Slashdot Mirror
Did Microsoft Invent The iPod?
nate.oo writes "If you think Apple Computer's Steve Jobs invented the technology behind the Apple iPod, don't bet your 60GB, 15,000-song model on it. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent applications that cover much of the technology associated with the iPod were submitted by Microsoft."
Of course Microsoft invented the iPod....just like they 'invented' the GUI (Apple), Active Directory (Novell), and the TCP-IP stack (BSD).
You would be a fool and a communist to insinuate otherwise (apologies to Bill Hicks).
From TFA:Hey, if you can't beat 'em, litigate 'em to death, I guess...and people bitch and moan when I use the abbreviation M$...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Somehow seems appropriate. It's too bad the Patent Office doesn't see things the same way with these applications...
Throw the bums out!
And at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
nate.oo "writes" stuff that was just a rip of the top of the TechWeb article. Cute.
Patenting != inventing.
Hell, Microsoft's just trying to get whatever loose patent they can get so they can selectively use it to pressure their competitors.
You can always tell if Microsoft is sweating because of you if they take out a patent on something you've built as soon as you issue the first press release.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Why would they file a patent for it, but then allow Apple to develop, create, and market the device?
Or am I misreading this? Did they file a patent for something that vaguely described a system of some sort used in the iPod? That wouldn't really surprise me, seeing how they've recently tried to patent a method for highlighting numerical data with a box.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
The article mentions that Microsoft submitted a patent on a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" - i.e. a completely open-ended and substanceless junk patent. Or maybe the patent did have some merit, but who knows, since the article doesn't give more details. The one detail it does mention is in regards to a playlist feature that the iPod doesn't have.
On the brighter side, the not so subtle combination of Microsoft, Apple, vague patents and the iPod should make for a orgiastic troll feeding frenzy in the comments. And Techweb got some more traffic and hopefully some ad revenue. Hooray.
We all know the US patent office doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground... I work for a company who has been issued many software patents during the last several years and I'm ashamed to admit most of them were for things that should be obvious to most software developers, yet the USPO has no problem with issuing a "patent" for them. We are driven to submit more and more applications for patents, whether we believe in them or not, so the company has legal grounds against other companies doing the same thing when the time comes. If you are in a country who has yet to adopt software patents, a piece of advice: DON'T LET YOUR GOVERNMENT DO THIS TO YOU, and if the US government pushes your government to adopt our system, tell them to shove it!
From the article:
So far, Microsoft hasn't been able to dent the Apple iPod dominance...
Exactly which devices would be doing the denting, or is this a reference to the music players that Microsoft has released in an alternate universe?
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
Unless Microsoft somehow patented the idea of a well designed stylish mp3 player their patent is so laughably easy to dismiss with prior art it stands as just another example of how lazy, inept & stupidty-riddled the US Patent Office is.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Winamp + 486 Is actually less powerful than an iPod. and I've been playing sounds on a computer for ages. Man I wonder what Mr. Nakamura (apologies if I spell it wrong) thinks of the idea of M$ thinking they are first with portable sound. Of course years before the iPod was released a product named the Diamond RIO was fighting for it's life against companies like M$ (under the guise of the BSA) for it's portable MP3 players. (bought mine in 98 or 99)
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
"If you think Apple Computer's Steve Jobs invented the technology behind the Apple iPod"
He didn't. A team of engineers at another company did and sold the finished product to Apple. He just took the credit.
"The documents describe a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" that can manipulate MP3 music files."
yes, it would be very nice if the iPod could manipulate MP3s, not just play them. Or at least fast forward/rewind within a song/track, now that would be very nice for longer songs, think those BBC Beethoven tracks, and ebooks when it suddenly gets lound on the train/bus/where ever and you miss something. I'm yet to see a portable device that can do that, but I've only used the iPod mini Zaurus5500 media player and the generic 128mb mp3 player I got for $10.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
On what basis did you arrive at this? Diamond Multimedia was the first to market such a device in the late 90s.
