If APPLE does it, it's GREAT!
Got it!?
Best Buy can have you arrested
Software patents are fast becoming the 21st century equivalent of a land grab, in which those with the muscle are laying claim to a resource that has up to now been firmly in common ownership.
There is only one possible outcome, I believe. This is that every corner of IT knowledge finishes as "property", whatever its origins. This would spell the end of independent software development and (rapidly thereafter) the end of innovation. We are clearly within sight of the day when writing _any_ software without legal backing in the form of a dossier of defensive patents becomes a dangerous sport.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
The real question is, in my mind, what they do with it. If they just use it as a defensive patent, to protect themselves against, say, Microsoft using a similar patent to shut down their music service, then I don't see the problem. If they start using it to try to kill iTunes-alikes, like juk or rythmbox, THEN its cause for alarm.
Though that leads to a second question - how specific is it? juk, at least, is significantly different from iTunes in practice, even though it looks similar and has similar functionality.
Is enlightenment patented? Is fluxbox patented? How about XFce? Gnome? KDE?
If we don't patent, and the proprietary world does, eventually we'll get shut out, as we won't have any defenses in this patent war.
Patents need revision, end of story.
I thought that it was decided back in the 1980's wars between Lotus 123 and others that interfaces couldn't be protected? If they could, we'd only have one legal spreadsheet program today because that was their claim, i.e. that they had created the spreadsheet interface concept and owned it.
This has to get thrown out - they mis-spelt "styles".
Just a few reminders of what various slashdotters originally though of the iPod before "iPods are the shiznit" became /. canon.
;-)" - jaoswald
.. "groundbreaking" I think was the term I heard them use to describe this new secret product the other day. How "groundbreaking" can something be when I can walk up the street and buy something with similar (and in some cases, additional/better) features? Sigh. One day Apple will live up to the hype. OS X is cool, and their plastic molding team has skills, but the hardware just sucks." - nebby
"iPod is a good product, but nothing to get excited over." - harlows_monkeys
"It's not cool at all. It's just another Mac attempt to have the coolest looking, hippest sounding gadget on the market. It adds nothing serious to the current options. For instance, no Ogg Vorbis support (and yes, I realize it probably decodes mp3 in hardware, but...) and it doesn't appear to be cross-platform. I guess this falls into the Dilbert principle of "the best target market is stupid rich people." Since they'll fall for anything and have the money to burn on it." - ichimunki
"...the "rose-colored glasses that you will need for this to seem like a worthwhile product. What a let-down, geez!!" - david614
"People need to realize that all apple ever really delivers is mediocre equipment that, while it may look really cool, is less technically advanced/powerfull/whatever than competing products that cost 20-25% less." - greysky
"A waste of time. Probably OEMed by someone else. Agree with the article poster - Lame. Not only is this a lackluster MP3 unit (which by virtue of being firewire will be limited to Apple Mac owners), but it has virtually no UI wizardry that might define it as an Apple product. A total waste of time." - Ars-Fartsica
"I'd rather pay $100 for a Rio Volt. 700mb of songs per CD with an unlimited number of CD's, provided you change them. Yeah, this should compete favorably with the solid state units, but they've already lost to the CD-MP3 units, IMO." - Fred Ferrigno
"I think it'll sell as well as the G4 Cube. Oops.
"And I was all excited they were gooing to release a OS X based wireless web pad. Instead we get yet another portable MP3 player
"I am very sad that Apple seems to be repeating the same mistake they made with the Cube - great, nifty product that anyone would love to own, except that it's burdened by an unbelievably poor price/performance ratio." - jchristopher (Apple shareholder)
"...this was a VERY poor design decision. This could have been a $150 device if they'd used a regular laptop drive." - jchristopher again
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
" Good. iTunes definitely has an innovative design."
Describe what is innovative about this design. Be exact. Avoid phrases like "its intuitive".
And why you think the positions of buttons in a window is a good thing is a mystery known only to the hardest of the hardcore Apple fanboys.
