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)
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)?
It's not that revolutionary... genre, artist, and song title has been shown on monitors before in karaoke bars...
The iTunes interface seems to be almost a ditto copy of their interface, and they have alleged that persons who were at the time employed by or later became employed by Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software.
Banu
Yeah, my favorite line in the patents is:
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.
So they admit they haven't invented anything, but they got a patent because of the amazingly innovative combination of those features like choosing a track combined with then playing the track. WOW!!!!!!!!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
MOD4Win had "multiple data display", "database features", and "music control" in 1993. Not to mention that NeXTSTEP had the scrolling file chooser interface used by iTunes, many years prior to 1996. If anything, Apple might be able to countersue for this company copying *their* interface!
:-/
Sorry, their arguments aren't holding water. And I still don't see any player pianos.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
Except if you look at their diagram, the selection is on Frank Mills.
:D
So they can't be the same if one is Frank Mills and the other is Liberace.
Sound logic isn't it?
The patent was granted in 1999. It was applied for on February 13th, 1996.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I don't think most people would agree with speakers as "External Computer Controlled devices" but I think everyone would agree that the iPod is.
I wouldn't agree. "Computer Controlled" specifically means that the parent computer is the interface to which the attached device responds. The patent even goes into great detail of this interface and calls the device a "player piano". An iPod, OTOH, is an independent device. It is in no way "controlled" by the host computer, but merely interfaces for file transfers. There is currently no method by which an iPod can begin play by "pressing the play button on the computer interface." (in the patent, look it up) Rather, the user must interface directly with the iPod to access the downloaded database.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
For Apple (and derivatives such as NeXTSTEP), the scolling file chooser interface can traced back at least as far as 1985 or so. Andy Hertzfeld developed an alternate version of Finder for the Macintosh called Servant. Apple purchased the rights from Andy.
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.
No, it can't. iTunes can't change the radio station on a stereo. It can't change tracks on a CD that's playing on the stereo. It can't turn the stereo on or off. All that iTunes and Airport Express do is utilize auxilory input jacks, and in order to do so I must first get off my ass, walk over to the stereo, and manually select aux input.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
No, but neither does iTunes. According to their patent, the software must be capable of "b) sending a data stream from the computer to the computer controlled music device in response to step a) for controlling the playing of the selected song;". Or in other words, the external device must respond directly to the stream provided by the computer device.
Actually, now it does. See the Airport Express, which allows you to send a stream of music to a remote device or stereo.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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.
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.
IIRC iTunes predates the first iPod.
Also, iTunes was based on SoundJam, which Apple purchased. That goes back a couple years more.
There is no case here.
(IANAL... and glad of it.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.