Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Leveraging iPod Patent?
willie3204 was one of several readers who noticed this story about Microsoft cashing in on the iPod Patent that they apparently beat Apple to. Since this song looks to be played to the tune of $10/iPod, I imagine someone will be singing the appeal song.
Using common sense, a disgusting move far from surprising from a company who's main innovative power seems to be located in the Legal department rather than in R&D. What's next, a patent for "creating software"?
Two words: Prior Art. MS filed two months after the debut of the iPod. Apple got caught with their pants down by filing late, but I doubt seriously MS will be able to collect a dime on the patents.
... is shit. The $10 figure is almost certainly a coke-fuelled[0] invention of some lazy-ass semi-literate tech-journalist needing desperately to fill space, who's noticed that such a patent exists (probably read it on some other tech news site, but felt the story needed spicing up). Until MS or Apple actually make a statement on it, this is just moronic conjecture.
[0] I mean Coca-Cola, obviously.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Ah, yes, the Wizbang blog, pinnacle of journalistic endeavors on this here internet. I now feel silly for not checking there first.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Apple is a pretty large company with a strong legal department. I am sure if there is a loophole or prior art, they will find it. If not, Apple has billions in the bank. I am not losing any sleep though I cringe at the thought of giving Microsoft money. Ah, who I am kidding- there is no way to use a computer without paying something to those guys.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I develop with Microsoft software. My desktops are all Windows desktops (though I run Linux in virtual sessions). I target the Microsoft environment because, in my analysis and for the industry I target, it is the best choice. I've even been accused on Slashdot of being a Microsoft astroturfer countless times for shooting down misguided and misinformed anti-"M$" FUD. While I've been a bit put off by some of Microsoft's prior actions, I could always see their position. I have never owned a Mac, and I don't own an iPod.
Yet this action absolutely disgusts me.
Microsoft seriously risks turning off, and scaring away, the people who have the influence and persuasive power and technical know-how to maintain Microsoft's position. Hearing some scumbag talking about "licensing their innovation", when he's really talking about a deplorable abuse of the patent system, really makes one ponder what's the next (we already got hints from the sad reality that Microsoft considered buying Claria). Previously it was Microsoft the Evil to the conspiracy theorists and the people with an axe to grind. The title is becoming more real to the mainstream.
Except that it doesn't work that way. Our patent system (flawed as it may be) works on rewarding patent to the first to invent, not the first to register for patent. Since Apple can demonstrate that they were shipping product well before MSFT submitted their patent applications, this should be an easy appeal for Apple to win. It's still a hassle, though and in the end the only ones who will benefit are the lawyers.
Lawyers only work when everyone agrees to abide by the lawers and judges. People generally only agree to this because some "soldiers" somewhere are willing to enforce what the lawyers and judges say. I only care about lawyers and judges because of the guys with guns behind them.
People in the US in particular seem to forget that the only real way to enforce anything is with force.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"Our patent system (flawed as it may be) works on rewarding patent to the first to invent, not the first to register for patent."
First to _invent_, not to implement. If Microsoft can produce documentation that they thought of this idea well in advance of Apple's iPod release, they can still retain the patent.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Umm, no. They released the iPod in November, 2001. Although they were late applying for their patent, and therefore can no longer receive a patent on their technology, the fact that they have a product that was on the market before Microsoft even filed for their patent would automatically invalidate Microsoft's patent. Wouldn't it? We call it prior art, don't we?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
To me, what this more likely means is that anyone can produce products with an ipod-like interface.
... will be for Microsoft to drop the Mac version of Office, and Apple to release an Excel-competitor. I'll be skeptical of the all-out-war theory until those two things happen.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Ah, yes, the Wizbang blog, pinnacle of journalistic endeavors on this here internet.
As opposed to slashdot, the FAQ for which clearly states that the editors make no effort to check the veracity of articles that they post, and that has been fooled on a number of occasions in the past.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It is not the USPTO's job to invalidate patents, generally; it is the courts.
