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."

Comments

Groan...

[grub]

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.

Ignorance about UIs

[faust2097]

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.

Re:Ignorance about UIs

[faust2097]

The interface is not the graphics, it's the underlying structure of the way the user interacts with the software. The graphics make a difference but UI design is the act of problem solving and creating solutions for how users interact with the information. There's plenty of unusable software out there with shiny buttons and nice icons.

In the case of iTunes the solution was the multi-paned interface in which an information hierarchy is established from general to specific through the browse parts of the window [moving from general > specific with 'results' filtered at the bottom.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

XMMS has stopped innovating? When did it start? It's a nice player, but it's always been a WinAMP clone.

Design

[Paladin144]

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.

Software patents = Land grab

[ites]

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.

Lotus 123 and interfaces

[RhettLivingston]

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.

Re:Asshole comment

[croddy]

the iTunes design is by no means entirely original. it contains elements that we all recognize from Real Jukebox, Musicmatch Jukebox, and Winamp 3... which predated iTunes.

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.

Re:Are the defensive patents?

[TheAntiCrust]

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.

I disagree. Since it has lesser parts in it, the consumer is getting what they pay for. If all they want is a car that looks nice, then why should they have to go spend all that money on the Jaguar when all they want is a nice looking A to B car?

Re:Interface Patents are The Least of Users' Conce

[General Sherman]

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.

Re:Are the defensive patents?

[levik]

Any chance Apple is just building a defensive portfolio to keep the trolls at arm's length?

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?