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"?
1. Steal Apple's technology 2. File a patent before they can 3. Profit!
David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said it was open to letting other firms patent its innovations.
Great news source. There's a world of difference between "let other firms patent its inventions" and "let other firms license its patents."
rooooar
There was a similar situation between AT&T and IBM in the late 80's regarding fiber optics technology. In that case the ruling was in favor of AT&T (which would be Apple in this case.)
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.
If there's any intelligence in the court system, this will be reversed. Guess Apple is screwed.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Not the bloody BBC.
The only thing in there is speculation. It's doubtful that MS would get away with it for reasons that have been covered earlier (Apple's patent horde, Apple challenging the patent, etc.)
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
Doesn't the fact that iPods were shipping over six months before the patent was filed by the MS employee mean the application doesn't mean much? Every time one of these patent fights comes up I get just more and more confused.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Seems like Microsoft can use that patent against any company that produces an mp3 player.
It's obscene how companies are allowed to patent the obvious. Has anyone patented buttered bread yet? If not, I'll be filing today.
... is shit. The $10 figure is almost certainly a coke-fuelled[0] invention of some lazy-ass semi-literate tech-journalist needing desperately to fill space, who's noticed that such a patent exists (probably read it on some other tech news site, but felt the story needed spicing up). Until MS or Apple actually make a statement on it, this is just moronic conjecture.
[0] I mean Coca-Cola, obviously.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Here's what the facts really are http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006750.php
/., reporting on the story have the facts wrong
1. M$ doesn't HAVE the patent yet, as it hasn't been granted yet
2. M$ is unlikely to get the patent, as their is prior art
3. Media outlets, incl. apparently
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
1.) I'm confused at how this works. Apple introduced the iPod in 2001, filed for a patent in July of 2002, and was beat by Microsoft for the patent by two months, according to this article. But if the technology utilized in the iPod is infringing on the patent filed for in April/May of 2002, how can the iPod itself constitute prior art, seeing as it was already shipping. How does that work?
2.) The last sentence of the article states, So far, 21 million iPods have been sold worldwide, 18 million in the last year alone. Is THAT true? were there only 3 million iPods in the hands of consumers prior to January, 2004?
--- What
Apple won't just give in to this easily. At the same moment, Microsoft is sore that they haven't been able to break iTunes success, or get into the portable audio market as well as the iPod has. They've known about this patent issue for a while, I'm sure, they just had no drive to take this to the limit. Anyhow, I'm sure people can agree that this isn't a done and done deal. How many people think Apple would simply pay the fees? or that this has to do with the impending Apple x86 battle with windows?
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
...I think I saw it on BoingBoing; Here in America, it's "Invented First, not Filed First".
change it.
If Xerox had patented this.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
AFAIK licensing a patent is not compulsory. They could demand compensation for ALL of the ipods already sold (before the patent was granted hehehehe) and then forbid Apple from making more ipods.
Apple deserves this - they have been a strong supporter of the patent system - now they will see that what it really boils down to is that the more money you have for lawyers the more money you can extract from ny corporation with less money for lawyers. Essentially, lawyers have replaced soldiers.
This is not a signature.
Lots needs to be done to reform patent law, but it seems like an obvious first step would be, if devices "based" on your patent have been out for years and you still don't manufacture anything similar, the patent is null and void.
Patents were designed to protect actual products, not simply stick flags in the ground and say "mine."
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
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
Well, that hasn't been what they've been saying lately. They've been talking about licensing fees. Guess how people collect on those?
Right now I believe they already charge Apple licensing fees for the FAT file system. I guess they're making their IP division directly generate revenue.
Please boycott Microsoft products. They eventually use anything they make for consumers against consumers.
Isn't this a dupe of a previous story?
Maybe neither of them should get a patent...notice how there's already a gazillion MP3 players floating around?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
My own theory is that Apple declared War on Microsoft when they announced their intention to release an x86 version of OS X. The OS is the powerhouse of Apple's future success. This could be a very serious competitor to Microsoft Windows. Really, who isn't interested in trying a polished functional alternative to XP? Now Apple's opening salvoes have been returned by Microsoft pulling this licensing garbage.
