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

Not sought any patents?

[kemapa]

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!?!?

Re:Not sought any patents?

[Frac]

Of course RealNetworks has not sought any interface patents! How could you patent bloat, resource-hogging, and un-usability!?!?

Exactly. Microsoft already holds all the prior art!

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.

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

Lsongs

[Hackie_Chan]

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

I'd call prior art on that one...

[Llywelyn]

MS pioneered it long ago.

Lsongs picture link

[Hackie_Chan]

Compare this to Compare this

Re:Lsongs picture link

[bubba451]

Here's a better comparison (I made the window bigger and put it in Browse mode).

The only difference, besides Lsongs taking a few beatings from an ugly stick, is that for some reason its controls are on the bottom.

But everything else, down to the File/Edit/Controls/Visualizer/Advanced menus and the eye icon for Browse is the same.

Pretty embarrassing.

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?

[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?

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 :)

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: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.

Here is the patent

[angle_slam]

The patent number is 6,731,312. The first claim is

1. A computer readable medium comprising media player application code which implements the following procedures:
generating in a user interface an application window having a window frame and a plurality of stiles to define a plurality of panes within said frame;
displaying in a first one of said panes a user selectable index of a plurality of media files;
displaying in a second one of said panes first selected information for said media files; and
displaying in a third one of said panes second selected information for said media files
wherein said second and third panes are each initialized with a selection to view all of said user selectable index of the plurality of media files in said first pane.

Re:Design

[AKnightCowboy]

And the exciting array of themes the iTunes interface supports is awesome. For example, brushed metal, brushed metal, and brushed metal. I haven't been this exciting about brushed metal since Rasterman and Enlightenment.

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.

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

Re:Back to the Future

[huchida]

I'm afraid you're being awfully short-sighted. All of those quotes could still turn out to be correct... Just because the iPod is doing well right now, doesn't mean it won't fail miserably at some point in the future.

On a related note, Apple is doomed. They signed their own death warrant when they decided to only have one button on the mouse. I don't see the company surviving past 2012, and I'd recommend everyone who owns Powerbooks should smash them against the wall now before they're laughably obsolete.

Re:Good for them...

[aristotle-dude]

This is an urban myth. Apple actually paid money to Xerox for access to their GUI lab and they hired away a guy from Xerox.

You must be thinking of MS which did not pay Xerox anything and ripped off Apple.