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."

Comments

Hmm

[FuzzzyLogik]

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.

Good !

[shades66]

Maybe if enough big companies get shafted through patent lawsuits they may consider working to get rid of software patents.

But then again....

Re:Good !

[gorbachev]

Never happen.

Their thinking is that if we get MORE software patents, the costs will offset and we win.

It's fundamentally just an arms race, where the one with the biggest wallet wins and consumers always lose.

It's about time we throw the baby out with the

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Patent Text

[rampant mac]

" Computer control system and user interface for media playing devices

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...

Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer

[Foobar of Borg]

Not to mention MP3 player that existed prior to January 1999.

The patent was granted January 1999. It was actually filed Feb. 13, 1996, so you have to beat that date since that is the priority date and the date from which their 20 year term of protection begins. If you read the claims carefully, it is more than just a simple listing and selection of songs. 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. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Of course

[Rick Zeman]

Contois is seeking a trial by jury.

...so they can befuddle the technologically ignorant into delivering a favorable verdict.

Re:IANAL but ...

[Wavicle]

While a settlement may be in the future, this should not be a solid case. The patent is blindingly obvious. Come on, they patented any database access program for a music collection that can then cause a player device to play it.

If you have a 100 disc CD changer and write a computer program to allow you to choose and begin playing selections from that changer, you violate this patent.

Here's the first claim from the patent:

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, comprising the steps of:

a) simultaneously displaying on a display device, at least two individual data fields selected from music categories, composers, artists, and songs;

b) selecting at least one item from at least one of the data fields;

c) in response to step b), redisplaying all data fields not having an item selected therefrom with data related only to the at least one item selected in step b), and simultaneously maintaining all items originally displayed in the data fields with at lest one item selected therefrom;

d) selecting an item in the songs data field in response to step c), and

e) playing the selected song item from step d) on the computer responsive music device.

Now come on. If you are going to use a computer for connecting to a music device, how obvious is a user interface that categorizes the data? 90% of what a computer does when it isn't playing games is categorizing data!

Re:LOL!

[Decameron81]

"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."

Woah! Those are really neat inventions. Must have required a lot of intellect to bring that intellectual property to paper.

Go patents go!

Re:Are you joking me?

[slcdb]

This is a joke if I've ever seen one...

No, it's not a joke. It's absolutely serious. There's a real chance that in the end Mr. Contois will be walking away with his pockets full of cash and a big grin on his face. This would be at the expense of Apple, and Apple would no doubt be forced to pass this expense on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In effect, Apple's consumers will be forced to indirectly fill this guy's pockets with his ill-gotten money.

This is no joke; it's real, and it's why more needs to be done to stop software patents. If they're not stopped, there will be more and more lawsuits just like this one. If there are enough of these lawsuits, they will have a dramatically negative impact on the economy, because wealth will be flowing from those who are being productive to those who are really nothing more than leaches.

Software already enjoys the protection of copyright, it does not need patent protection as well.