Also the patent that is cited is extremely vague in its actual implementation. For the most part the AutoDJ patent affects software like WinAmp, RealPlayer, and iTunes more. The patent seems to cover a process on how computer algorithms might select the next song to in a list based on what the user has listened to in the past. Nowhere does the patent mention or reference how the songs are played like a mp3 player, CD player, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The title says "Did Microsoft Invent The iPod ?"
The summary says "If you think Apple Computer's Steve Jobs invented the technology behind the Apple iPod [..]"
Well which is it?
Clearly M$ didn't invent the iPod, otherwise they'd have their logo on the iPod because they'd have hired the man who actually did invent it for the exact reason Apple hired him.
This is yet another example of lack of proper editing by the editors, picking the most noticable title instead of something worth reading content. Sometimes I doubt their capability as editors.
In the mean time, I point you to the comments that debunk this nonsense.
A lot of people, myself included, find considerable irony in all the posturing about innovation and accusations of copying ideas from these two, when the basic metaphor underlying their desktops is well known to originate elsewhere.
Every now and again we like to point this out. Does this make us Bad People?
but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
Well, look at it this way. Apple developed the iPod. There were MP3 players before the iPod, but apple popularised them, they did the hard work to develop a market and today they deservedly dominate the field.
And Lo! Here comes Microsoft coveting the market that Apple so carefully built. What is their chosen weapon to assail Apple's dominant position? Software patents.
If MS win the patent appeal, they're going to want royalties from Apple. They'll get a lump sum, and a slice of all future sales. These are costs that Apple will have no choice but to pass on to the customer. Meanwhile, MS has its own competing product which can now undercut Apple considerably since not only are they not paying patent licences, but they can subsidise the price with royalties from Apple. Look ahead 10 years and we can imagine MS owning 90% of the market, with actual iPods being considered technically better but overpriced.
Classic Microsoft.
Now the proponents of swpats tell us that they reward an inventor's hard work. I could argue about that being their proper purpose, but let's go with that for now. So who did all the hard work here? Apple did the cool design, and the marketing. And Apple pulled off the near impossible feat of getting record studios to agree to them selling online music at a price people would be willing to pay. That task also appeared on Bill Gates' todo list; just underneath cutting off his own left foot with a chainsaw.
And what did MS do? Well effectively, they have a big buzzword generator. It takes a technical term from column A, another from column B and one from Column C, and emails them to the Legal Dept. with a note saying "wrap these in the appropriate legalses guys". Then they send the result to the USPTO.
So who has done the hard work here? Apple. Who looks to walk away with the fruits of that hard work? Microsoft.
Instead of allowing people to profit from their own hard work, swpats are a licence for the big players to steal the fruits other people's efforts.
And that's why software patents are "bad". One reason, anyway.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Don't be so sure.
They said they'd licence the patents. Depending on the terms, that licence would include a royalty payment, and they could well require backdated payments, which would come as a lump sum. I never said MS would try and block iPods - just push the price up far enough to make a competing MS product more attractive. They could probably even licence them on "reasonable terms". When you're dealing with iPod scale volumes, a small difference can have a huge impact on your margin.
From the same article:
But analysts said the situation could prove troublesome to Apple. The company would no doubt prefer to avoid paying royalties to its rival, especially in a field Apple popularized.
So apparently MS haven't ruled out requiring a royalty.
But even if Microsoft do choose to withhold their hand, we still have to ask why Apple should be dependant of their forbearance. Why MS should be afforded this unearned privilege?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Claiming software is patentable is like claiming man is center of teh universe, the earth is flat, the universe revolves around the earth, etc..
It wasn't until the early 1990s that the catholic church exonerated Galileo for his honesty about some such things. Showing how ignorant and dishonest some can be.
THIS IS IMPORTANT:
The exoneration came as a result of the church losing followers over this denial of honesty of reality. Important because it sets an example and solution direction for the software patents deception.
