Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over iTunes UI
An anonymous reader writes "It apppears that Contois Music Technology is suing Apple Computer over the UI to its iTunes music software. The suit claims patent infringement over a patent owned by Contois."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...this looks like a solid case. If the iPod was introduced in 2001, this is after the patent date. Seems like a settlement is in the future to me.
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claims are in direct violation of Contois' patent. These areas include iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
"By reason of Apple's infringing activities, Contois has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount yet to be determined," the suit reads. "On information and belief, Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful."
----
Yeah. And it's only been out for, what 4 and a half years now (Jan 2001)?
If I were Apple, I'd fight this one in court. I'm not a patent lawyer, but this seems to be a rediculous patent. The primary claims seem to be:
1. That a computer program can have buttons to start and stop music.
2. That a computer program can display two or more data fields about that music during play.
There is another claim about controlling a player piano (!), but that seems irrelevant to this case.
The problems I see with this patent are:
1. The claims argued are blatently obvious. It's one step above a patent for displaying and manipulating data on a screen. The only difference is that this adds music! (rolls eyes)
2. Plenty of prior art exists. For example, MIDI and CD players throughout the 90's were capable of "controlling the playback of music" and "displaying two or more data fields about the song". Not to mention MP3 player that existed prior to January 1999.
3. The primary focus of the body of the patent is on player piano control. AFAIK, iTunes does not run player pianos.
4. The patent points to MIDI or a MIDI-like device as the stream being controlled. Digital audio is not a method of controlling a digital instrument, but rather a synthesis of a complete sound environment.
Perhaps the best reform would be to allow for reprocussions against the patent holder should his patent be found to be issued in error or inapplicablE? For example, if the patent holder was forced to pay court costs, he may think twice before initiating a baseless suit.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Anyone heard of a damn jukebox?
From reading the description is counds like the media itself was to be sotred in a database. In iTunes the media is stored in directories, though there is a database of music Metadata. Furthermore the bit about playing music in certain categories is very unlike playlists.
On the whole it seems like a really lame patent and hopefully will be stripped from them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This seems to cover not only iTunes but WinAMP, FooBar2000, and just about any other player that can organize music and play only selected artists, albums, or genre's.
This my friends is why we don't like software patents.
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
Maybe if enough big companies get shafted through patent lawsuits they may consider working to get rid of software patents.
But then again....
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
why software patents are good?
bath water.
If the child is a brat, you discipline the child. If the child tries to stab you to death for disciplining it, you put the child in a mental ward for safe observation and help. If when the child (or in this case patent industry) is mature and tries it again, society prescribes the death penalty (in the US). Why shouldn't the patent system be any different?
The big IT corporations don't need patents to maintain their control because they are in a unique position to crush upstarts that few industries have. They industry as a whole has proven that they can't use them responsibly and the very fact that a hobbyist can turn their hobby into a business means that patents are bad. I'm sorry, but the ends justify the means here. Patent holders have time and again proven that milking their work and not innovating is their real goal, at least in IT. It's time that the entire system be flushed out and simplified.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
A computer system and method for controlling a media playing device. The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accessed or selected piece of media. In one embodiment there is a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical music. Another embodiment allows the user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to a selected music category. Another embodiment allows a user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to the selected music composer or artist.
not that i have anything against apple but we need big name cases like this to show what these patents will do. You thought that people would miss their blackberry, try telling everyone out there right now that they can't use their itunes anymore...
so much for 'the land of invention'. now its 'the land of scam artists'.
They waited 4 years to file suit, seems fishy. Did they ever ship a product using that interface? If not how are they hurting? How can they seek damages?
Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
Furthermore the bit about playing music in certain categories is very unlike playlists.
But a lot like the iTunes Music Store.
I don't need a signature.
Does this mean I can draw pictures "proving" the similarities between my software "Player of Media" and sue a certain large company for damages? I mean, I have drawings!
Run. I like water. Push My rutabaga.
Man, am I glad I submitted my patent for "speakers you place over your ears"
Abstract
A computer system and method for controlling a media playing device. The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accessed or selected piece of media. In one embodiment there is a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical music. Another embodiment allows the user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to a selected music category. Another embodiment allows a user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to the selected music composer or artist."
My only question is: Where are the lawsuits against Microsoft's WMP, Realplayer, the Microsoft XBox Media Player, MusicMatch, etc?
iTunes has been out for over 4 years, and just now there's a lawsuit? I understand it takes time to find a lawyer that will accept a case, but *4* years? Hmmm, right at the height of popularity too, kinda amazing how it worked out like that...
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
The patent points are generally vague and do seem to apply to other players. However, looking at the image at the bottom of the article, the two interfaces are strikingly similar. Add to that the fact that apple employees had been to the demo of this player the case may stand up a bit more.
"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player"
Funny, WMP and Musicmatch allow this functionality, among others. I wonder why they weren't sued....
Smells fishy to me. Targetting the big kahuna rather than the concept.... I don't like it one bit. Yet another lawsuit that reeks of collusion.
I spoke of tit-for-tat earlier in the day. Here is another fine example of tit-for-tat.
The Crimson Dragon
It's not that revolutionary... genre, artist, and song title has been shown on monitors before in karaoke bars...
Another patent infringement.
Perhaps slash should concentrate on more useful news. Company X being sued over patent Y by company Z is getting old.
Move along, nothing interesting to see here.
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
I wonder if this might be a case of prior art from 1995?
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~newrep/vol13/no4news.html
Scroll down to the article "Jukebox is a sound success"
Does anyone have any more details about this? Does it cover the same claims as the Contois patent?
so revolutionary, in fact, that winamp had been doing it for years before apple hit upon the idea. really, why sue apple when these guys could take on some far meatier offenders (aol, who owns nullsoft, the guys who made winamp, and m$). oh yeah... i'm thinking rationally again.
Seriously, have they ever heard of Winamp? It has playlists, ability to track songs, pick, shuffle, etc.
Liberace has a bowtie in both pictures. That's enough to convince me!
Then again I also voted to acquit Michael Jackson...
Three Squirrels
Which is propably where Apple originally stole the idea from.