They can have that interface. I dont' like it. It's music playing software. Granted, it has burning capabilities and an interface to the ITMS, but I like my music players sleek and simple.
Now if AOL/NullSoft patents the WinAmp interface, then I'll be pissed.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Just a few days ago I've created a simple textfield widget with an "X" icon next to it so you can clear its contents with a single click. Should I avoid distributing it, since iTunes (and other Mac apps) contains such a widget? And yes, it was inspired by Apple's design.
If MS or IBM did this, we'd rightfully calling them stupid, and the patent office idiots.
But apple does this and people are thrilled. As if their mom's iron lung depends on Apple getting the software patent.
Really just plain stupid. From every possible angle.
The title says it all but I have to write this crap in the comment field to make /. accept it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
As intuitive as iTunes' interface may or may not be, that helps little for the many people who've found the application to be too slow or CPU intensive on their PCs. I'm sure there are some who can provide their own anectodal evidence pointing to the contrary, but iTunes is still a memory hog for many others.
Similar programs like Foobar or Winamp 5 barely slow down people's systems, and can even be configured to run MUCH faster. Their file sizes are also noticeably smaller. You could argue that iTunes does much more with it's iPod support, but Winamp's connectivity with the iPod is just as seamless and even has features iTunes lacks. Foobar also sports a formidable iPod plug-in.
Looking at the hideous ad-plastered screen for their Real Player, I'm surprised that Jeff Gordon hasn't sued them instead for patent violation.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Does this mean that XMMS ripped off Winamp?
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
Yet, Office for Mac adheres to Apple's styleguides.
Whether you think the Windows styleguide sucks or not isn't the issue - one is there for a good reason and I don't see why a company should feel the need to ignore it.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
And what about JuK?
What become clear to me over the last few years is that the US Patent Office has descended to little more than a registry system, like copyright registration. All a patent really says these days is "I had this idea on this date."
Personally, I think the USPTO should stop claiming to even attempt to research patents. They should just take your submission, slap a date on it, and stick in their files. The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.
Life is too short to proofread.
Microsoft used the South by Southwest Music trade show that ran over the weekend to confirm plans to launch a music service later this year. The opportunity was also taken to show record labels the service running behind closed doors.
No details of pricing were given, but it has been made clear that Microsoft aims to promote the service almost exclusively through the MSN portal. Users will be able to sign up via MSN and then view the catalogue of available songs for purchase and download. The amount of music that will be available is also unknown, but a Microsoft spokeswoman stated the company is "going to be striving for a large catalogue of music."
Initially, the user interface was to be copied from the popular iTunes software, but since Apple Computer Inc. has been awarded a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for the iTunes interface, Microsoft is shifting gears. When Bill Gate's was asked about the situation he reiterated: "Well, I think it's fun to talk about this because the rate of advance is so incredible, and not just in a numeric sense. The whole way that we interact with systems, the way we write software, the way we administer these systems, the way we collaborate, it will be very, very different."
Microsoft warned that they may have to move operations of their upcoming music store to an undisclosed country, where patent laws do not exist.
[/parody]
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Styleguides suck in general. If there is a choice between making the application a lot better by "thinking different", or sticking to arbitary, hoary style recommendations, it is time to ignore the style guide.
The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.
I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.
Patents protect a functional product, its composition and slight (negligible) differences. Software, instructions that hardware follows, is a debatable "boundary condition" for patentability, because software "simulates" a machine on another, such as a Turing "universal machine" like a Pentium (or PPC). But an API does not even simulate a machine. It is a specification, data about a "machine" (software or hardware) which interoperates with other machines. Data isn't patentable. It's copyrightable. Why do APIs get patents, rather than copyrights? Why would such a patent (or even copyright) prevent any action other than cloning the API? Even a patented Ford dashboard doesn't prevent GM from making a dashboard featuring the same interface devices, like steering wheel, speedometer and tachometer, so long as the actual parts that deliver those features are electro/mechanically different, or licensed. Why does IT suffer from stricter constraints than mechanics, especially when IT is so free from inherent constraints, to deliver better value at lower cost?