Shouldn't it be though? All these companies want to get this patent crap going in Europe and they still haven't "fixed" ours. The Patent Office MUST do a better job in not making it the job of the courts to fix their bad patents. It costs a lot of money for companies to secure what they innovated. Patents are becoming more of a hinderance to innovation and the consumer than a way for innovators to get a period of profit.
This really needs to be fixed.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Not really. Its more of an expansion as the previous article was about the fact that microsoft had the patents. This article focuses on the "fact" that microsoft is trying to use the patents to squeeze money out of apple. However, as I haven't seen this article anywhere else yet, and i've never heard of SKYNews I am skeptical as to weather this is fact yet or not. I wouldn't be suprised if it was though
Take off every sig!
The short answer is, yes, the patent is invalid and will probably be over turned. [...] Thus they are hobbling Apple for a bit and presumably generating a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt as to iPod.
More likely, Apple will pull some patent they've been hanging onto that some newish version of Windows violates. Both sides will realize that both patents will probably be overturned at great expense, and a cross licensing agreement will make this all go away. This will happen without the average iPod user ever even hearing about it, much less having it influence their purchasing decision.
Justice is merely force that is applied in the right places (ie, the force is justified). The grandparent is not a troll. All law depends on enforcement. A lawyer can make a case and a judge can sentence a criminal to jail, but that's all just empty words unless someone is willing to use force to make the sentence happen.
That's not to say that all force is justice, and I don't believe the grandparent said that either.
More likely, Apple will pull some patent they've been hanging onto that some newish version of Windows violates. Both sides will realize that both patents will probably be overturned at great expense, and a cross licensing agreement will make this all go away.
...Microsoft wants something specific from Apple and is using this as a lever.
Or...
From the article:
"Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple."
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
We have all been getting wrapped up in hysteria. The USPTO's examiner rejected Apple's application, supposedly as not patentable over a Microsoft patent application, or so it appears.
I used to be a patent examiner (1999-2000; left in large part due to the fact that I didn't feel the job could be done properly with the resources and time available). I've read, as many of you have, the respective applications, notably the claims. Keep in mind that only claims can be infringed upon. Patents are granted solely on an applications claims, not on any other stuff described in the application. While the full disclosure in application M can be used to reject application A's claims, A only infringes on M if it is claimed by M.
The claims of the M$ application (PDF) are not infringed upon, IMHO, by the Apple application (PDF). M$ claims a way of generating a playlist, whereas Apple claims a method of interfacing wherein a user directly picks items to be played. Even though M$ claims -- in a dependent claim that their system might be included in a media player, that still does not mean Apple is infringing on the M$ patent, should the M$ patent stand. It only means that Apple cannot patent its device over that which M$ disclosed in its application.
Further, IMHO, independent claim 1 of the Apple application specifically cites selecting items "through a rotational action with respect to said user device" -- something which I cannot find in the M$ application. Therefore, there is no reasonable case for infringement. The only question is whether that 'rotational' step alone makes Apple's app patentable over the M$ app (again, still assuming we don't even bother to knock out the M$ app), or whether Apple will need to narrow its claims a bit first.
I am not worried about the iPod infringing on the M$ app/patent in question. However, iTunes' creation of Smart Playlists appear to be a much closer match to what M$ discloses. That is where Apple should be worried, unless they can show a different, non-infringing algorithm for auto-creating their Smart Playlists.
The US Patent Office has ruled that Microsoft has the right to charge competitors a licence fee for each iPod sold.
The USPTO doesn't rule about whether companies have the right to charge, beyond allowing a patent.
Also, talking about a "patenting the iPod" does make sense. Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented portable MP3 players or even disk-based MP3 players. The patent in question seems to be about a particular feature of iPods.
Finally, given Apple's and Microsoft's cross-licensing agreements and close business ties, I also find it unlikely that any money is going to flow. Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies anymore, if they have ever been, and Microsoft doesn't want to see Apple disappear.