Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy
Gadget Guy writes "Apple has been denied on their quest to patent the iPod software interface. According to AppleInsider - 'Standing in Apple's way appears to be a prior filing by inventor John Platt, who submitted a patent application for a similar software design for a portable device in May of 2002 - just five months before Robbin submitted his claims on behalf of Apple.'" The Register also helps to shed a little additional light on the subject.
Alec, I'll take touchpad scrollwheels for $500...
would that then mean that Apple would have to pay royalties to this guy?
I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
From what I see of all this, Apple will just keep throwing the patent back until it does finally get passed. What's the alternative? Microsoft sue Apple for 'inventing' the iPod interface? That would be an interesting PR escapade....
2002 = 2*7*11*13
Apple or not, maybe this will expose the stupidity behind the generic techno patent craze that's been going on the past 4-5 years.
Full-disclosure: I own an iPod, a PowerMac G5, and a 17" PowerBook. I love OS X. I occasionally drink the special Kool-Aid while sitting in range of the reality distortion field.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Two people with their own intellectual prowess create the same idea. Yet, the person that manages to get to the patent office first gets the patent. Which means that, in this case, ownership has nothing to do with the original creation of intellectual property.
They have: DRM, Large music base, their own portable MP3 player that's compatible.
Are they worried about people confusing Yahoo's or Mircrosoft's offerings with iTunes?
I don't get it.
good for the consumer, it will force apple to stay on the cutting edge because their competition can easily copy their interface. competition = innovation = win for consumers
that John Platt works for Microsoft :)
http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/
I hope the original Patent Holder takes Apple to court for Patent Infringement, and bilks them for all the money he can. It will only go to show Apple how absurd an idea these kinds of patents are.
Never mind prior art claims between these patents, it's only the inclusion of the words 'portable media player', or similar, that stops the whole stack from being toppled by very clear prior art... This system is clearly ridiculous.
Platts patent is here I personally cant see the relevance of the patents to each other but IANAPL :)
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
I get the impression from the "tone" of the headline and summary that patents are good as long as Apple owns them. Reality check here.
It would be nice if two people patenting the same thing at roughly the same time could be used as a test to indicate that neither patent is valid and both are obvious.
...but that would make sense.
Appearently the USPTO computer system just got upgraded, appearently they have the ability to "reject" patents now.
Are you saying that the US Patent Office actually rejected a patent application? For any reason, much less prior art?
Holy crap! This is unprecidented!
Technoli
Never mind prior art claims between these patents, it's only the inclusion of the words 'portable media player', or similar, that stops the whole stack from being toppled by very clear prior art... This system is clearly ridiculous.
In other words, the whole thing should be thrown out under the "non-obvious" clause.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
2 important things to note: /., but it's worth a shot). Basically Apple has a lot of patents on the iPod, such that even if Mr. Platt's patent were to stand the test of time (it has several rejections against it as well), the iPod's most important features would be safe from litigation.
1. John Platt is officially "Manager of the Knowledge Tools Group at Microsoft Research." Which would be very bad for Apple, except that...
2. This isn't a final rejection, and certainly isn't as serious as the AppleInsider article makes it sound. Read the article on the Register for more info (I know this is
Anyone remember this? http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/09/ 1654250&tid=176&tid=100&tid=3
From starbright? Basically an ipod interface for PocketPC?
Totally illegal alledgedly, but i love it on my Samsung i730!
Wait a minute... you can get a patent on "clicking the left button of a mouse to order goods and services from a web site" when there's clearly a decade of prior art, but the iPod interface isn't good enough?
From the Register article ...
"describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface."
Didn't I do this when using the 'Paddle' on my Atari 2600 two decades ago? Doesn't seem so inventive.
It's hard to imagine anyone keeping a straight face while applying for a patent on something as trivial/universal/obvious/pre-existing as as a method of traversing a linear menu. Every MP3 player I've owned, going back to the RIO 300 used a variation of a thumbwheel and click menu. How did Apple decide they "invented" this?
I agree fully here, it just seems stupid in my view.
I seem to keep comparing this to a thing like Walls patenting the IDEA of ice cream, and Hagen das then going and making lovely ice cream, much better than Wall's. In my view, hagen das have the better product, they should not be penalised. It is consumers which decide who gets rich, not bloody patents - which seems to be the craze now.
An odd view, but somone must agree with me!
I thought Slashdot hated patents, and software patents especially? And on something as stupid as a software interface?.