--
make install -not war
What exactly did they patent about it? No this isn't an attempted jab at Apple so calm down fan boys. I've used iTunes a few times and nothing about the interface strikes me as patentable. Maybe I am missing something.
hasnt anyone noticed how much avalon/longhorn looks like brushed metal itunes theme, i know its the ui thats thats been patented, but .... ahh well, guess i should just anticipate my -1 mod or no mod at all!
A Frigidaire made of brushed metal with lickable, cough-lozenge-style buttons?
if you want to see a direct knock off look at these lsongs screenshots
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Like others have noted, the patent is not on the software. The patent is on the user interface. That has nothing to do with interoperability, writing code to do anything that iTunes does, and it does not constitute patenting an algorithm. Not to mention that it's a very nice piece of software.
I have a feeling you've been waiting to post this for some time. Pathetic.
So who lost?
This was not a troll. You are gay.
Given Apple's recent string of threats against their technology, I have to say that things are looking bad for TuneYard because of this.
I thought PC's were fast? Especially, when compared to those slow MHZ macs.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Yeah, because I know *I* have the resources to defend myself in court because my programs have an interface that is similar to some corporation's software?
That's a damned good idea.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Rinse. Repeat. Patent. Profit!
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
"The USPTO clearly does not have the resources..."
Maybe they ought to be outsourced to India.
I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.
They don't have the last say, but they're currently supposed to do supposed to check out applications, and often reccommend changes. It's definately not a "shall issue" short of thing where I hand you a document and I automatically get a patent.
Life is too short to proofread.
So Windows improved on it. The screen icons are located near each other where it makes sense. The trash can is now a recycle bin (a more accurate metaphor, cannot be denied). Also, Windows got rid of the insane GUI blunder on the Mac where you put diskette in trash to eject it. Intuitively, putting a diskette in the trash would wipe all files from it, not eject it.
Somebody mod this troll down. . .
OK, that's a joke, but maybe, just maybe they'll now try and improve on Apple's design, which btw should be every (commercial) designer's goal: improve on popular stuff.
Increment on existing stuff, make hard things easier and adhere to guidelines if possible. Copying is, well, easy, I guess, and useful sometimes, but what's the incentive for buying Linspire when it's only claim is "we sort of are just like everything else, only uglier and stuff sometimes break, but we're a bit cheaper".
If Linspire was free as in beer, I'd probably not mind as much, since I like the idea of empowering people without money...
Disclaimer: I don't really like software patents...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
You might be right in this specific case, since Apple has to worry about Microsoft and Sony muscling in on their turf, but defensive patents just aren't as useful as they once were. Increasingly, patent action is being initiated by litigation firms that do nothing but buy up IP and litigate it. Since they have no actual business activities to threaten they are immune from patent countersuits. (Cue mouldy old joke about patenting patent extortion.)
How hilarious. First of all, the story this post relates to uses an Apple logo instead of the "patents are evil" spoon, fork and knife logo which immediately caused me to think "I'll bet this article doesn't have the same tenor as all the other rabid anti-patent FUD this site is famous for". Low and behold, the majority of the responses to the article revolve around "Patents are bad...unless people we like have them." Please keep this behavior up, this stuff is even more funny than Bash.org
True. It's not like registering a copyright.
And the examiners are overworked. That's why there is a bill going through Congress that would raise the cost of getting a patent. The money would be used to hire a lot (like 75%) more examiners.
I don't think that would matter to the /. crowd if MS did it.
But, on the mac it takes next to no CPU time. This is just a problem on the Windows version. So what? You have plenty of choices, and as you said, they work with iTunes. You don't have to use it. Some people decide to use it despite it's speed because the UI is just that great. I think that says a lot about Apple's design.
- Sherman
This is Bad News (TM).
Because if you can patent a user interface,
Microsoft will be patenting all new user-interface features of Microsoft Office.
Website designers will be patenting every page of their website.
Game designers will be patenting entire genres of games. Yet-another-sequel-to-Halflife will be patented and then used to sue Yet-another-sequel-to-Doom.
