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$...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Contents of the article aside, such an assumption would be wrong, Steve Jobs didn't invent the iPod - Jeff Robin did.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
- George Orwell
Patenting != inventing.
Hell, Microsoft's just trying to get whatever loose patent they can get so they can selectively use it to pressure their competitors.
You can always tell if Microsoft is sweating because of you if they take out a patent on something you've built as soon as you issue the first press release.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
You know, if I listen closely I can hear the laughter of thousands upon thousands of Korean engineers, and I'm in Seattle.
The article mentions that Microsoft submitted a patent on a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" - i.e. a completely open-ended and substanceless junk patent. Or maybe the patent did have some merit, but who knows, since the article doesn't give more details. The one detail it does mention is in regards to a playlist feature that the iPod doesn't have.
On the brighter side, the not so subtle combination of Microsoft, Apple, vague patents and the iPod should make for a orgiastic troll feeding frenzy in the comments. And Techweb got some more traffic and hopefully some ad revenue. Hooray.
According to apple, the ipod was on store shelves before even M$ sumbitted the patent application.
I remember too. My friend bought the absolute first gen ipod.. a klunky 5 gig job... back in late 2001.
TFA can stick this FUD where it belongs, thank you very much.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I feel compelled to correct this misconception as a public service every time I see it.
Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He said he backed funding (repeatedly and against republican opposition) for the Arpanet which became the internet.
He was misquoted deliberately (and repeatedly) by a group of right wing press until the lie became main stream. So now you can find many reasonable moderate people who believe he originally made the claim.
You ask good and difficult questions.
I am particularly interested in patent law, though I am nothing more than a computer programmer, much less a lawyer.
Groklaw is a very good place to get more of a handle on some of what software patents are about. I have yet to come across a good all-around resource regarding the state of software patents, so I end up perusing the patent office's site quite often.
To answer your main question, software patents are thought to be a "bad thing" because patents were designed to protect an implementation of an idea...Edison didn't patent "creating light with an electrical device", he patented the incandescent lightbulb. Software makes this otherwise simple model a mess, because there is no clear line between the *effect* of something, and it's *implementation* in software. Sure, there are a bunch of clean cut cases, but there are also a lot of muddy cases.
Worse, software patents are very easy to abuse. For example, companies have patented things like the "double click", scrollbars, and drop-down menus. These days, it becomes a veritable mine-field of patents to avoid when writing even the simplest of GUI applications.
In one of the most astonishing software patent debacles, a shadow-rendering trick presented by John Carmack thereafter known as "Carmack's Reverse" was patented by a company later bought by Creative (of Sound Blaster fame) and used a scant week before Doom 3's release date to strong-arm Carmack into coding EAX support into his Doom 3 engine to avoid litigation.
The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one. The problem is that the vast majority of software patents are not used in cases like that; they are used in cases where a company likes to lie in wait for their competitors, and only after a competitor becomes a serious threat to they negotiate with their patent portfolio. Because patents (unlike copyrights) cost so much to apply for (not just application fees, but technical writing and legal fees), the software patent system keeps companies like Microsoft in their monopolistic lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, often at the expense of their competitors and, ultimately, the consumer.
Free software in particular is a fundamentally generous act, and is capable of providing great benefits to areas of the world that would not otherwise be able to afford computing. Similarly, it frees those who choose to use it in first-world countries from the monopoly that Microsoft enjoys, allowing us to run operating systems that do not require re-registration when the hardware in the comuter is altered, or keeping track of registration keys. But Free Software's future is in jeopardy because of the patent system that benefits the large corporations. You would be hard pressed to find a piece of free software that doesn't violate someone else's software patent one way or another.
There are many approaches to correcting the system, but one of the most obvious would be to raise the bar for what qualifies as innovative enough to deserve a patent. The article earlier today about highlighting numbers is a perfect example: a concept so simple that it seems like a good excercise for a beginner's book on C or Java, not a patent for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be filing. The ease with which something can be programmed is not the sole measure by which we should judge a patent, but it is a starting point. Other factors might include things like the amount of resources it would take to develop such a design.
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. The nature of the economies that support industries resting on intellectual properties must shift, perhaps acknowledging that intellectual property should not be a luxury, but a commonplace product in most everyone's lives. This would allow more people to enjoy t
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!