But I guess the rules don't apply to Apple.
Apple may just buy the patent from Platt.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From the Register Article:
"describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface" I think the car radio on my Dads 1950 Ford did that. I rotate the knob and it moves the channel indicator in a linear fashion across the "user interface" showing which radio frequency I'm tuning to.
Oh wait, if you put "e", "i", before it or "computer/Network/Internet" after it - something invented 50+ years ago it is suddenly NEW! Welcome to the new iMillenium!
The first inventor can go out and patent the idea up to 2 years after publicizing it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I hope Cthulhu gets into the mix. Because really as long as someone is gonna win a patent battle I want a *real* evil and not some half-assed evil. :)
I'm working on a good joke about your mom being
The article from the Reg shows that this is probably a non-issue. AppleInsider makes all sorts of grand claims in its own article, but doesn't supply the facts to back them up.
What's actually happening seems to be a fairly normal, even boring, patent registration process for a couple of ideas that look vaguely similar if you want to write a click-whoring article about them. It hardly counts as putting the iPod interface in 'jeopardy'.
good for the consumer, it will force apple to stay on the cutting edge because their competition can easily copy their interface. competition = innovation = win for consumers
Forced R&D spending due to lack of IP protection == higher product costs, which leads to a comptetive disadvantage to the company doing the "innovating" since they are effectively doing R&D for all the "copiers". Tell me again how this is a good model? Apple tried this with their great clone experiment way back when, and showed why it just does not work. How about the competition being forced to also innovate, which fosters competition, improved product (vs umpteen variations of the same one).
How will Apple ever make money on the iPod without patent protection?
Wow.
-everphilski-
The interface as not revolutionary at all, its just a standard Rack and Pinion adapted. This can (or could) be found on cars, as well as lock gates (which actually go up and down too) and probably in a million other places too
Did Sony not patent the scroll wheel on the Clie? Has Sony not used this on cell phones, too? Those devices were introduced in the 90s, not 2002 as Microsoft's prior art patent claims.
John
Are you referring to the Apple logo?
I know you can't be talking about the batteries.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Oh no, the very future of the way people build little rotating wheels into small electronic devices may be at stake. Will everyone who wishes to do so have to pay a tithing to Apple? Will they have to pay a tithing to this other five-months-early guy? Will anyone who wants be able to build a little wheel that awkwardly scrolls through menus? Who knows?
I just... I'm sorry. I just can't make myself care.
Freshie year of college (not that long ago) I wrote a short research paper on tech patents. Included were statistics showing the influx of patents around the tech boom, and more importantly the acceptance rate of these patents. What you could clearly see is that the acceptance rate was very high, and it wasn't because everybody was innovative. It's because at the time, the patent examiners wern't as technical in the relevant field of the patents they were examining, but this hasn't really changed much up to today. Since patents are mostly written to be over-generalized on purpose, its hard to get a real idea of what the patent is trying to do, and therefore hard to come up with prior art or to determine whether it is innovative, non-obvious, etc. Not even the computer system upgrade and bringing in more patent examiners has appeared to help with the quality of the accepted patents, or the immense backlog of patents thats causing problems.
Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy
I'll take Patents Gone Wild for $2000, Alex.
Don't worry sweetie, Apple is a big company with LOTS of money, they won't lose in court just because som silly legal code goes against them.
Volume knobs anyone? Radio Tuners? Combo Locks? List goes on and on.... Linear progression represented on a wheel.
I'm gonna go to the patent office RIGHT NOW and patent "Using computers to do stuff".
Who's with me?
Uhm... OK. My morning tea kicked in and I see your point. Sorry.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
- What on earth has the Platt patent application got to do with the iPods user interface.
- There are plenty of examples or rotary dials controlling linear scales. My old walkman had one as do most older radios.
Turn the wheel clockwise the line on scale goes up.
Turn it anticlockwise the line on the scale goes down.
How on earth is this new?
I'm sorry but much as I like apple this really isn't anything new.
This is very badly titled. They don't have this patent yet. It's their application that's in possible jeopardy.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Coming soon:
Tagline: "patent or be sued!"
Object: Patent everything you can and profit from the work of others.
Method of play:
-Everybody starts with venture capital of $100,000.
-As you go around the board you collect cash (via sales cards), Patents (via patents cards) that you can buy if you want, and inventions (via inventions cards).
-sales cards: gives you the option to sell a product if you have the invention card for it.
