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)?
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?
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
Liberace has a bowtie in both pictures. That's enough to convince me!
Then again I also voted to acquit Michael Jackson...
Three Squirrels
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.
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.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
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.
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!
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
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?
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.
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.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
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.
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
In a world where Paris Hilton can trademark the words, "That's Hot" does this suprise anyone
Evolution or ID?
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 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.
...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 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
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.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
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.
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.
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
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?
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.