Lets see, who else uses their "original" patented idea? Winamp, Windows Media Player, Shoutcast, Napster, Kazaa...and jsut about every other music player out there that has a playlist.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Honestly, there's only so many ways you can do this kind of thing and patenting the obvious shouldn't stand up.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Leave it to Apple to just copy everyone else...namely microsoft....
Spock: "A lie?"
Don't mean to feed the troll but it was there...Valeris: "A choice."
I read Slashdot for the articles.
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Who gives these people the right to "create" a totally vague, ambiguous, and obvious "idea", then fail to actually create anything of substance utilizing that "idea" and then sue others for doing the same thing? Oh... our government.
It's probably not the fact that software can be granted patents but the fact that patent enforcement is horrible. People have patented the combover. People have patented the wheel. God damn it. Enforce the laws!!!! Enforce the laws!!!! http://www.improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Part of the basis of the infringement is that people who would eventually work for Apple, but didn't at the time, attended a trade show where this dude was exhibiting.
The implication is that they saw his app and were so entralled at his genious to organize music by Genere, then artist, and finally album, that they quit their jobs, convinced Apple to hire them, and then applied such unique cataloging skills to iTunes.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Erm, didn't Apple buy SoundJam and re-engineer/package it as iTunes? That being given, what possible difference could it make if two prior Contois employees now work for Apple? This is a ridiculous waste of the courts time. And yours.
*have been shown And I just mean, in the past, there have been things like this before, in concept.
I just can hope that we will see more and more of these frivolous lawsuits against major industry players, as this seems to me the only chance right now to get a desperately needed patent reform.
Especially in the light of the recent developements in the EU (I'm still feeling sick after the decision today), driving this absurd system against the wall by exploiting it seems like our only chance for reform.
Is there anything they won't offer a patent for these days? Can I patent turning on and off a machine by use of a "power control button"? Or maybe selecting what document to print by use of a "Print" dialog box. This is a joke if I've ever seen one...
I thought (before RTFA) this was going to be another slam-shut case for Apple...
... they both have a play button and I just won't stand for that kind of blatant idea-stealing.
But I do have to admit that the two referenced images look eerily similar
-c
Contois is seeking a trial by jury.
Why did they wait so long to sue? They want in on the money!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
As far as I know, iTunes' fundamental browsing structure is based on the concept of mspaces - see http://mspace.fm/
mspace is a research project at the School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, England.
And while you're at it, sue all of the console makers and all of the video game companies: Sony, Nintendo, EA. I guess quicktime which originated in the 80's and early nineties is fair game too. Oh, how about every juke box ever made?
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Please decide... Also this is no invention.
I believe the patent is BS and the lawsuit as well but, if I recall correctly Apple has sued several companies for copying the "look and feel" of Apple products, and those cases IMHO had about just as much merit.
I've seen someone mention this before on Slashdot in some similar situation. IANAL but it basically seems to prevent someone from sitting around and allowing patent or copyright infringement until the infringer is generating a decent amount of income THEN suing them. Perhaps someone who really is a lawyer could fill in a little here. Would it apply in this case? If so it's a word all Slashdotters should know. :-)
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
It seems to me that Contois could have made similiar claims against a lot of other media players, including iTunes clones like Rhythmbox.
Nearly every software patent I have ever seen is bogus.
Apple is getting its just deserts from supporting the software patent system.
MORTAR COMBAT!
this lawsuit is in the US. Prior Art has become irrelevant.
Evolution or ID?
I checked out emusicgear which looks to be connected to Contois. But I can't find a musicplayer on their site. Yes, they have some software recording stuff but no "iTunes".
So please where is Apple hurting them? How many sales have the lost because of iTunes?
Patents that are not used within 2 years, should be made obsolete. You had your change to make a product, if you don't, bad luck.
What power has law where only money rules.
Okay Here is the deal. iTunes is based on a MP3 player application Apple bought from Casady & Greene called Soundjam MP. Apple bought this app in 2001 and re-designed it into iTunes. Casady & Greene first released Sound Jam MP Two years before Apple bought them. So that would put the desing of the app at about the same time the patent was issued.
Just to clarify my above facts a little bit, Casady & Greene published SoundJam they weren't the developers. So it looks like the individuals that may or may not have been privy to the deep dark secrets of this patent originally cam from the SoundJam developer team.
now by no means was SoundJam the first MP3 player on the market, so there is going to be prior art all over this.
Your sarcasm detector is still broken.
On another note... could somone find a reason to mod bladx up? I've looked at his posting history. It looks like he's gotten a couple mods with a bug up their butt to mod him down early in his posting history. Now he's stuck with a -1 karma for no good reason.
If you are one of those mods, please use this opportunity to mod me into oblivion instead. Thanks.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
What's the major similarity? The three-column browser at the top of the window? That's basically just a Miller-column browser, like the Finder's 'Column View', but designed for music. Miller-column browsers have been around forever. NeXTStep had one in 1988. This is an obvious application.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
It is a feature of the invention to provide a computer user interface. The interface is for providing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accesses or selected piece of media.
It is another feature of the invention to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music categories.
A further feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display music selections that are related only to a selected composer, like Duke Ellington or Gershwin. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music composer.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected artist, like Dave Contois, or your own personal recordings. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music artist.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected song or music piece, like Alexander's Rag Time Band or Andante & Rondo Capriciosso, Op. 14. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music piece.
A feature of the invention is also to provide a computer system that can access others media recording data bases from other sources like internet or world wide web.
It goes on and on like this. But this is the kicker:
The invention resides not in any one of these features per se, but rather in the particular combination of all of them herein disclosed and claimed and it is distinguished from the prior art in this particular combination of all of its structures for the functions specified.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, that annoys me, because they basically admit that there is tons of prior art for this stuff, and what makes their patent special is that it combines it all. Which would be fine, for example in the case of a "player piano" as they describe. But the iPod/iTunes system hardly describes a computer controlling a media player device to playback media. I would argue the controls for the iPod are , on the iPod itself. All iTunes does it supply music for download and transfer those songs, which are not then played automatically as they so many times describe, but rather are played when selected, and only after the player is disconnected from the computer, i.e. not controlled by the computer.