-patents cards: You buy them If you want for $100. Any patents not bought are put into the "Public domain" pile. A player can only hold a patent card for up to 10 turns, after which they go the the "Public domain" pile. After you pay, you must spin the "Patent Pending" wheel. (NFR - Final Rejection - Approuved) Each time you do not get "Approuved" you pay a additional $100 and spin again. If you are broke or don't want to spin, the Patent card goes to the "Public domain" pile.
-invention cards: Are free when you land on the square on the board. If the "invention" is already patented by another player, that other player CAN sue for the cost of the patent. The patent owner can also not reveal that he/she hold that patent cards for up to 10 turns. The player with the patent card can, at the time of his choosing, sue the player with the Invention card for twice the "Sales" that player has received.
Note#1: If a patent card is bought and another player already has the "Invention card", each place $10000 in a pile and each spin their own USPTO wheel (Patent Wins - Invention wins -settlement). Both wheels must match. If not, each player adds another $5000 to the pile, and spin again. This can continue until one or both players run out of money. If Settlement is the outcome, the pot is split between players.
Note#2: On a whim a player can sue another player for "patent infringement". Same rules as Note #1. (Notice that no cards are used. Like in real life, the player who has the most money is likely to win)
Final Rejection
Patent pending, copyrighted, "Patent Pursuit" is a registed trade mark of denis-The-menace of Slashdot.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Looks like the patent is not assigned to a company so it must be entirely his. Now he just has to start the bidding war for assignment between Apple, Microsoft, and various other MP3 player makers.
Even if the Microsoft patent did not exist, Apple's application should be rejected on prior art alone. All Apple appears to be wanting to do is to patent the "jog dial." Something that has appeared on countless electronic devices long before Apple ever dreamed up the iPod.
6 14.html). To quote an excerpt from the linked article, "I love the jog-dial button. It is unbelievably useful, letting one scroll, access menus, launch applications, click on selections and zoom into windows by just turning and pushing the knob." I am sure I have seen jog dials even earlier than that. So exactly what is Apple trying to patent?
I have seen jog dials on at least: Electronics testing hardware, VCRs, remote controls and many others. Putting one on a portable media player is hardly worthy of a patent. Here's one example in a Sony PictureBook reviewed in the year 2000 (http://it.asia1.com.sg/reviews/port/por001_20000
The only thing worse than a bad referee is an inconsistent one.
Are we happy because a big company didn't get a patent for something obvious, or mad because Apple is being jerked around by Microsoft?
My head is gonna asplode.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
1. Take an app that has not been used on a portable device. ....
2. Patent the non-obvious and innovative solution.
3.
4. Profit!
...innovation. The idea is that you give inventors a monopoly over their inventions that lasts longer than the life cycle of the invention. The result is that every company that innovates will eventually have a monopoly on every little thing they invent and eventually we'll reach a point where nobody else can invent anything for fear of infringing on someone else's monopoly. I think I will call this invention "The Patent".
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Oh NO!
It cant be true! Please somebody, do something! A patent application is at stake!
If Apple cannot patent this, although it has been known and used for approx. 50 years now, they will be _SHAMELESSLY_ ripped off! Other companies will use the same 50yr old wheel interface and put out even remotely similar products that will _HARM_ Apples hegemony and glory.
They _HAVE_ to be rewarded for their revolutionary invention. Even if it was invented before. But _no one_ came up with an great product as the iPod. A company that manages to produce something revolutionary as the iPod has to be protected. They have the absolute right to disallow everybody else the usage of everything they want to. This protection is absolutely _necessary_, even if it is not based on any lagal concept. The invention machine that is Apple _HAS_ to be protected by any means, as much as possible.
What is good for Apple, is good for _US_. So competition for Apple is _HARMING_ us! Think about it.
Patents can't be rejected, silly rabbit.
This shit is ridiculous.
Nothing but insuring that greedy assholes get money before other people.
Take a look at what happened w/ Doom 3 and "Carmack's Reverse" - the fucking thing was already patented by some douchebags from Creative when Carmack discovered it on his own.
Now he's obligated to compensate them in some way.
What a bunch of bullshit - the patent system needs some type of overhaul or a "common sense" monitoring system to prevent this shit.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
FOR FSCKS SAKES! Can't one kick their leg out without connecting with someones nuts??? Enough with patents!!! *Oh wait Apple is a giant company* - fsck them.
Suck it, Trebek!!
HA HA!
Someday a company will try to patent something truly innovative, and be denied. The following week, someone from a larger company with more money will patent the same idea. Not just the same idea, but a copy/pasted version of the original submission.
