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

[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.

It would be humorous to note...

[Anonymous Coward]

that John Platt works for Microsoft :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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: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.