Really. This is all out war now.
(2,3-Benzopyrrole)
to me it looks like another way that Microsoft has used the laws of patents to gain profits off the coattails of another companies hard work.... the only way Microsoft can take "credit" for some sort of good product..... such a shame.
The last time this story came up I dug up the actual patents in question. (Don't have the links handy atm) IANAL but from what I could gather, the patents don't overlap.
... although knowing MS the execution would end up like Clippy *shudders*
The Apple patent covers all the basic iPod functionality, scroll wheel, music, video (forward thinking I suppose), etc etc.
The Microsoft patent is for something called "Auto DJ". Basically it's software that allows you to pick several songs as positive seeds, and at least one as a negative seed, and based on your choices it will generate a playlist from your music library. Sounds like a DAMN good idea
FPAP - First Prior Art Post!
Congratulations! You're the first Slashbot to write 'Prior Art' in this patent discussion! Good job winning the race, and good luck with the free karma!
MS still doesn't have the patent, and probably won't get it. This is still a dead topic. No shoe's have dropped.
From the website: http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi
"It's a series of randomly-generated product ideas! It raises questions about the nature of prior art in patenting issues, has some inspiring ideas, and is occasionally amusing!"
Design #1384685891
It's a shower head that jumps like a frog and displays pornography.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
Prior Art
I distinctly remember a patent case from other field, that would suggest there is no prior art in American legal sense of the idea in this case.
(I don't remember exact facts, can't find any sources, so just correct the information, if you know better.)
Some Farmaceutical Consortium developed a drug. It was based on some Indian (as in India) herb, or synthesised based on active factors from those herbs. The herb/plant/whatever and its medical properties were known in India for thousands of years, yet the patent was granted in USA. The same patent was rejected in EU after apeal.
I remember that analysss of the case explained different results by different definitions of Prior Art in EU and US. In the US known medical properties of a plant are PA if they were described in Medical or Scientific Journals. In EU PA includes also other sources, including folk tradition etc.
I know, which definition I prefer. After all, there aren't many scientific publications about the wheel...
Robert
PS I think the case of farmaceutics was described on Groklaw.
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
...is exactly this: "The iPod was launched in November 2001 but Apple waited until July 2002 to file for a patent; Microsoft snuck in to license some of the technology the previous May.".
you can base your patent on someone elses product... and this is supposed to cultivate innovation? nope.
(ianal, but in europe if it's shown publicly it's not patentable anymore - so you can not patent things that you already launched nor you can patent things that your competitor already launched)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The iPod was launched in November 2001 but Apple waited until July 2002 to file for a patent; Microsoft snuck in to license some of the technology the previous May.
Doesn't previous art count for anything anymore?
Does it really matter if they collect or not? I mean, yes it does but my point is the fact that they went after the patent is part and parcel of their philosophy. This, in my opinion, is as bad or worse than domain squatting. All you "M$ isn't so bad" folks can eat a little crow. If you think M$ is anything short of Evil Incarnate, you have serious mental issues.
When I learned that MS owned a patent for something used in the iPod, but wasn't making money off of it, I posted this:
"That... doesn't make sense. Why would they file a patent for it, but then allow Apple to develop, create, and market the device?"
It simply didn't make sense to me that MS wouldn't try to make a buck off of their patents, as vague as they may be. Now, they've followed the predictable course of action.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
I propose: When a company files more than 10 patents in a year (not even approved, just files) or are holders of more than 20 active patents total, then they are then qualified as a "responsible IP authority", meaning they are held to a higher standard of understanding IP law and of reviewing their patent applications for prior art. In this, if they are found to have attempted to patent something that has prior art that they reasonably should have known about, then it would be constituted as FRAUD, and if they persued licensing of this patent to anybody, they would be liable for 10x the attempted license fees as if they were damages AND legal costs for the third parties in defending their rights to use the IP.
immediately followed by:
The misleading bit is that this is a non-sequitur; the USPTO does not consider the filing date as material. The date of claimed invention is the only date that matters in the US.
