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.

Comments

Nothing will happen

[pellenys]

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....

Re:Nothing will happen

[garcia]

From what I see of all this, Apple will just keep throwing the patent back until it does finally get passed.

That's exactly what Platt did:

But Platt's playlist application also has a rejection history. It received an NFR on 17 November 2002, and a more serious Final Rejection on 14 June 2004. After further documentation was received, and extension granted, the application received another NFR on 11 December last year.

So, it's obvious that the Patent Office is looking at applications and not just stamping them through w/o checking a simple search first... So we get pissed off when they don't search and we get pissed off when they do?

You can't have it both ways.

Re:Nothing will happen

[Concerned Onlooker]

Pissed off? No. Shocked. Yes. I had no idea the patent office actually rejected some applications.

Re:Nothing will happen

[peculiarmethod]

I smell an iSuit.

Re:Nothing will happen

[@madeus]

You can't have it both ways.

The Patent Office apparently has it both ways. I think most people here would be happy with them if they just did the job they were tasked with and showed due diligence.

So, it's obvious that the Patent Office is looking at applications and not just stamping them through w/o checking a simple search first..

Just because some patents appear subject to due scrutiny doesn't imply all of them are (or that they are subject to all the appropriate scrutiny).

So we get pissed off when they don't search and we get pissed off when they do?

I think most people here are primarily getting pissed off when they don't uphold their own guidlines (which they do not appear to follow consistently).

If they can't perform the public service that is the reason for their existence, they should be reformed or done away with. They should not be allowed to simply rubber stamp patents when they are supposed to be investigating them properly and for that matter they should not be granting patents for things that are 'patently' trivial or otherwise in conflict with the established regulations.

Other than those who actually object to these patents on principle, I don't think most /. readers would be up in arms about the P.O. actually appropriately enforcing the rules they are supposed to be following.

Re:Nothing will happen

[Joffrey]

As a patent attorney, I can tell you that generally speaking a so-called "Final Rejection," is more dependent upon Patent Office budgeting procedures than the merits of the underlying patent application.

In order to control expenses at the PTO, and to prevent examiners from spending all their time with the more "tenacious" applicants, the PTO suggests that a second rejection typically be deemed "Final." All this really means is that you can file a "continuation" application, with a new filing fee to effectively buy more hours of the examiner's time.

While it is often annoying to clients, at least it tries to allocate costs to those people using the most resources.

Good

[Vandil X]

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.

Re:Good

[squiggleslash]

More or less, yeah, you can patent the technology behind the scroll wheel if you want, if it really is novel, but the software... nah. You shouldn't be able to.

You've got to remember that there are tens of millions of computer programmers out there. The chances are for any user interface "solution" you come up with, the chances are someone else will come up with the same idea, and have the resources to implement it. By patenting it (and enforcing the patent), you're not creating something new and wonderful for the world to use, au contraire, you're denying the world something new and wonderful to use, or imposing limits on its use. You've taken something that would have existed anyway, and preventing others from using it.

Think I'm wrong? Take a look at this article, you know, the one we're talking about now. Some guy and Apple both independently created this "interface." They both did the R&D, they both would have done so regardless of whether patent laws existed, but one, at the end of this, is going to get a monopoly on producing stuff with this technology. How is that fair? And what benefit has this given to the rest of us?

That's why we don't like software patents. Come to think of it, generally I don't like patents, I just know that in a small number of cases, where the cost to develop something new is high, where it is highly unlikely two or more people will come up with the same technology independently, and where the inventor intends to publish the technology widely so people can understand and use it, it's justified. In software, this is exceptionally rare.

Re:Good

[pauljlucas]

... the software... nah. You shouldn't be able to.

Technically, one doesn't patent software. What's really patented is the device the machine becomes while running said software. This casts "comptuers running software" into the age-old "methods and aparatus" framework that the patent office has been using since its inception. (Ask a good patent attorney if you don't believe me.)

Hence, the lump of plastic and metal that is the iPod becomes a portable music player while it is running its software. You seem to have a problem with that. Yet if I invent a portable music player that somehow does it all in hardware, you're presumeably OK with that.

Why should the inventor who chooses to make his life easier by using software to make a portable music player not receive the same protections as the all-hardware inventor? From the end-user's point of view, it's a portable music player: s/he doesn't care how it's implemented.