The ITMS certainly uses their method of selecting media (just like every other media player on the planet), but does not do so to select which songs to automatically play on an attached media device - merely to decide which songs to buy, or in the case of the iTunes software, which songs to transfer. Buying, transferring and playing are different. The patent is for playing.
Personally, I think software patents are ridiculous, but if they want to sue for infringement, it better at least be a match. They only mention the internet (or a remote database) tangentially in their patent, and don't even provide an example. I'm say Apple can take them to court and win.
I guess it wasn't obvious I was kidding.
Because the system is run by the governemnt, which is run by the corporations, which make profits off of the patents.
Corporations do profoundly influence government, but they don't run it. Much of what government does, it does on its own. No viable corporation would run an operation so inefficiently as the government of the United States.
-kgj
-kgj
I made both of these type of apps in high school so am I a criminal?
I wonder if REAL or MS has "invested" anything in this company recently?
The only reason SCO could hold out as long as it did was with money from MS.
I like microcars
I remember playing around with a Juke-box type program on windows 3.1, sure it only played midi and wav files, but it used buttons and looked like a tape-deck/amp setup. If I seem to recall correctly, not only did it show the name of the file being played (with the path), but the time remaining/total time of the song.
So, 93 would make it prior art. I do believe it came on a floppy full of software with the SoundBlaster card when we upgraded our 486-100.
Next!
The interfaces look no more similar to me than any two Mp3 player interfaces. There's nothing revolutionary about the iTunes UI... it's an obvious interface.
Unfortunately this case would not make it to court outside of the US because all the UI does is list things by category with a field for cover art and throw on a few buttons... I have a Hypercard stack circa 1988 that does almost exactly the same thing for sampled sounds! The BS here is that both patent and TM in the US discounts prior use, so guys like this can appear...
As a side point, I worked with Tim Wasko on the Vendor System (used by TypeOnCall, SoftwareDispatch...) before 1995 and a LOT of the UIs for unlocking the software dumped information this way for software packages. There are so few ways to display tabular data with images... I'm surprised he got a patent because anyone doing UIs for 2-tiers does this!
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
In order to violate the patent, each and every element of an independent claim has to be present in what is alleged to be infringed upon.
That would make their case pretty flimsy:
Am I the only one that finds it mildly ironic that Apple also has a patent for the iTunes UI? Granted the patent was awarded only last year, so depending on the results of this (crap) it could in theory be revoked.
You haven't discovered "smart playlists" yet then have you? Instead of manually selecting songs, you can do things like, "play all songs rated 4 stars or more; from categories containing the word folk and downtempo but not death-metal; which haven't been played in the last 2 weeks; and have been played more than 10 times." You make it is as broad or narrow as you want, from a single category to a highly selective subcategory.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It is time to kill of patents as they are today, because they do not work as they intended. If something has failed, you have to replace it.
Add to that the fact that apple employees had been to the demo of this player the case may stand up a bit more.
So does that mean that if you ever see something presented at a developer's conference, say SIGGRAPH, then you are automatically prevented from ever using any information that you saw there? This would mean that you would never be able to develop 2D or 3D image processing software ever again for having attended SIGGRAPH because some slimeball would have a patent on something that was presented and he'd find out how to make it apply to anything in the image processing world.
I'm sorry but this part of their case sounds just like what the SCO Group is trying to argue against IBM - that anyone who has ever had access to their Glorious Unix System V source code is tainted and can never work with anything that is similar to it again (Linux, *BSD, etc.) without their work becoming the property of SCO.
If scumbags like these people can ever make this argument stick then it will be the end of innovation in the software industry, at least in the US.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
How about we compile a list of known celebrity ITunes users in the EU and send them a polite note about their possible patent infringement? Advise them to stop using software alltogether and provide contact details for JURI.
This bullshit needs to be stopped!
I'm generally not one to jump to conclusions (especially since I've never used iTunes and have no idea what its UI looks like), but if this is at all accurate, it's pretty damning evidence of Apple ripping off the patent-holder's interface design...
In a world where Paris Hilton can trademark the words, "That's Hot" does this suprise anyone
Evolution or ID?
This case is a perfect example as to why software patents are bad. When you contact your EU officials, remember to site this case!
I suspect that his sketch won't do so well in the courts. That both designs display using a Miller column browser (with different content!) and can show an image won't be sufficient.
n _patents_.html
Design patents prohibit a third-party from making, selling or using a product of the protected design. To infringe a design patent, the infringing container and the container shape shown in the design patent must look alike to the eye of the ordinary observer.
In Gorham v. White (1871), the Supreme Court set the standard for design patent infringement:
"If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other."
Just having similar functions and a vaguely similar appearance is not sufficient, as shown by the amusing "Colida v. Sharp Electronics and Audiovox" (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2005):
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/03/desig
The functional features described in a design patent are not particularly relevant. (They would be in a functional patent, of course.) To infringe on a design patent, the infringing product has to look so much like his sketch that the infringing product would deceive the customer into thinking it was the patented product.
An example of a product which might be found to infringe on a well-known design patent might be:
http://www2.luxpro.com.tw/e_575d.htm
It's worse than that dude. The covered idea is not merely displaying information, but storing it in a database and using an RDBMS to sort it.
If that sort of thing were obvious you'd expect that orginizing a music collection would be the defacto example used in database management books.
KFG
Doesn't every audio app more or less work the same? Certainly audio players and .wav type players have been around for a long long time, but the MOD players really nailed it good .. they had the song title and artist info bouncing back and forth and all the usual UI elements.. and this goes back to 1987 or so...
jeff
This is what all companies do. Before you rush to defend Apple, remember that they have thousands of patents -- including one for *organizing songs by album name or artist* on an mp3 player, and are currently teaming up with Microsoft to fight for stronger patent laws in Europe (in an attempt to cripple open-source).
It's a patent for a computer system not a computer program. That's all Apple has to say in my opinion. A computer system and a computer program are two totally different things.
Somebody else is claiming credit for the POS that is iTunes UI? If it were me, I'd pay apple not to release the information.
Spyder
It is that obvious.
At the junior college level, I took an Oracle DB class, and one of the exercises in the text was to create a database to catalog a music library, by artist, album title, and genre.