So, it seems this must have been decided based on something other than the filing dates. Perhaps some other technology within the iPod was "invented" earlier by Microsoft, but then it's quite misleading to imply that the two-month difference in filing dates was the issue. Plus, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not up to the USPTO anyway to decide who has what rights in the case of a conflict; the courts decide these matters in the US.
It's important to note that TFA is a UK source, so there simply may be some confusion and assumptions made based on their local patent rules.
The kind Microsoft man, David Kaefer, said that "our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products". He will be coming to find you to ensure that you license their patents for your use of their innovative methods.
That kind of came out of left field...
Actually, it could be a rather ingenious thing. Rather than Microsoft litigate Apple to death, put Apple in a position where they want to litigate against Microsoft, THEN cause Apple to drain it's resources to the point where it becomes no longer viable. Maybe.
Doubt it, but it's possible.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
when my sister got out on parole so i thought oh well.
There was nothing to do in my one horse town,
so i thought I'd corall me some fresh i-tunes down..
But what cost me dime and ninety-nine..
somehow cost me more than 10 dollars..
maybe it was the wine.
When i woke up and got my bank balance..
I realize that my change was spent on a dirty old window valence
10 dollars too.. Thats what we getting from you.
Were Microsoft.. and that isnt alot..
10 dollars too.. hows it feel to be screwed?
We do it every day.. So let us have our way.
Well I sat there and looked at my trusty ole browser.
Ive seen a lot a crazy stuff but this was bolder and louder.
Then i realized hey thats just the way it goes.
When the boss man sits on you, there aint no where to go.
So my sister and I made break for the door.
But she slipped on the rug.. hit her head on the floor.
And i tripped and fell and broke clean through the window.
So I stood up and looked out on a windowless world. :)
Right there on my porch clear pure enough.
And we liked what we saw.. so we spread the word
And i rode into the sunset with a BSD girl.
then Apple can patent every noun on your menus. I also think Apple payed Xerox in someway.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
In the event Microsoft pulls off this disgusting little maneuver, I think it's possible that the net result may be negative for them in the long haul. There are a lot of people who are on the fence about dumping Microsoft for another OS right now, and this may be what pushes them to the non-MS side. It may turn out to be a PR nightmare for the Microsofties.
Of course, the cost of forgery is immeasurably less than the cost of losing a really big patent fight: as Lord MacAulay noted many years ago, in India there were even companies in Bombay that obligingly kept stacks of paper and ink for different years up to about 40 years back, along with official government seals, so they could do you anything you wanted. This is the major weakness of the US system, i.e. the incentive to fraud is disproportionate to the risk. The weakness of the European system (first to file) is of a thief stealing an invention and filing it first.
The inability or unwillingness of the EC to understand this is at the root of the problem with software patents shows that the last people to leave in charge of technology are civil servants and lawyers.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I think the most important questions is: "Who is this "Sky" news"? I've never heard of them. Are they a real news source? Does everybody just assume that it's instantly true because they read it on a web site? This is what should be answered before there's any kind of debate on what may or may not be actual news.
I don't respond to AC's.
If MS files the patent 2 months prior to Apple, and Apple filed the patent, 7 months after the introduction of the iPod, the MS patent was filed 5 months after the iPod was introduced. Isn't the iPod then valid prior art?
Does anybody know if the patent of the wheel is available. If I'm correct somebody did this a few years back in Australia. I'm thinking it should be possible to also do this in the USA.
Getting a patent on something that somebody else invented is a bit childish.
Richard
Not that it means that this patent isn't any less silly or peppered full of prior art - but lets not be under any illusion here that, given a chance, Apple would do the very same.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Just theorizing here, but...
Microsoft to Apple: "Don't officially market OS X for the PC, or else..." ?
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Please boycott Microsoft products.
Oh sure... and I'll also boycott automobiles, electricity, water, and credit cards. You gonna come run by business with non-MS products for me?
I don't respond to AC's.