Software is NOT patentable. There is no comprimise here, only frauds. Those in denial of honesty about software trying to convince others of their dillusions.... pretty much most of the computer industry,
This is no differnt than the suppression of the hindu arabic decimal system and its, how can nothing have value, zero place holder, by the roman catholic church in its persistant elitism of the roman numeral system of accounting and math.
Today we know better, that there are btter ways to do math, simpler, easier, etc...
Software is no different, only the symbols used go beyond numerical assigned value...
What is not patentable, universally accepted, include physical phenomenon, natural law, abstract ideas. Software is composed of all of these, is created and works on the foundation of these. Even the idea of algorythims (something else really not patentable and has been on the list of "NOT PATENTABLES") is itself of these top primary things not patentable.
Copyright is appropriate, so software is not without some form of IP protection.
The fact of the matter is: As soon as we get past the roman numeral way of programming, programming will become as common place as the application of the hindu arabic decimal system is. Even being taught in primary school.
Software is the automation of complexity so as to make that complexity usable and reusable to the users of that complexity through a simplified interface, like how a calculator automates mathmatics, simplifying and providing accurate calculation, as opposed to doing it in a non-automated manner, manually..
Software creation is also recursive in this. Rarely does any programmer not use the automations of another before them, in their creation of some program.
Automation via abstraction is a natural product of conscious beings, as it take conscious ability to comprehend abstractions of such a level to enable automation.
In other words, its not only our natural human right, but duty, to make use of abstractions that allow us to advance our understanding of reality and control over it.
Yes the economy, the incentive behind the deception of the fraudlent promotion of "software patents" needs to change to remove the incentive to try to, or continue to, deceive the public.
World economy, along with other related factors, is reaching a level of well being that its getting to be time to step off the current stepping stone of incentives to advance and onto the next one. I believe Free Open Source Software is mans first recognition of that next stepping stone.
Software patents are bad because the very essence of them is dishonest and anti-productive of man and his contribution to human advancement.
It really is that simple.
Software patents in the US came about thru small courtroom squablings of who the best lier/fraud was. Who was best able to use "Abstractions" to mislead others.
In Europe, not only was the european public allowed in on the decission process, but the world. OPEN, again OPEN, to the intelligence of the population.
If it affects the population, then the population only rightfully has a say. Otherwise its not being honest about human ability and intelligence as a whole.
The US is way out of line and being frauduelent.
Contents of the article aside, such an assumption would be wrong, Steve Jobs didn't invent the iPod - Jeff Robin did.
Well, no offense, but that link says he lead the firmware team. I've developed firmware myself and I certainly wouldn't equate that to the invention of an entire product (regardless of how good/bad you think the iPod firmware is)
And your point is?
immune from fair enforcement of those patents?
I don't recall suggesting anyone be immune to the fair enforcement of anything. The question I raised is whether it is fair that software patents be awarded in the first place since they do not supply the benefits claimed by their supporters, and since they make possible a whole range of new tactics for unfair competition.
innovative marketing has nothing at all to do with technical innovation.
Yes, and what has Microsoft technically innovated here? Nothing.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
"The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one"
Use copyright.
There are even, believe it or not, companies which don't release the source code for their commercial software, and this appears to be completely legal!
"At some point we need to admit to ourselves that our notions of intellectual property must change in an era where media can be so freely copied and exchanged."
Why?
"This would allow more people to enjoy the fruits of the labor of the few, while maintaining the authors in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed."
Greedy shit. The authors should live the lifestyle they deserve based on the amount of skill, training, experience and hard work they apply.
Yes, I am one of those authors. No-one owes me a living.
In summary, this headline should probably be modded -1, Troll... What other purpose is there to stating on a well-known anti-Microsoft site that Microsoft patented something before Apple did it, in a tone suggesting superiority?
No, No, No. Here is where the politics always overcomes the truth. The original charge was that Gore said he "invented" the internet. It was said over and over again by every Republican mouthpiece as an example of Gore's dishonesty or exaggeration.
e ve-its-the-truth maneuver. That was perfected on earlier opponents (see John McCain about that in the South Carolina Republican primary) and continues to this day (see weapons of mass destruction)
But the FACT was that Gore never said the word "invented" and even when the correct quote, in context, was pointed out--the spin of "well you know that is pretty much what he meant..." begins.