You've got to remember that there are tens of millions of computer programmers out there.

Why? You mean if there were tens of millions of hardware developers out there then portable music players implemented solely using hardware shouldn't be patentable? The number of people in the field is irrelevant.

By patenting it (and enforcing the patent), you're not creating something new and wonderful for the world to use

Of course you are. When and how you allow the world to use it is entirely seperate from the act of its creation. Anyway, the above would seem to apply equally to all patents. So then you presumeably don't want any patents on anything whatsoever.

au contraire, you're denying the world something new and wonderful to use, or imposing limits on its use.

That's precisely what a patent is for. If you want to invent something and let nobody use it, that's entirely your right. It's financially stupid of you, but you can do it. The smart thing to do is to license your patent to make money to recoup the time/money you invested on inventing in the first place.

Now if you're some guy who doesn't want to spend the money to pay for the license, well then you're free to invent something new and better, and, if you're so philanthropic, give it away for free (but you'd be a fool to do so).

Some guy and Apple both independently created this "interface." They both did the R&D, they both would have done so regardless of whether patent laws existed, but one, at the end of this, is going to get a monopoly on producing stuff with this technology. How is that fair?

And how is this specific to software? Why couldn't this have been about two guys in different labs who invented some hardware device? The fact that it's software is irrelevant. A double-standard should not exist.

As for this case, yes, it's seems unfair (but the unfairness has got nothing to do with the fact that it's software). Perhaps there could be something like a "co-patent" if it can be proven that two seperate, clean-room inventions were done. But that's far to problematic and lawyers would have a field day. Just like it's far simpler to say the legal drinking age is 21, it's far simpler to say he who files first, gets the patent.

Intellectual Property

[imstanny]

Intellectual property is something I have pondered on for a long time and have not come to a definitive conclusion. This case specifically brings up a very interesting paradigm:

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.

Re:Intellectual Property

[pauljlucas]

Yet, the person that manages to get to the patent office first gets the patent.

That's not true. If the first person publishes/distributes first without patent, then it becomes prior art for the second patent that is then not granted because of the prior art (or is granted, but then thrown out). Hence, nobody gets a patent.

Re:Intellectual Property

[bill_mcgonigle]

So, what's the ruckus about?

The iPod shipped October 23, 2001. This other patent was filed May 2002.

Did this other guy publish prior to the iPod shipping?

Re:Intellectual Property

[sharkb8]

The United States is not a first to file Country. In fact, it's one of the last first to invent countries. The patent protection runs from the time you file, because the applicaiton is concrete prrof that you have "reduced the invention to practice". If you get bounced by prior art, in some cases you can antedate the prior art by showing through inventors notebooks, test results, etc, that you conceived the idea at a time earlier than the prior art and were dilegently working to reduce the invention to practice. In the present Apple case, they probably have nothing showing an inventin date earlier than the prior art.

The moral here is, if you're working on something cool, soemthing that you might want to patent, write it down. Even a diagram or sketch can help you if it's dated.

Re:Intellectual Property

[Apple Acolyte]

The iPod shipped October 23, 2001. This other patent was filed May 2002.

Should not all fevered speculation over this issue cease due to the salient fact of the parent post, of which many of us were quite aware? The iPod itself, which has remained essentially consistent in interface from day one, serves as prior art. It is not as if anyone can contest the iPod's date of market origin. So where's the beef?

It would be humorous to note...

[Anonymous Coward]

that John Platt works for Microsoft :)

http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/

Wrong link for the patent

[dan dan the dna man]

Platts patent is here I personally cant see the relevance of the patents to each other but IANAPL :)

wow this is new

[Anonymous Coward]

Appearently the USPTO computer system just got upgraded, appearently they have the ability to "reject" patents now.

2 points

[cascino]

2 important things to note:
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 /., 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.

BRING BACK the pPod or pBop or whatever!!

[pw700z]

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!

Inovative?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ridiculous beyond belief

[RapmasterT]

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?

They are trying to patent a tuner knob?

[Confessed Geek]

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!

Won't someone think of the corporations?!

[Anonymous Coward]

How will Apple ever make money on the iPod without patent protection?

Very Badly Titled

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy

This is very badly titled. They don't have this patent yet. It's their application that's in possible jeopardy.

Patent Pursuit: The board game

[denis-The-menace]

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.