The long answer is that it takes a shit load of money (usually millions) and time to overturn even obviously bad patents. Thus they are hobbling Apple for a bit and presumably generating a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt as to iPod. It's basically like a nuisance lawsuit to tie up resources. Everyone, especially MS, knows that MS can't compete on technical mertis so it's been doing everything possible to ensure that no one else can either.
Take this as a warning as to what will happen if MS is able to force software patents into Europe and no longer has to play nice on either side of the Atlantic.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The way the patent system works in the US is based on the date you invented the idea, not the date of filing. Whether Apple shipped before Microsoft filed is irrelevant. All that matters is whether they can show they invented it before Microsoft.
When there's a patent dispute like this, companies will file with the patent office anything they have internally that shows when they came up with the invention. Apple, for example, might have internal product specifications that show they came up with the UI back on, say, May 14th, 2001. Microsoft might similarly have e-mail correspondence between developers indicating they invented it on May 12th, 2001. Generally when you file a patent you put the earliest date for invention that you can prove.
NeilI hope, no pray, that the general population doesn't go for the way of Microsoft. If there is any sign of danger in the mass population it would be for a product that was definately made by Apple to be assumed the god child of Microsoft for history. Its no longer about software at MS, its just about money. Hell, it should be Exxonsoft soon, no wait, Halliburtonsoft.
I simply couldn't resist:
All your patents are belong to us.
Microsoft
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
Is this retro-active?
And.. even for iPods sold *before* they even filed the patent?
Come on, that's really gross!
If anyone can hear me, slap some sense into me But you turn your head, and I end up talking to myself
CEO: Damn, let's fight back. Isn't that your job, by the way ?
Counsel: Well, they just litigated this small phony company to death, so their patent must be valid.
CEO: Nooooooooo, we're screwed.
Counsel: Oh wait, Bill's lawyer is my old friend Bob, we were in law school together, so he's willing to settle for just $100 million.
CEO: Phew, it's good to have you on board. I'll tell the good news to our shareolders.
Later...
Counsel: Hey Bob, the deal is done. See you at the club next weekend.
(Any resemblance to existing persons and companies blah blah)
What's the difference between licensing a bogus patent for millions and using invoice fraud to get money out of your company ?
Someday corporate officers will be held accountable for these monetary diversions.
True, it is a bit off-topic. But am I the only one whose thought stream automatically wanders to Google when it encounters yet another example of MSFT and evil? Is it not intriguing to list out how Google is different? Do the mechanics of large corporations, by that very fact, lend themselves to evil in some way, shape or form? Or is it something one could avoid, in reasonable measure, if the founding principles are so chosen?
Happy musing!
Warm regards,
Sharad Agarwal
AlcoHaul: We lift spirits!
If the iPod had been *my* invention, it would have taken me significantly longer to bring to market than it id Apple, who already had a development department, as well as fabrication deals overseas. Thusly, your method doesn't really hold for startups; also, we're not talking years, we're talking months. Something like November 2001 (iPod release) to April/May 2002 (Microsoft filing).
But I do agree, the USPTO should show some discretion, for instance asking why on Earth Microsoft would hold off for months on filing a patent for inventions they'd supposedly been working on for at the very least months, if not years. Even if a competing product didn't exist, I'd make sure that as soon as I had some solid reasearch and design behind my "novel" invention, I'd be working out patent drafts with my IP lawyer.
--- What
The article implies that Microsoft merely saw Apple's invention, then rushed to file a patent application before Apple did. That is not how our system works. In America, priority of invention is the key, not priority of filing. Apple could easily show priority of invention since they publicly marketed the product. And a patent application must be accompanied by a signed declaration from the inventor that the invention is his.
If Microsoft really did what the article implies, which I don't believe for a second, then they committed fraud on the patent office. That would make their patent worthless. I don't see any good patent attorney enabling a scheme that will only bring disgrace on his client.
Far more likely, someone at Microsoft really did invent something used in the ipod.
It really seems like ms has a great business strategy. "Why compete with quality products when you can simply put out ambiguous and broad patents on pretty much everything?"