The company that lost the patent might be slightly mentally unstable, and totally blast the bigger company into the ground with explosives, mercenaries, gang fights, etc. And when its all said and done, we'll know who's fault it was.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Microsoft owns this. John Platt who works at Microsoft had to sign a contract that would give all I.P. to Microsoft
How can Apple even patent this UI? Seems like pretty basic navigation of a pretty basic file tree, using metadata.
This guy did.
As usual, someone else does all the hard work, and Microsoft uses marketing to take all the credit.
"1. A method of assisting user interaction with a multimedia asset player by way of a hierarchically ordered user interface, comprising: displaying a first order user interface having a first list of user selectable items; receiving a user selection of one of the user selectable items; and automatically transitioning to and displaying a second order user interface based upon the user selection. "
I think the more you make it seem like you are actually describing something new, the more likely you'll get the patent.
I should patent drinking milk.
"1. A method of assisting user interaction with a milk by way of a hierarchically ordered user interface, comprising: displaying a first order user interface having a first list of user selectable items; receiving a user selection of one of the user selectable items; and automatically transitioning to and displaying a second order user interface based upon the user selection. And then drinking it."
Either Deja Vu or Psychic Influence. But this is old news
Wow! That is news!
This would be a great spot to insert that "Ha Ha" Quaker guy from Fark.
if amazon can patent clicking on a button to order things i don't see how the patent office could reject this one.
in fact, with the types of patents amazon gets i don't see how ANY patents are rejected
a. displaying a first order user interface having a first list of user selectable items;
b. receiving a user selection of one of the user selectable items; and
c. automatically transitioning to and displaying a second order user interface based upon the user selection.
Surely there is significant prior art on that method.
All I can say is, "oh well"!
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
Remember young slashdotters.
Patents are evil, unless submitted by Apple!
This has already been dealt with on Digg.
Many, many people seem to think that the iPod has a superior interface to other players. And you'll note that iPod is far outselling all other players.
I don't know why other companies aren't producing an identical interface, or God forbid putting in some thought into a superior one. But if it's the patent protection that's keeping Apple's interface out of other companies' hands, you betcha Apple will lose money without it.
http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
It's nice to see that the patent office actually rejects some claims from time to time. Although I'm willing to bet more than a few Apple fanboys will cry "foul!" because their beloved company didn't get it's way this time.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I have a Sony telephone from mid 90s, which has a wheel for scrolling through phonebook or caller IDs with a "select" button in a center. Very sismilar to 1G iPod, lacks only buttons around the wheel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.uncoverip.com/
Sony has used a "scroll wheel" type selection in MiniDisc players in the late 90s - take a look for an example at the MZ-R30 - I used to own this. The wheel works just like in the later Sony models (including SonyEricsson cell phones).
http:///http://www.minidisc.org/r30_review.html>
Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy
Oh no!!!! Scramble the jets. Alert the minute men. Something must be done to save the patent!!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the iPod interface just a refined and slightly extended version of the iTunes interface? It seems to me that Apple purposely designed the iPod interface to resemble iTunes so users would have a seamless user experience when going between the two interfaces. Apple released iTunes sometime in 1999 so it's likely that both patent applications were inspired by iTunes. Is implementing an existing interface on an embedded device really that new?
MAG Technology used an identical device on their CRT monitors. Just one big wheel at the bottom of the bezel that would be pressed (to select) and spun to scroll through the menus. Seems like they've had these for a godawful long time -- 1997 or earlier?
Excellent interface, by the way.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
VCR's and video editing equipment have used the "jog and shuttle" wheel to control things for decades. I have a Mitsubishi vcr at home that shockingly uses the shuttle wheel to (gasp) traverse the setup menus.
The only thing new here is the application on a portable MP3 player. If that qualifies for a patent, then great. take any two existing things and put them together, you got yourself more patents than you can shake a stick at.
if the editors can dupe so can you right ?
Apple's application, assigned to iTunes engineer Jeffrey Robbins, Apple CEO Steve Jobs and VP of marketing Phil Schiller, was made on September 26 2002, and describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface. "Although the type of computing device can vary, the improved approaches are particularly well-suited for use with a portable media player," according to the filing.
Now replace 2002 with 1902 and you have a description for the way we've tuned our radios for the last 100 years.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Software patents are cancers that attach themselves in an intellectual
property sense to everything they touch.