I think the sound card might count as a "music device"
...their patents back in the 1980s.
SIDPlayer and SID Symphony on the Commodore 64.
The 64 could control a MDI device, it could transfer MIDI data from one device to another via it's serial line, it could even move digital music from the C64 to a portible music player (A Walkman cassette player) via the sound out port and a patch cable.
Sounds like a WHOLE lot of WAY prior art to me.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Well, let's assume you're a young geek, full of great ideas.
What you will learn by the time you get to be an old geek is that you can't eat ideas. Even if you have a nearly endless supply of ideas, putting bread on the table with them requires a whole bunch of things you probably aren't as richly supplied with:
* Dedication
* Vision
* Experience/Judgement
* Cunning
* Persuasiveness
* Guts
* Capital
Basically, what I'm saying is that ideas are like the air we breath: essential, but economically speaking, not all that valuable. If you are out to "hire" ideas, pretty soon you find you have more of them around than you need. The "marginal value" of the next idea is a lot less than, say, a cunning, persuasive salesmen. The worst case is hiring somebody who has tons of ideas but none of the other stuff you need to turn ideas into cold, hard cash. Pretty soon you have ideas simply gumming up the works.
It's like buying a high speed printer -- for your car. That printer would be useful in an office providing services for lots of people, but there's only so much paper you can handle in a car. If the printer were a sentient being, it would treasure every page it created. "Look," it would say, "at the incredible sharpness of the letters; at the fine arches of the lower case letter. You'd need a magnifying glass to see the pixels. Breath in the aroma, so redolent of melted toner and paper on the cusp of charring." Then the user would glance at the page, realize it wasn't quite what he wanted, and toss it in the recycling.
So, getting back to answering your question, what if ideas are the only thing you really have to offer? Well, you're pretty much redundant.
Fortunately, our founding fathers were rather inordinately fond of ideas, and have provided, in Article 1, Clause 8 of the US Constitution for a kind of welfare program for people like you, along with that other class of soceital parasite, the lawyer.
And thus, the "Intellectual Property Company" was born.
Of course, in this deal, you make a small amount of money on any idea and the lawyers get the lion's share. This is fair, considering that the lawyers actually have to do most of the work to actually turn your ideas into money. If you are sufficiently fecund (as we all are here), you should be able to make a living, provided you can find some lawyer interested in exploting you. In fact, this is the weak point in the whole plan. There are millions of ideas created every day; almost none turned into products by the conventional way, so I believe we can discount this as an "idea sink". The number of ideas that are productized into "Intellectual Property" is much greater, but still a infintessimal fraction of the great mass of unharnessed, or rather unproductized ideas.
I can envision a future when every geek is assigned his own personal IP attorney, to follow him around and capture every idea that pops into his head.
The value of an idea is, of course, what the market will pay for it. In a state of nature, there is no limit on copying an idea, and so ideas intrinsically have no value. The creative genius who thought of jabbing pictures of game with spears to enhance hunting prowess probably never received so much as a bison skin or mammoth steak in reward. This sort of outrageous injustice could not happen in our modern, civilized society, because in their wisdom of our antecedents and betters have decided we ought to have an exclusive right to anything that pops into our head. Just like Franklin and his stove, they not sought direct personal gain from this, but allowed it to sit like manure on the commons, the economic benefit of all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
One skilled in the art will recognize that it is not essential to have the computer system separate from the media playing device. It is conceivable to have the computer system physically incorporated in part or in whole into the media playing device.
It is noted that the embodiment of the invention discusses the use of a standard known computer, where in fact all components of the computer can be replaced with any new advancing technologies, like holographics or voice activated systems and still not depart from the intent of the invention of allowing easier user access to the underlying media data base information.
The preferred embodiment of the invention discusses the control of only a single media playing device, like a player piano. However, one skilled in the art would easily understand how to simultaneously control several media playing devices with the same control system in view of this disclosure. For example, the coordination of the control of a player piano along with a music video is contemplated.
Although this embodiment focuses upon the application of the software to control a player piano or video player, one skilled in the art will realize that this software interface could be used on any media playing device where a user needs to select what media item is to be played from a vast media data base. For example, it is contemplated to operate an electric guitar, a computer controlled multimedia system, a pipe organ, a television, a movie video player, or a computer screen.
Wow. So the player doesn't even have to be outside of the computer. So, iTunes, Zinf (Freeamp), Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMMS, Amarok, RhythmBox, GStreamer, well, just about every media player infringes. Even the holographic, voice-activated system that controls 73 copies of Winamp over the net infringes. Heck, if I use an interface to control playback of something on my computer screen, it infringes (assuming a filesystem counts as a database, which it should). I'm sure several million software writers would be interested to know about this. After reading the whole patent, I'm not really sure what, exactly, if anything, they are patenting. I know it has to do with media, and playback, and maybe something about automatic, but beyond that, I'm lost. Is it on a computer? How about an iPod? Does a stereo count? Is it over the internet? Are the interface and the player seperate, or not? What is a player? Is it a screen, a TV, a Playstation, a pair of speakers, or none (or all) of those?
I though patents were for implementations, not abstract, all-encompassing ideas...
In other news, 5 year-old Sally Jones was sued by Steven Olson of St. Paul, MN, after being observed in her backyard swinging in a way such that she infringed on his patent. He is claiming damages of over $1 million.
I like how they obviously spent a long time looking for a picture of an artist posing in the same angle wearing a bowtie for the iTunes picture.
My view on it...
A database is a collection of information stored in a computer in a systematic way, such that a computer program can consult it to answer questions.
Now wouldn't a CD Player fit this description. A CD holds the collection of information stored in a sytematic way. The CD Player would be the computer that does the questioning.
The remote control for the CD player could also be considered the coupled controlling device of the patent.
The CD Player could possibly be prior art as it precedes the patent by over a decade.
Wow is that some ugly art!!
So is Linspire getting sued for using an iTunes-like interface too? :)
If this company showed off the application at a convention, and is loosing sales because of iTunes, then where is the screenshot? Why is there just a hand drawn image of the interface? They must be still marketing the software, or else they can't be loosing sales, right?
Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
The story says they are suing APple for iTunes, not ITMS. Plus you don't really play stuff form the store, you buy it then play it locally from a directory.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I was a patent examiner a number of years ago. I knew (and occasionally still keep up with) the promary examiner on this patent. He does good work, and seems to have done alright here. (He actually has an interesting hobby, documented at http://www.bigsteel.iwarp.com/.)
..." including "e) playing the selected song item ... on the computer responsive music device."
A quick reading of independent claim 1 pretty much eliminates any question of infringment, i.e., there is none. It reads:
"1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer
When last I checked, the iPod was not controlled, i.e., told to play a song, by the computer hosting the iTunes software. Without that step, the patent is not infringed. Period.
I want to point out one more thing. The patent in question is not a design patent, but a utility patent. Design patents have identifiers that always begin with "D" and they pertain only to the appearance of something, not to what the patented thing does.
You might be right, I read only the abstract from the top of the linked page which stated:
The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database
I don't think you can seriously refer to a directory as a "media database". They might have something if they had sued based on the iPod. To me that wordind in the abstract indicates intent and kills the claim.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is getting its just deserts from supporting the software patent system.
IMHO Apple is getting its just deserts for something ELSE they did earlier: The "Look and Feel" suit. This was when they tried to stretch copyright into a longer-term patent on interfaces by suing Microsoft for copyright violation over Windows.
As I recall it they claimed that the interface was akin to a play, the software to the play's script and its operation was a performance. So any substantially similar interface was a prohibited derivative work.
Of course if this interpretation had held up it would have KILLED the software industry. It's far worse than patents - both because of the enormous term (even before the latest extensions) and because of the broad reach (far beyond the tight specification of the claims). And it's also far beyond a reasonable interpretation of copyright as applied to code (where substantial literal copying is prohibited but the ideas behind it are unprotected). So it's fortunate that the courts weren't convinced.
(I still have a protest button Gilmore was circulating at the time, with an ugly "apple worm" eating a computer and the slogan "Keep your Lawyers off My Computer if I recall it correctly.")
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apple (along with Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, etc) is one of the companies in Eicta who are backing the effort to get software patents going in Europe.
Lots of it.
For instance, in the mid 80's I was using a Macintosh with a Midi sequencer called Vision to control a bunch of musical devices including a digital sampling keyboard (Mirage) that played entire song segments and also displayed copious information about the songs on screen.
Its too late to patent midi, or software sequencers.
Here is his website:
http://www.emusicgear.com/
He has a storefront, in Essex and has been there a great many years. I don't know much more about him, but obviously he is looking to get something from Apple for this alledged infringement.
I have been in the shop a couple of times, both times I didn't feel welcomed... I've never been back - there are other places to buy what he's selling.
You haven't discovered "smart playlists" yet then have you?
Well thank you Captian Condesention, I have discovered smart playlists. Just because you can build a query does NOT mean the thing you are querying is held in a database. "Database" is a word with a pretty well understood definition that is different than "filesystem", even if what they do is a little similar in nature. The query I woud argue is provided externally by the program and not by the filesystem itself, and thus is not a real "database query".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You patent whores!
Be sure and call Contois Music & Technology at (802)878-8333 and let them know what you think of their innovative patents and predatory lawsuites.
Michael J. Meurer wrote the book on settling to avoid litigation of the issue of patent validity.
Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 368 (1973) the power company maintained monopoly by using litigation to prevent rival's entry into the market
Wal-Mart sued shrinking rival K-Mart in Federal court over little rotating carousels that hold plastic bags at the checkout lane.
Your source does not go into enough detail to know, but I doubt that the Jukebox functioned in that specific manner.
It's clear that you've never used iTunes, because iTunes doesn't normally look like that.
He deliberately moved the vertical slider in iTunes 1/3 of the way over, and the horizontal slider half the way down. This make it look like the playlist browser, the track browser, and the cover art were laid out the same way as his. In fact the cover art and playlist browser are a narrow vertical column, with the currently displayed playlist next to them, and the track browser is normally only displayed at the very top of the Library playlist. The normal view of iTunes is more like this.
This is ironically the same kind of trickery that Apple used against Microsoft, rearranging the Windows 3.0 user interface to make it look like Mac OS for the photographs they provided as evidence. This kind of trickery failed to prevail then, and hopefully it will fail this time.
In 30 years of so of reading such texts I have not come across one that does not use orginizing a music library as an example/exercise.
Every musicologist with a computer has a "catalog" far more sophisticated than this, as we deal with tracking the history of a song across hundreds of years, often with hundreds of recorded versions of each song.
KFG
Too many stupid patente hurting head..must destroy patent office and let creativity and competition flow freely without fear of knuckleheads!
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
If you can't come up with an alternative way to design a UI that lists genre, artist, album and song you are either incredibly unimaginative or the worlds worst designer.
How about this one?
Isn't it a fractal? Interest receivers is the common point.
Apple are using his patented Look n Feel.
Fel the burn Apple, fight SW patents instead of using them.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
seriously... not a troll posting.
why did they wait 5 years or whatever to go after iTunes? why do all these compu-related lawsuits wait till the product is out for years before they speak up. is it only because they are waiting till it is established and they can get more money? you can't tell me they did not notice iTunes till now (let alone any other similar software for playing music).
you would think the judges would be aware of this. if it is an infringement they should have done something in a timely manner. i realize lawyers have to earn a years worth of prep before filing this lawsuit but what the hell.
same thing with all the lawsuits over PDAs..... didn't palm get sued something like 2 years ago over grafiti? who snoozed through the palm pilot boom of the 90s?
i guess Apple should have waited to sue Microsoft over a windows based GUI till 1998 or something. they could have gotten a much better settlement.
am i missing some obvious tactic? Apple went after those knock off fruit flavored iMac things right away. they went after the totally ripped off iPod shuffle even before it hit stores. they got it removed from the display table at the expo. i guess those were more trademark issues than patents? maybe somebody should consider how you have to be prepared to actively defend a trademark as opposed to sit and wait then sue the crap out of somebody if the product makes some cash.