Seriously they other day they got a patent for highlighting text in a box to make it stand out.
everyone talks about how this seriously limits innovation. Did anyone else notice that every thing that comes out of a ms rep's mouth includes how "innovative" microsoft is? Its like they see EVERTYTHING they do as a golden shower on the people, who in turn are all better off because of ms and its glory. when really that golden shower is pee. their arrogance is amazing. Displaying text in a box so that it stands out is not innovative. That's like a toddler trying to patent poo-ing in his/her pants. In fact it's just like that; shit.
If you could find a way to safely poo out gasoline cheaper than $3.00 a gallon, I would patent that. Until then, quit patenting shit.
I also love how Cash Money Bill smiles so big every time he's on the news or some show. "I made microsoft, I'm so great, you owe your happyness to me". It's so arrogant I just want to throw poo at him.
They should patent good things that they come up with, not set quotas to make 60 patents a month. Quality, not quantity you evil narcissist.
I'm going to be like ms and patent physically crossing the street be it by any physical means. You may cross any street for a small fee. this applies to all roads, highways, trails and anything of the path-like nature
i don't care
The question comes up again about rights. The Bill of Rights was drafted in an age when governments were the most powerful entities. Now they have been exceeded by the corporations (even the US post office is a private corp) but with no corresponding protection. In many counties, government agencies have a lot of responsibilities, including record keeping and privacy standards. However, the moment those same functions are privatized or outsourced, those same responsibilities no longer apply.
It's time for a modernized Bill of Rights to keep the corporations in check.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The iPod was already being sold when Microsoft received this patent. I expect them to have difficulty getting money from this since there was prior art.
Of course, this is about patent ownership... so what happens in court may have little to do with who really innovated.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Can someone answer this question I have?
I assume if two people, organisations or companies directly compete to make a device, then patent law applies and the first person to have patented the device wins.
But what happens if two people design something similar with no knowledge of the others progress and a patent is filed by one before the other?
Does the slow company then have to pay royalties / cease production because of this, despite having no knowledge that someone else was working on the same thing?
Doesn't iTunes have something like an auto DJ that this could conflict with?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
... 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.
MusicMatch has been doing this forever with their customizable radio stations. That is guaranteed to be prior art.
The patent system was "designed" in the 18th century and earlier. I don't think a lot of technological devices were being mass-produced back then. I do think a lot of technological devices were doing the mass-producing of non-patented products. I think the patent system was designed more to encourage disclosure than to "protect" products.
You're an idiot and your comment is overrated. Learn why below.
Yes, it's true: Steve Jobs said in a sentence: "great artists steal." Unfortunately for you, his entire statement explained why he felt that saying was actually wrong and that people at Apple have been careful not to steal technology or ideas.
Don't take part of a statement and twist its intentions around to suit your poor argument.
And yes - Apple invented the first commercial GUI and did so with rights from PARC and with a number of PARC engineers that went to work for Apple.
And of course, the patent has nothing to do with putting products in white boxes. Thre are real innovations behind the iPod that distinguish it from other MP3 players.
Lastly, none of this matters. America is not a "first to file" country, but rather a "first to invent" country. Since the iPod was marketed and public before Microsoft's application, it will likely be rejected by the appeals process because of prior art violations.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Microsoft seems to be getting a bit desperate. Or greedy, probably both. You'd think IE Explorer gaining on Firefox would be enough for them (even though Firefox is clearly better).
Mod SgtChaireBourne up.
This is all courtroom leverage and market FUD. Meanwhile, MS will act like their one patent (out of Apple's many on their iPod) will allow them to license a dozen iPod clones and Apple will have to sue over years to stop them--meanwhile their market share might be effected by competing with their own design. This is old school M$ tactics. I've seen it plenty.
The good news is that Microsoft is cheating to compete on yesterdays technology. Apple will have a new design out by Christmas and Gates will be chasing Job's tail on this one.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Doesn't Microsoft own about 30% of apple anyway?