Radio manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on radios
DVD manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on DVDs and the on-screen menu interfaces of their devices.
Boombox manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on boomboxes
Oscilloscope manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on oscilloscopes
Television manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on televisions and the on-screen menu interfaces of their devices.
VCR manufacturers will be patenting the layout (user interface) of the buttons and knobs on VCRs and the on-screen menu interfaces of their devices.
Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam
The Patent Office will be swamped with these kinds of frivolous patents now that they've cracked open the door.
The only people who will be happy? The lawyers.
The floodgates have been opened; prepare to drown.
I don't know, but the first time I used iTunes I thought, "Wow, you use it like a web browser!"
Or is this just me?
Then let's play the game their way. Let's grab some patents ourselves; it's time to patent everything we can and donate to the FSF (or some other entity that will safeguard Free Software Patents) under a GPL (general patent license).
Let's DOS the patent office with requests; it's time to start patenting *every*-fucking-thing, from mail filters to user interfaces. Got a nifty new P2P algorithm? Patent! A new filesystem? Patent! A cool new interface? You know the drill.
At this point, the only defense is a damned good offense. If SCO has taught us anything, it's that we're naked to corporate attack. The only thing protecting us from SCO is their own lack of evidence. It's rather difficult to infringe copyright without intentionally infringing copyright.
In the case of Patents, you can infringe without realizing you are infringing; something obvious that has been patented is just as taboo as something truly ingenious.
So let's get to work.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Software patents are OK this week since Apple did it???
Yes, there were other methods (such as jamming a bent paperclip in a pinhole) besides the most intuitive way: pressing an eject button by where the disk is inserted. For some reason, Apple forgot this one.
What part of "easy, intuitive disk ejection" did they not understand?
cut and paste if you *really* want to...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
It's entirely possible to make a fast, responsive music playing application for Windows. Apple did not. That says everything about Apples software engineering and nothing about respective hardware, basically ...
They patented the GUI, correct?
Why not patent the shape of a car? It's the same thing.
If the forms are filled out completely, you can be sure to get your patent approved:
Prior art? Who cares? We can make more money by charging for all these patents!
Let the parties work it out among themselves in court... (*sits back and counts patent fee monies*)
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It wouldn't really matter since the command line has been around much longer than the lifetime of patents. Remember -- patents do expire -- I think the lifetime is 20 years in most countries.
If the OSS community wants to build programs with good user interfaces, they're going to have to court the best UI people somehow..
Tony Fadell rings a bell.. (Senior Director, iPod & Special Projects, the guy who designed the thing)
Slightly slower, but beautifully designed interface, or an ugly, incredibly confusing interface. Take your pick.
One small catch. You need a lot of money.
Doing all the paperwork yourself (and you must be a patent lawyer), budget $1000 per patent.
Paying a patent lawyer, for searching and filing, budget $10,000 per patent.
Defending a patent against violation and/or contestation, budget $100,000 per patent.
These are minimal figures. You can go much higher.
Now add the fact that your patent portfolio is like a hand of cards. Even if you invest in (say) 20 excellent patents, you are unable to compete against a company that has 200 patents, of which you may be infringing 50.
Software patents are a game where you can not really compete unless you are a large player.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Who would want to patent such an ugly and useless UI?
...being the fact that iTunes looks slick and Lsongs looks like shit. Other than that, yeah, it is a near-perfect rip-off.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
me too!!!
If Office for Mac didn't adhere to Apple's UI guidelines, Mac owners would be sufficiently pissed off to avoid buying the product.
Windows users, on the other hand, are so used to craptacular interfaces that one more from Apple wouldn't make a difference.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
There is nothing original about the iTunes interface. Is it a good interface? Sure. Is it new? Sure, in it's _exact_ implementation. Is it original? Not by a fucking longshot. There have been other media players that allow you to view music by artist, genre, etc. That's part of the point for meta-data in media files in the first place for fuck's sake.
