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."
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,
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.
XMMS has stopped innovating? When did it start? It's a nice player, but it's always been a WinAMP clone.
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
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.
That doesn't help the small producers much, though. Making an expensive stable of patents a prereq for software development isn't exactly going to promote "Science and the Useful Arts." Not that the Court seems to care about that anymore.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
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.
"Because the fact that another company just blatantly stole the iTunes design"
Designs are copied all the time. Look at the fashion world (which is probably the closest analogy for iTunes). A designer comes out with a line, and its copied by everybody else 6 months later.
its normal and healthy.
Besides, you can't even say in words what's so unique about iTunes that it deserves a patent. Avoid using words like "it intuitive", because (a) its not terribly intuitive...its fine, but hardly masterful (b) its not a concrete concept. One man's intuitive is another's piece of crap.
You're just another apple fanatic fighting the OS battle that was effectively lost 11 years ago.
music players that "rip off" iTunes are certainly not inventive or innovative, but this is hardly a justification for Apple to have a patent on that interface design.
iTunes, like every modern music player, represents incremental innovations over existing products. the iTunes interface boils down to three elements ... a 3-column library area, a play queue area, and a transport control. the idea that Apple should be granted a monopoly on this interface is outrageous.
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
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
Quit kidding yourself. Apple *IS* a patent troll - they use any legal means they can think of to preserve market share. Whether or not this is a fair practice is debatable, but it isn't any different from Amazon slamming BN with 1-Click.
Of course, if it were Microsoft, I'd be all outraged and stuff.
If I were you, I would be outraged reguardless. By getting one of the first interface patents, Apple has just made it easier for all sorts of frivolous patent awards to happen. Patents as originally concieved were intended to protect concrete mechanisms and technologies, not ideas, algorithm and UI concepts.
This one is a case in point of the trend of patenting things that were not meant to be patented. How can this do anything but lower the standard of software we use every day?
Ñ'
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.
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
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!