They have the stink of death on them. To only live off quick-grab patents and lock down your monitor with DRM and make your profits in the courts, not in the marketplace, shows how out of touch you are. Who willfully uses their software anymore?
There is a rage in me to defy the order of the stars, despite their pretty patterns.
Now only if we could sue the US Patent Office for damages due to erroneous acceptance/rejection of patents... This would certainly slow down the patent decision process, but could result in restraining abusive patents such as patenting a stick Any lawyer out there have an opinion on the chances of succeding?
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
As the applications stand, Apple will likely be issued a rejection by the USPTO based on MS's prior application. Assuming Apple can demonstrate that they had invented this product first (shown through sales, and preferrably dated design drawings, schematics and such), they should overcome the USPTO rejection. At that point the USPTO would invalidate MS's patent.
As a bunch of people above have pointed out though, this only works in the US. In Europe and essentially the rest of the world, where a first-to-file system is used, Apple probably won't be so lucky. If MS beat apple to filing in any first-to-file countries, they should retain the patent even though Apple actually developed a product using the patented technology first. There are pros and cons to botht he first-to-file and first-to-invent system, but that's an argument for another time/
It'll be interesting to see if MS will license the patent to Apple, or if they'll force apple to change the interface. Neither one makes MS look particularly good, but this really could let MS get a foothold in the MP3 player market, taking the interface everyone loves so much and building it into a player of their own.
The moral of the story: patent your ideas before marketing them to the public.
This is hilarious! In the EU abusing the law like this is punishable under law, sorta like contempt. Dang, man, Silly Billy's wife musta been right about the origins of the company name... dude... these folks have small man syndrome and in a big way...
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
not *much* cheaper these days.
I agree they are lashing out, but maybe the bigger issue for them is to sow the seeds of uncertainty and disrupt Apples iPod's success. It seems to me that Microsoft's MP3 player "innovations", like their software, don't have the appeal of the offerings of other companies. Such that they can only compete by trying to disrupt our (the consuming public's) perception of their competitors. It's kind of like when politicians make personal jabs at each to avoid focus on their own weak platforms.
With this maneuver, it seems like they are trying to steal some of Apple's legitimacy as a media innovator. Has anybody ever thought of Microsoft as innovative or visionary? (Besides their own PR guys, I mean). Ultimately, I have to hope that a company that so completely lacks integrity will accrue more and more of the public Bad Will they so richly deserve.
Lately, it seems that the computer software giant has done more trash-talking. In the past month, I've heard of them taking aim at Google, Adobe and now the Apple iPod. But would anybody choose to use Microsoft products if they didn't ultimately feel forced to? It's hard for me to imagine people listening to a MS digital media player in the urban sprawl (no doubt constantly rebooting), while proudly displaying their catchy logo Microsoft MS-POD: We invented these!
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!
Here you go... It's also good for other hard words.
I'm not interested in trying a polished functional alternative to XP. I am an IT admin and XP actually suites all my needs. My users need email, file and printing services, Internet/Intranet access, interoperability with other businesses(the ability to send/read files for the average user), and ease of use. XP takes care of all of that. They are familiar with it. Its easy to hire people who can manage a network based on XP. We don't get viruses and our biggest problem is rare network outages when weather is usually a factor. Yes, the license fees are high but the manpower and frustration that would come from using another OS would be higher. If we went all OS X there would be constant complaints about how isn't like what they have at home, how documents sent elsewhere don't open/print correctly, etc.
XP may not be perfect but it doesn't crash 5 times daily like some people here seem to believe.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Hmmm... Seems this has happened before... I'm thinking... Windows?
Age and treachery shall overcome youth and skill.
While I do see that your references are quite valid, I would like to think that blind cynasism is not the answer. Call me an idealist, but I honestly feel that a free, liberal society and corporate American can find a common ground. It's my hope that Google is that common ground. And perhaps a model for corporations that you can still make gobs of cash while not screwing over a ton of people.