Oooops, am I not Steve (bouncing-)Ballmer and we're not talking about Linux?
Who cares? This is the truth.
The scrollwheel is the iPod, not the software. The physical interface to the iPod is what makes it compelling.
My parents once had a game device called "Multiscore" (I think). The device had two "game pads" with one knob which people rotated to move their on-screen paddle. That was 20+ years ago.
My mom also owned a radio clock whose time could be set by rotating the adjustment knob some 10+ years ago, probably the most intuitive clock I have ever reset the time on and the only digital clock I know of that ever allowed "scrolling" backwards when adjusting time.
As far as I am concerned, the scroll wheel that appeared on mice 5+ years ago should also qualify as rotational input... and so would my Logitech Trackman Marble.
Scrolling is an universal concept and a rotating input device is an obviously intuitive way of doing it and should not be patentable even by M$.
there is no winner... its exactly like tic tac toe: all the IT companies seem to have patent farming in place of the old R&D expenditure. I've been told you grab as many idiotic patents you can: not to take them to court but to use them against other patents... its getting silly and should stop! This has to be coming to some kind of head.
Some software should be patentable... some shouldn't.
An easy example is if an inventor figures out a new way to compress data that's better than today's best by a big margin. That inventor is entitled to protection.
Cool user interfaces, nifty processes? Nah... that's really just developers and analysts doing thier job.
Pure "computer science" algorithms should be entitled to protection.
Stick out your thumb and forefinger and pretend you're changing a dial on a radio. Unless you're missing a finger, you're going to lightly grab the knob, turn it, release your grip, grab the knob again, turn it, and so on.
Whereas you can move the clickwheel in a single continious motion with a single finger. And, manipulate the rest of the controls with the same finger without moving your hand. And use it to quickly navigate menus and folders - good luck doing that with a radio dial. The only thing these two have in common is that they are both round, but then, so are a lot of things.
Oh wait, if you put "e", "i", before it or "computer/Network/Internet" after it - something invented 50+ years ago it is suddenly NEW! Welcome to the new iMillenium!
I'm surprised you aren't all for this patent, considering how overly impressed you are with your own cleverness.
The devils balls just froze solid, the patent office denied something due to prior art.
Pre-PC age musicians used sequencers to record music. Nearly all of these had a scroll wheel to scroll through menus, notes, disk contents etc. Hardly new or obvious in any way.
-._''_.-
Whereas you can move the clickwheel in a single continious motion with a single finger. And, manipulate the rest of the controls with the same finger without moving your hand. And use it to quickly navigate menus and folders - good luck doing that with a radio dial. The only thing these two have in common is that they are both round, but then, so are a lot of things.
By Golly Your RIGHT! So I guess we can only go back to say the 70's when someone invented a tuner knob with a Dimple on it where you could put your one finger and do loops and press the same knob to turn things on and off... or maybe power steering? Using 10 year old technology I can put the palm of my hand on the wheel and rotate it in multiple circles while hitting the turn signals on the way around , simultaneously shifting gears or fiddling with the CD player (all controlled from "steering" wheel).
BTW, Irony and Sarcasam are NOT patented (yet) so feel free to apply them to any part of this or my previous post.
The point of patents is to provide an incentive for people to invent AND release the knowledge to the world for the common good. They are for physical inventions that can be demonstrated to work. They are not for trivial trivets that are only going to be used in market manipulation for the common bad.
I'm not against patents, I'm against stupid patents, Software patents, vaporware patents, patent-so-I-can-litigate patents, buisness model patents, flying-in-the-face-of prior-art patents and sleeper patents. If it is a true "invention" that needs protection, a patent is a good thing. If its solely a method of stopping others from inventing/developing/competing its not in the common good and should not be granted.
Because developing and producing a hardware player takes significant investment: masses of design, manufacturing, distribution, &c. The large companies would have a huge advantage over a lone inventor, and it's that advantage which patents are intended to prevent. In that sort of situation, they're arguably a Good Thing(tm).
However, developing and producing a software player is orders of magnitude easier. Development might only take a few people, or even just one; production is trivial, and distribution might only need a web server. Here the playing field is much more level, and so the inventor doesn't need that sort of protection in order to compete fairly. Software patents aren't needed, and do much less to help the small business, lone inventor, or open source group -- in fact, due to patent hoarding &c, they're a definite hindrance.
Difference clear?
(And that's before we even get into the argument about patenting the blindingly obvious and completely un-original, which other posts mention.)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.