Do I think lsongs is a blatant ripoff? Sure, except it kind of looks like shit, and they should take screenshots running a better theme... But let it compete on its own merits, dammit!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Oh wait, this is an Apple(TM) aticle. Patents are good when they are from Apple(TM)! We all know how user interfaces are an "Think Diffrent"(TM)(TM)(TM) innovation that can only come from Apple(TM)!
But if Microsft ever does this we will rant on how EVIL Microsoft and patents are!
As an example - if someone made a car that looked very much like a Jaguar, but cost a third as much and had more commodity parts under the hood, and started selling it as the Panther. That's very obviously wrong, and even those theme-makers will probably agree.
You mean something like this and this? Guess it's not always wrong as long as you aren't misrepresenting yourself.
I think that more often than not there is nothing wrong with imitation at all. It seems to drive down prices for end consumers and foster more rapid innovation. Linux brings together the best of UNIX, MacOS and MS Windows at the lowest price point possible for example. If patents, copyrights and trademarks were abused to the extreme to protect every little idea, how much innovation would market leaders have to meaningfully improve their product?
Didn't want to login to post that?
I'm certainly not going to defend the idiocy of the drag to trashcan idea, but I did once get the file directory portion of a floppy disk overwritten under windows because the previous disk had not been properly unmounted. So my disk now thought it had the last person's files, and everything was garbage.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Since it has lesser parts in it
A good designer knows that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Patents are necessary because, barring any political or economic issues, they keep the bad designers (or unix geeks) who don't understand this essential concept and who only think in terms of parts from hurting the general public.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
S: I must warn you this is a patent.
...
H: That's bad.
S: But it's from Apple!
H: That's good.
S: The patent is clearly frivolous.
H: That's bad.
S: But it's for iTunes!
H: That's good.
S: iTunes contains Sodium Benzoate.
H:
S: That's bad.
Oh right, Apple patented it so it can't be frivolous.
I don't get it. Doesn't the iTunes GUI just blatantly copy the old "Z" and Z-alike maxi modes of Media Center?
Da Blog
...patentable
:)
It is starting to get on my admittedly non-US nerves...
Software companies want it both ways, to retain ownership of the software as "intellectual property" (sic), a publication, but to patent it as if it was an item to be traded; its simple people : if its LICENSED, NOT SOLD then it is covered under copyright law as a publication, if it is an ITEM TO BE SOLD (although possibly licensed to MAKE) it is covered by patent law as an invention.
To be a patentable invention, in needs to be an INVENTION not a PUBLICATION.
Bloody hell, this irritates me... By all means, the iPod deserves a patent (Id trademark the appearance too); it is a fantastic device which loosely qualifies as an invention (ok, since it is an assemblage of existing products differentiated by industrial design, there is arguably no inventive step); the software which is Licensed to you (not sold) and, therefore, a publication CANNOT BE PATENTED.
You cant patent the front page of a bloody newspaper, can you??? same thing!
end rant
err!
jak.
I disagree with software patents as much as the next code geek, but consider the position where Apple's coming from:
Dating from the late 1970s - the era of cheaper Taiwanese clones of the Apple II, and proceeding through the mid 1980s - the era of windows-based GUI computing, which computing company has been ripped off more than Apple?
I still use soundjam MP, even though it requires Classic, for the following features that are still not in iTunes:
Live mp3 recording from audio in
sleep timer
timed alarm playlist
Apple and their zen software design sometimes don't cover all of the bases. Though generally speaking, iTunes does kick ass.
-theed
If microsoft tried to copyright any of its interface we would all be up in arms in fear that they would sue ht emost successfull linux distro
Many Thanks,
Luke
But what if they genuinely developed it in parallel, without hearing about your patent?
How is it fair that they'd have to pay for something they didn't even make use of?
That's a situation where patents directly harm innovation, rather than encourage it.
I've had lots of ideas that I've later found out companies bank on. Whenever I see them, the first thought I have is 'cool. Someone actually did it,' not 'awesome. How can I squeeze some money out of this?'
Had they used native GUI components they could have made the same GUI using a fraction of the CPU resources. Less pretty, but probably 5-7mb of ram instead of 35.