Excuse me, but you're an idiot if you insist on taking tiny little segments of a person's statement to support your argument, even when the context of the literal statement contradicts with your point. And it's not revisionist history. Look at it this way - Do you really think if Apple went in and stole everything PARC did, those same PARC employees would go work for Apple? Larry Tesler has said in interviews that Xerox didn't get it, didn't want it, and wasn't going to do anything with it -- but Apple understood it and knew how to improve it, so he was excited to work for them. Furthermore, in PBS's series on the topic, a former Xerox PARC employee confirms that Xerox was paid by Apple and they released rights to Apple to improve and use the technology.
This has nothing to do with Apple's market share. It has to do with responding to a comment that was utterly ridiciulous. Doesn't it make YOU upset when people do that? Turn on the news - they do it all the time.
There's a difference between reasonable criticism and a rant based on quotes you made up. If you think that's okay, you must enjoy Slashdot quite a bit!
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Glad you thought of this but Apples entire legal team didn't.
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.
Apple should just stop selling iPods in the US.
The consumer uproar over the stupidity of patents should sort this out in a couple of months.
If so, they'd realize what a piece of spin/fluff this story is. MS has been turned down twice on this patent, which doesn't have anything to do with the iPod. If Apple wanted to make iTunes/iPod generate its own playlists automagically, then they'd be infringing. But Apple's getting along quite well with their metadata setup and "On-the-Go" playlists. Meanwhile, Apple is trying to patent the wheel/screen setup of the iPod. So far, they've failed once. But they'll almost certainly resubmit, if only to keep the other manufacturers away from something that will get them involved in a big lawsuit. "MS has the patent for the iPod"? Ha! In the long history of patent wars, it requires more than adjacent patents to make a claim. The FM patents were arguably stolen by NBC, but only by David Sarnoff actually building out an FM network, complete with financing, while the inventor couldn't get the capital he needed. IF the MS patent has anything to do with the iPod, which I doubt, the point is, where is the MS music player?
Paying for FAT licenses? BS. They probably exchanged them through cross licensing. This whole patent topic involving Microsoft and Apple has gone way off target. This is a non-event, move one.
... invented the MP3 player. Which is what the iPod is. They can argue over interfaces and such, but Apple was relatively late in the game wrt MP3 players. So this entire argument that Apple is better than MS in this case is silly because Apple is trying to patent something that was invented years earlier.
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.
Is this not exactally what microsoft said they would not do with their growing patent portfolio?
Not that any of us believed them, but man the tide changed fast.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Most people seem to get the main point that Apple is clearly in the right, even if they didn't file first. The Microsoft patent can be invalidated. But unfortunately it would have to be done via lawsuit.
Here's how the lawsuit would play out: Apple would become worried that Microsoft intends to charge for their "invention" and sues to have the patent invalidated. Microsoft counter-sues. This is why Microsoft files as many patent applications as they file - for ammunition. Microsoft's counter-suit would contain patent infringement claims for UI, iPod, the way Quicktime codecs work and all sorts of other things we can't imagine.
Result: Apple "licenses" the "invention" from Microsoft and provides their own "inventions" for Microsoft's use in a cross-licensing deal.
Winner: lawyers
This suit is a problem for Apple, regarless of the validity of Microsoft's claims. Hopefully it will raise the issue of software patents in the public consciousness. It is important that the opponents of software patents frame the debate.
"iPod patent spat
Music player may be winning in the market, but Microsoft beats its rival in the patent office."
YOU CANNOT PATENT A PUBLICLY RELEASED PRODUCT! Therefore Apple had little reason to patent the iPod after it was released. This story is the most overblown tech story of the year.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Will someone tell me what I have to do to get my made up BS story posted on the front page of Slashdot? Somebody should tell this guy's advertizers that all the Slashdot readers that are viewing his ads use some form of adblock. I think the real proof is in the pudding. Apple's stock is only down marginally today. Not the panicked 30% that it would have been if this had been true.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said it was open to letting other firms patent its innovations.