Just to clarify, I am in fact, the inventor of the rectangle design. I would very much like it for all designers to stop using my rectangles -- I own them all. Since this post was written in a rectangle, I'm requiring prompt payment for its use.
Contois isn't selling or otherwise distributing a product with that interface.
They patented the product yet they aren't using it anyway. They can't claim damages because iTunes has been distrubted for 4 years.
Just what are they suing over? The fact that a person scribbled down a UI for a music player, but then never actually used said interface for anything more than a demo product?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I been using Wamp since it was Damp.
The whole lot o' ya, fresh fishies, I tell ya, fresh fishies!
Smile.
Honestly, I really don't care for apple about this. They have their own patent arsenal and they aren't afraid of strong arming people with litigation. The only time we'll ever get reform is if all these companies end up getting sued so much that they need reform.
http://www.emusicgear.com/images/mmr.gif
I could get a patent for using an 'iPod shuffle like device' as a suppository and that mean that I should get a exclusive licence which would get my money every time somebody farted.
The patent system is showing just how broken it is.
This makes the entire concept invalid.
Patents without 'hardware' which does something specific are utterly bogus.
I treat them with the respect they deserve and ignore them.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
My SoundJam CD has a 1999 copyright date ... you did nothing about it, it seems, until 2005.
"Laches" refers to the doctrine that if a patent holder delays legal action against an alleged infringer for long enough to harm the alleged infringer, the patent holder can't collect damages for infringements that occurred prior to legal action. If the patent holder waits at least six years before suing, the judge will almost always apply laches; in that case, a prevailing patent holder can get an injunction against further infringement but can collect only damages for infringements that occurred between the filing of the lawsuit and the injunction.
Apple, just like every other big company, knows that the software patent system and the current rubber stamp policy at the PTO only benefits large corporations.
This policy means that the company who wins is the one with the most power and the biggest pocket book. They want to make it, own it, protect it, fight for it, and make money off of it, and make damn sure no one else is, not even if doing so would be more fair to consumers.
They'll get sued for silly things like this, but they also sued that maker of the Gem computer that was almost a complete visual ripoff of the original flavored iMac. And Apple won, the company didn't distribute the computer, and Apple didn't have to compete against that computer maker. Their product was both visually and technically inferior, but knockoffs still take money out of your hands and force you to find another way to compete.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
That both designs display using a Miller column browser (with different content!) and can show an image won't be sufficient.
So that's what it's called. This user interface predates the Macintosh, in fact it predates the Xerox Star office system that inspired the Macintosh. It comes from the Smalltalk class browser.
How is this "Overrated" at zero? Nice pro-Apple bias, mods.
Well, most filesystems essential use a database (inodes, indexes etc). Usually when people say Database they mean a DBMS or something analogous.
I think it highlights one of the problems with tech patents is that it would be possible for a lawyer to argue your filesystem was legally just a database. All they need to do is confuse a jury enough, which probably wouldn't be all that hard. Unfortunatly the patent law doesn't say "sorry, database is to vague, your patent application is rejected". The incentive is to use nice vauge terms to make the patent more far reaching.
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
Here's the extent of the patent.[patft.uspto.gov]
That sounds like the winamp media library to me, because that is esentially what it does, allows people to browse their music collections based on artist, album etc.
organize music by Genere, then artist, and finally album
Except his design organizes it by Category, Composer, and Artist.
It is a design patent.
Is it? I don't know enough about how the patent system works to say... what parts of the patent should I look at to tell if it's a design patent or some other kind of patent?
I agree
Contois Music Technology who? What did they ever do for me?
To be fair, maybe they have done quite a bit but I just do not know about it. From my current perspective, however, this is just another entity that comes up with a described, but still rather imprecise concept, never does anything with it, and then sues a second entity that implements something different than originally presented but close enough to fall under the patents' over-reaching definitions.
Show me that Apple suppressed Contois Music Technology's product and I will gleefully applaud any punitive action; we don't need another Microsoft. But, until that time, this is just another example of why software patents should be discontinued.
If you were Apple, you would not fight this in court. Settling out of court, paying a patent license fee, or cross-licensing are all far less expensive than fighting this in court and, therefore, much more attractive ways to deal with this nuisance. Each of these outcomes individually or collectively are more likely to occur than seeing this through to the end in court.
Remember one of the examples we learned about in RMS' discussion of the problem with software patents (transcript): Briefly, Paul Heckel threatened to sue Apple over a patent he held which covered something in Hypercard; Apple initially brushed him off but when he threatened to sue Apple's users for patent infringement Apple listened up and paid him off.
It has to be pointed out that this is just another reason to not do business with Apple. /. readers bend over backwards to not find fault with Apple but Apple's actions harm users because Apple wields the same patent power that Contois Music Technology is using against Apple here -- Apple holds patents which cover font hinting which adversely impact free software users who want smooth fonts on the screen. Apple also claims patents on the "Enterprise Object Framework" which adversely impacts the GNUStep work and thus serves as another obstruction to free software users.
Digital Citizen
You're fully correct that it's an obvious tactic. Because the patent system allows this, unlike the trademark system where trademarks risk losing their protection if you don't go after abuse. Of course you don't need to have created the product that infringes the patent yourself, just using (or indeed just having it) can get someone to slap a lawsuit on your desk... Fun, isn't it?
Aren't software patents wonderful?
Go through the patent and replace most instances of the word "media" with "file" and all of a sudden this patent isn't so innovative (ie: it's no different than an old operating system listing files in a directory and the means to open those files via buttons).
It seems these days that one can patent high-level general abstractions! Like "use of a device to aid in the lifting of heavy objects" rather than low-level specifics like the gears and pulleys of said device...!
Honestly, if you're not smart enough to invent the MEANS, you shouldn't be allowed to patent the EFFECTS.
Does that make it not a car? This is an obvious example, but the point is the field does matter if the patent system/authority keeps accepting these.
Does anyone here really deny RSA was a valid patent? (I should qualify that to anyone who believe in non-software patents.)
Anm
If the interface layout was part of the original '96 filling, then it's very clear that the patent was infringed upon. Just because the one being sued here isn't MS doesn't mean it's a farce or a scam to make quick money.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
Maybe I should patent the art of searching for p0rn or downloading p0rn...
then I can use more than half the internet population for looking at p0rn..