Gore did not lie. Did he attempt to get credit for things that he did while in office? Absolutely. How is that screwing up? Oh, because he misstated when he visited Texas after a natural disaster in a debate? Do you want to count the number of factual errors in any presidential debate?
The "big" lie was to distort and misrepresent the man and then repeat that over and over like an endless loop, which was by then standard operating procedure for a campaign that had already mastered the fabricate-a-story-and-repeat-it-until-people-beli
What does "take the initiative" mean?
You seem to think it means "invent". That is just a narrow interpretation.
Gore meant "secure funding for and push for its development", which a very good definition.
Read up higher in this very thread. See how it says that "Tesla's AC beat out Edison's DC". You could say that "George Westinghouse took the initiative in creating the power grid" even though George invented nothing. Instead, George listened to Tesla, agreed that it was important, and funded him.
In short, what Gore said is 100% true.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
They just claim to have invented everything. Spoons, toasters, web commerce, you name it, they have filed or have tried to file a patent for it, blatantly months, years, or decades after the same idea has already been brought to market and would take a non-braindead patent clerk 2 minutes to find prior art on.
Just look at all the slashdot articles. We see one about every 2 weeks for MS trying (succceeding?) to patent things there's blindingly obvious prior art for. Nothing new here. Tomorrow they'll try to patent the computer case, using about 850 words to describe "a metal box you put a computer in" in such complex verbage that the patent clerk will think "I have no idea what he's talking about and have never heard ANYTHING like that before so it MUST be original". *STAMP* ("Approved")
Not that it counts for much, but I will at least say they don't spend all their time chasing down "patent infringers" for their thousands of silly patents. I think they do it more for defense than offense, unlike some we've seen here recently.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
A lot of people, myself included, find considerable irony in all the posturing about innovation and accusations of copying ideas from these two, when the basic metaphor underlying their desktops is well known to originate elsewhere.
..."
Alan Kay, the head of the PARC research group in question, seems to agree with you. Here's what he said in the first sentences of his "Early History of Smalltalk" paper:
"Most ideas come from previous ideas. The sixties, particularly in the ARPA community, gave rise to a host of notions about "human-computer symbiosis" through interactive time-shared computers, graphics screens and pointing devices.
Kay does not claim to have invented all this stuff; his contribution was recognizing good things when he saw them and combining them into a working system.
Software patents reject the obvious truth of "Most ideas come from previous ideas" and prevent inovators from doing what Xerox PARC did.
Sure. JFK said "We choose to go to the moon," but he wasn't personally on any rockets. Also, Eisenhower said he would go to Korea, but I don't think he spent much time on the front lines. And Truman took credit from dropping the Bomb, but he wasn't on the Enola Gay. And Nixon was blamed for the Watergate break-in, but he only provided funding for the operation.
For me, not exactly. The Creative QC is terrible. I wouldn't consider one at half the price over a competing Apple player. I have a shuffle, and even if the Muvo is the quintessential "best" player Creative's got, that's not saying much. I'd rather pay a little more for something that works than something that "might" work.
Creative's never going to gain any market share trying to add 340 features to a device. They are going to lose it by putting out shoddy merchandise. You can't compete solely on price when what you pay for from Creative isn't worth the price with which they're undercutting Apple.
No sale for me.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I don't know who "invented" MP3 players. They were around a LONG time before the ipod and before itunes, yet somehow because they happen to make the most popular mp3 player on the market this somehow entitles them to all the patents?
I don't recall anyone saying that Apple deserves patents on MP3 player technology, but just that Microsoft sure doesn't.
Or makes them immune from fair enforcement of those patents?
If those patents are filed after the product is already on the market, not to mention the numerous other products that came before it, then yes. The patent itself shouldn't even exist at all. You can't have fair enforcement of an unfair patent.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.