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

Lsongs

[Hackie_Chan]

Thank god... Maybe Apple now can sue the makers of Lsongs because they completely ripped them off.

Lsongs picture link

[Hackie_Chan]

Compare this to Compare this

Are the defensive patents?

[The I Shing]

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.

Re:Are the defensive patents?

[MaineCoon]

It also makes sense given Apple's design philosophies - ease of use and style/form. It's all about their appearance - it's a very specific, unique style, that they want associated with their OS and software. People who make OS X-like themes for Windows and Linux want to scream bloody murder when they get Cease and Desist letters, trying to claim fair use. However, by making the theme and >distributing it, they're actively (although perhaps not intentionally) attempting to use Apple's designs and themes to subvert Apple's marketshare.

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.

What's the difference? One's a physical form of style, the other is a digital visual form of style. Nothing wrong with owning/restricting the use of a computerized form of artistic visual style. Even the GPL is a license that restricts the use of the licensed digital content.

hmm.

[mkavanagh2]

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 :)

Almost

[w.p.richardson]

as bad as one-click.

Which, oh by the way, Apple actually paid to use...

Re:Groan...

[ThogScully]

Someone more lawyerly will likely correct me, but you're thinking of trademarks from my understanding. Trademarks must be protected or else they're lost. Patents however, especially as of late, you'd think were designed specifically for the rather underhanded practice you just described. Consider GIF, as the most common example.
-N

Patent Usage

[RickHunter]

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.

Back to the Future

[The Ape With No Name]

Just a few reminders of what various slashdotters originally though of the iPod before "iPods are the shiznit" became /. canon.

"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. ;-)" - jaoswald

"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 .. "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

"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

Interface Patents are The Least of Users' Concerns

[lotsofno]

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.

Re:Ignorance about UIs

[ozric99]

Exactly. Similar to how Winamp arranges its playlists.
See here for a grab I just made of winamp's library.
I click on an artist and get a list of that artist's albums in another pane. Click on one of those albums and get a list of tracks on that album in another pane.

Now, did this design come out before iTunes? I don't have time to go check on the release dates, but like you said, this is a pretty fundamental UI solution.

Re:Asshole comment

[hc00jw]

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.

iTunes was originally SoundJam, so although I couldn't find the original release date for SoundJam, the interface may have been developed for longer than you think