Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the portable-patent dept.

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.

12 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Royalties? by nexxuz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    would that then mean that Apple would have to pay royalties to this guy?

    --
    I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  2. Nothing will happen by pellenys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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....

    1. Re:Nothing will happen by Utopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft like IBM has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
      The only patent suits filed by Microsoft are countersuits.

    2. Re:Nothing will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've been a patent attorney for 6 years. I've never seen an application go through without being rejected at least once. In fact, we are taught that, if an application does get allowed without a rejection, we've made a mistake because the claims are too broad.

    3. Re:Nothing will happen by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh- back in 1995 my parents bought a computerized home stereo that had this exact interface. The main control knob, software selectible between volume, track number, disc number, AM Frequency, and FM Frequency, just spun freely- and even clicked audibly and tactically. So no- there's prior art on that too.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  3. What are the merits of a patent in this case? by rob_squared · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Serious question. I don't have an answer, and I'm trying to foster some discussion.

    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.
  4. Obviousness by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  5. BRING BACK the pPod or pBop or whatever!! by pw700z · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  6. Ridiculous beyond belief by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Intellectual Property by rhkaloge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is also the concept behind CheapAss Game's US Patent Number 1 where you play the inventor of the time machine, and try to beat all the other inventors of time machines throughout history to the day of the opening of the Patent Office.

  8. iPod interface almost = to iTunes interface by willy_me · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Some guy and Apple both independently created this "interface."

    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?

  9. Re:Good by wackywendell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're missing the grandparent's point. The grandparent does not promote the idea that software and hardware should have two fully separate standards. The idea is that patents should not be granted for any idea if the implementation of the idea is trivial compared to the creation of the idea in the first place. The iPod is a good example of this. If you have an iPod, and you use it, and see what it can do without opening it up, it would be very difficult to find all the hardware necessary to do all the things the iPod does in the tiny space it does. The implementation is difficult, and worthy of a patent. However, a good programmer should be easily capable of writing a program to do all the stuff the iPod does...it might take some time to get it out there, but it shouldn't take forever. It would take time, but not much creativity, new ideas are not necessary. The idea, for example, of the 'Now Playing' screen that shows title, album, artist and controls volume, seek, and rating might be novel, but the implementation is trivial compared to the original vision. Your point about the iPod as a hardware implementation is somewhat interesting, but the implementation there would be exceedingly difficult, and is therefore patent-worthy while if it was software that is not the case. The grandparent's idea is that it is quite easy for two people to come up with a lot of code that is different but does the same stuff while it is very, very difficult for two people or groups to each indepently come up with a significant piece of hardware that is visually identical to the others'.

    Just my thought.