I always hated how difficult they made it to organize music, upload/download music to your Ipod, even burning CD's was difficult to explain to a lamen.... I personally think it works efficiently, but about 3 years ago i gave up trying to explain the steps to someone like *my mom* on the phone. It supprises me how hard it is for the average person to navigate. (so they call me)=(
Am no fek Buddhist, but this is enlightenment.
... not the ipod.
The song gets copied into your computer and played just like you would do with winamp or win media player.
itunes just talkes to the ipod to download or upload data (music, playlists, etc)
- sigs are for wimps.
The original idea (I think) was something along the lines of playing the music on a computer-controlled MIDI device.
But then Apple was actually doing that in the mid to late-80's with Apple II's and Macs IIRC.
And the description they use does sound like a database, but then so is the Desktop Database Macs have always used to store files and file attributes.
I'll leave this one up to the lawyers.
strange their UI looks remarkably like the NeXT file Browser... (which really predates this so called patent) Apple should really sue them.
But then if they argue a "filesystem was legally a database", then I think filesystem uses pre-date this patent by a looong shot. They'd have a tough time arguing the Desktop Database Apple was using for years before this patent was applied for, is covered by this patent.
Apple came out with Quicktime back in the 80's. Hypercard could be used to control devices via serial ports and all the plethora of MIDI devices predate the filing of this "patent".
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
All patent and copyright infringement suits shall henceforth be decided by Judges Wapner, Judy, and/or Joe Brown. No degree of sound judgment or consistency is thereby present, express or implied.
If scumbucket lawyers mine the legal system for exploits, the "admins" should moderate accordingly. Why are only local judges ruling on traffic infractions by poor people morally entitled to be total pricks?
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Bullshit case, typical rent-seeking behavior by a moron using a submarine patent.
I Hope apple smacks his ass to 2030. Software patents MUST DIE
God, I didn't even know that had a name.
I just thought it was a rather ubiquotous paradigm.
I mean, it's basically a natural extension of the columnar output of something like "ls -l" or from Windows 2.0 even.
The ability to sort those columns once they were wrapped in a GUI seems pretty obvious. The only difference is how the metadata fields have changed over time.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That sounds like a special case of the NeXTStep file window interface circa 1993. You click a folder and the contents are shown in the next field. Click one of the items in the contents and they are shown in the next field. So, click the "Classical" music folder, click the "Bach" folder, and click the "Concerto xx" folder, and finally double click the song file displayed in the final field in order to play. This was done on a NeXTStep computer prior to the 1996 application date for the patent.
But wording is key in all legal documents, which a patent is - and by using a term that means a specific thing they have (even if in advertantly) locked themselves into that definition. It certainly shows enough intent that I think they can get it thrown out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think it highlights one of the problems with tech patents is that it would be possible for a lawyer to argue your filesystem was legally just a database. All they need to do is confuse a jury enough, which probably wouldn't be all that hard. Unfortunatly the patent law doesn't say "sorry, database is to vague, your patent application is rejected".
At the time the patent was written, the term "database" was even clearer than today. To me it gives away exactly what they were thinking of which is a real database holding media with certain kinds of queries against it.
The structure of what they are describing thus sounds wholly different than what iTunes is doing, even if the end effect to the user might appear the same. And as much as they have lawyers that try to confuse the issue Apple can help clear it up again. I don't even think it would be that hard for them to ridicule the concept of mixing the term "database" with "filesystem", that on top of this nothing company suing Apple for some perceived copying and the jury would probably not look too fondly on this money-grubbing little company coming after Apple now - years after iTunes was introduced!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, latkes would be delicious, right about now.
--- What
For instance, the player piano.
--- What
haha Thanks for noticing the mod thing. I guess I don't care too much about it, because I don't really worry too much about how my comments get modded. But thanks for kindness :)
There should be a modification to the law which says that if you don't develop the patented invention or have not made any moves to either licence the patent for development and pratical application by someone else after a period of three years, your patent shall pass into the public domain.
Such a change would allow people who actually invent something to have the protection of the law and would get rid of all of these companies which act as patent litigation houses.
The only possible issue with such a modification might be the question of what qualifies as sufficient effort towards development.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Command click on several genres, then command click on several artists, then on several albums.
Select a song with a double click...
On the other hand, using a computer to run an external sound device via playlists etc. sounds like what I used to do with opcode vision in 1992... I grant you the interface was different, but it did a great job of controlling external and internal sounds... and its interface was largely that of a stack of sequences that opened up to adeeper stack of sequences and so on till you ran out of RAM... This really has nothing to do with the debate, I was just reminiscing... (sigh)
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
For many years before 1996, Sony has been putting a LANC network control on their jukebox CD players. Many utilities we written (including old hypercard mac apps) to control music jukeboxes. You could select a CD, play, stop, pause. Some of these utilities even let you see album covers, details, etc. All, well before 1996. I think I remember seeing products using LANC to control music on a PC back in the early 90's.. like 91-92, actually.
The animatrontic characters, displays, and equipment at Chuck-E-Cheese?
I'm sure Disneyland has had even better stuff for much longer as well.
Heh. I could just imagine the Apple PR guy saying "We've got this cool thing called the Macintosh coming out next year. And yes, I am going on record as announcing that Microsoft will copy the OS without our permission and release its own version."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Instead of ditching them altogether, make the patent filer prove within 1 year that they have created the product they've patented, or licensed it to someone who creates the product, and that the product in question is actually being sold in the real world? Also, why not make it so that if a company can prove they have been making and selling a product in violation of the patent in the general market for more than 2 years, the patent owner loses the right to sue? Patents in and of themselves are not a horrible thing, but their ready allowance of legal ambushing is.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
...what do you call a soundcard then, or a set of speakers attached to said soundcard?
I am NaN
A big company like Apple makes enough money to just "license" this "patent", or buy it. And with an exclusive license, Apple could lock out its own competitors. Sounds like a better proposition to me than trying to get rid of patents, and letting every Joe and their dog make a competing music player.
I'm not saying Apple would do this, but certain other even bigger software companies would do that in a blink.
No single viable corporation, perhaps. But the reality is that many corporations compete for [goverment] influence, which creates the same kinds of inefficiencies that are present in committees, for example.
... goverment by committee, by corporate proxy. With internecine competition between government agencies, in parallel with competition between corporate sponsors. Twice the detachment -- twice the inefficiency!
Oh my God
-kgj
-kgj
There is one instance in which iTunes CAN be used to play a player piano... and I've actually done it myself. This is in using a MIDI interface, which since iTunes can play .mid files, it can utilize (if setup properly), someone can use iTunes to trigger the action of a Yamaha Disclaviar which is basically an acoustic player piano that interperets MIDI data to play it instead of wind-hole piano rolls.
To say that this has anything to do with iTunes' intended use is beyond a stretch, though, for ANY program that can play a .mid file has the potential of playing back on any MIDI controller, even one used to trigger an acoustic instrument.
Their lawyers are going to have to do some pretty amazing arguements to support this, especially since a vital componant of playback of any MIDI controlled device is a "MIDI Controller", of which Apple doesn't even produce, let alone take responsibility in tying in with iTunes. The openned-ended architecture of todays computer environments simply allows for a variety of things. It's as if Apple sued Microsoft over "stikies" because they claim users can use folder names to leave notes for yourself on WindowsXP; sure this is true, but it has nothing to do with the intended use.
- EricMultiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Apple has lots of these kinds of patents themselves, and they have tried to enforce them in the past. It seems hypocritical if Apple-fans complain about such lawsuits when Apple is the target.
As for the UI itself, it's a common arrangement of multiple selectors you see often in OS X. But those kinds of selectors and UIs didn't originate in OS X, they originated 30 years ago in Smalltalk, were copied by NeXT, and then finally by OS X.
um, guys, why should you care if *Apple Computer* is being sued for infringing a stupid software patent?
have we all forgotten Apple's stupid patent for the iTunes interface? (patent #20040055446)
I don't think they've wielded it against anyone, but there's nothing stopping them, especially since the interface has been so widely copied it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
sounds to me like a case of chickens coming home to roost...
Well, why haven't we heard anything about the Winamp Media Library as well? Sure, the WAML isn't the default window to popup in a WinAmp player, the default controller is very similar to iTunes' collapsed window player, but you're always one click away (or simply a change in default settings) from the Winamp Media Library, an interface that is identical to all the listed requirements claimed by the patent, in every way. The WAML was built into WinAmp circa 1999 with WinAmp 2.0 (I think, don't quote me on these dates though). Let's also keep in mind that iTune's default setup only has ONE scrollable field, the multipul fields at the top are brought into view only when the option is enabled, where-as the WAML shows these windows (artsist, album, etc.) by default and cannot be removed, though the individual fields themselves can be changed, if I remember correctly.
Here's a comparison of the current WinAmp 5.09 Media Library, though this window has remained more or less unchanged since it's conception:
Contois Mockup / WinAmp Media LibraryNow, I'm not possitive, but I think the multipul field iTunes option was implemented when iTunes was ported to MacOS X, which was LONG after the WinAmpML was implemented. Nullsoft, on the other hand, has never filed suit or even complaint against apple in their interface design, although I'd be far more willing to bet that Apple would have been influenced by the largest music playing software (at the time) then by a non-working mockup by an underground company.
Plus, why isn't Contois suing Nullsoft? For one thing, Nullsoft actually is selling a version of their product (not all versions), where-as Apple's iTunes is a free download of which they do not directly profit off of. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Apple has been targetted after a long line of similar products have already come out, Apple just being one link in a chain of similar interfaces all influecing each other.
- EricMultiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Serial Number 76604206 at http://www.uspto.gov/ (direct links aren't so easy to get there)
He was involved with a product called the "IBM Music Feature Card"... he worked for Yamaha and his father worked for IBM, and it was based on a Yamaha synthesizer chipset.
There's precisely one reference I could find online to a program that might be related to this patent:
It's possibly that by "we" he means "Yamaha": Yamaha Piano Suite contains "Piano Player- Supervised piano practice with brilliantly effective audio/ visual feedback."
Apple purchased the rights to SoundJam MP, and hired the three programmers who created SoundJam MP to help develop iTunes. SoundJam MP was originally owned by Casady & Greene.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Because in 1998 our class group assignment for computer science class is described by this patent!
Who approves these things!
The patent application was filed in Feb 1996. The software was demonstrated at COMDEX in 1995. My understanding is that once you have made the details of your "invention" public knowledge, you cannot then retrospectively apply for a patent on it. In a way, you become your own prior art.
Can any lawers out there explain the law on this?
n/t
but Windows Media Player had smart playlists before iTunes?
I eagerly await your response to this argument.
...something like an external sound card, usb/firewire/whatever? Also, my speakers are external to my computer, they are connected to a decent amp which takes output from my m-audio audiophile soundcard.
I am NaN
IANAL, but AFAIK, you cannot patent "Look and Feel" of a program, yet that is the heart of this "Patent Infringement".
its OT, i know, but when a creative nomad is connected, you can control the playback through your computer. btw, wouldn't all music programs fall under this?
...For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror.
People here don't like others pointing out their and other slashdot poster's hypocrisy.
Don't be surprised if you get modded down, and get a bunch of angry replies justifying and rationalizing why someone like Apple doing this is ok, but not for someone like Microsoft.
Expect some comments along the lines of "but this is different" and "because it doesn't agree with my agenda, your logic is flawed" arguments.
What version of iTunes are you using? I tried selecting and deselecting the Show Genre when Browsing option and still can't get anything that looks like their exhibit screen while browsing the library (which is what is shown in their exhibit). I can only get something that comes close by browsing the iTMS and selecting "Browse Music," and even then there is a browser toolbar in the top pane. I have tried this in version 4.8 of iTunes, both the Windows and Mac versions.
If older versions of iTunes do give the exhibit screen, then it looks like Apple may have discovered they were infringing and made some attempt to fix it before the Contois suit was filed. I have no idea if this helps Apple or Contois.
I don't support this kind of patent either.
Warning: The intelligence of this post may be larger than it appears.
nah. just the ones with play buttons. ;-)