They "innovated" by submarining patents on Apple's technology advances, so they are not acting out of character. We've all known what Microsoft means by "innovation", and M$ has paid over $9B in restitution for their IP thefts over the years. The fact that they have a Bush approved monopoly and are willing to price gouge while running consumers ragged on the "upgrade treadmill" gives them the money to buy their way out of jail.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Last I checked, the iPod is hardware. The problem with patents isn't software, it's the process. Said process is just as easily abused with hardware as software.
One company creates a product, markets it and attempts to patent it after it has become hugely successful. Another company sprays patents all over the place, doesn't attempt to develop any of them into products, notices that one of them can cover this succesful product, and then attempts to siphon off money like some revenue leech, making the product more expensive and discouraging others from going to market with their ideas.
What part of this is fostering innovation and competition in the marketplace?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
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
I could not agree more. As I stated before, I am optimistic in Google's case. Yet, it would be prudent to keep our eyes open. My submission is not for blind cynicism, rather for awareness. In any case, blind faith is a far worse attribute than blind cynicism.
Warm regards,
Sharad Agarwal
AlcoHaul: We lift spirits!
I always knew Apple will one day fuck themselves up with dumb shit like this, I mean after all, they did invent the one-button mouse. Oh, and before I forget, they invented the two-hidden-buttons mouse as well.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said it was open to letting other firms patent its innovations.
Maybe I'm missing something, but even in context, I keep parsing this sentence as meaning: "Microsoft is okay with other firms patenting Microsoft innovations". Sort of a whoever-thinks-it's-patentable-first thing.
I can't beleive MS would endorse this position. Did anyone else take it the same way?
"Begun, this pod war has..."
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
Yeh. But any (valid) instance of prior art invalidates a patent, thereby making that statement irrelevent.
I think you're right, but some folks may incorrectly generalize the rule. Most other countries also lack a '1 year grace period,' so the earlier Apple sale would constitute prior art. The hypothetical European MS patent would be invalid too.
The true moral is in a true free market patents are pointless. It is a legal monopoly on a single item/invention/drug/gene/...
Why the fuck does this exist anyway? The bullshit arguement that people won't invent without patent protection is weak at best. It's a good thing software patents didn't exist in the 80's or where would the software industry be today (not to mention MS)?
could go to the store and buy some amazing device, notice it doesn't have patent protection, patent the device myself, then sue the original designer out of business.
Very easy to do with a time machine. You don't happen to work for the Hitchhikers Guide do you?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Dunno about that, my iPod has hfs+ filesystem. I'd have to assume, therefore that they are only paying license fees for the fat versions of the iPod
Ah, but that's where it gets sticky. For a couple years now, iPods have shipped formatted with HFS. The moment you connect them to a Windows computer, though, you're prompted to reformat them in FAT. Every iPod is then of course potentially a FAT iPod, and any licensing agreement with Microsoft would likely have that fact worked into it at great expense.
Even several generations ago when iPods shipped in "Mac" and "Win" versions, there was no guarantee they'd actually be used on those systems. Many people bought Windows-ready iPods (e.g., from stores that only sold the Windows version) and then reimaged them for use on Mac systems.
It's the good old "potential for violation" bit Slashdotters are so fond of.
You are correct, but it definitely seems screwed up to me. Personally, I think if you can't get around to filing for the patent before someone else can make a product and successfully market it you don't deserve a patent.
What Microsoft did is clearly just an opportunistic exploitation of the patent system. They didn't think their idea was worth patenting until someone else made money off a similar idea. The patent system was, in theory, designed to protect inventors from having their ideas stolen. I come up with ideas all of the time that I don't think I have the time or money to capitalize on. Does that make it wrong when someone else comes up with the same idea independently and makes millions of dollars on it?
Find coupons in Greeley
Very good, I suspected as much from one of my previous posts. Face facts, when an Internet Idiot like Orion Blastar can figure out your plan, it isn't a very good one. Then again, maybe I am not so much of an idiot? Take that IWETHEY'ers! I figured it out before they did. Who is the idiot now?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
OK, I just couldn't let this go, so I did a little digging and I think I found the Apple application, it's 10/282,861, and the this is the link to the image file wrapper, which has all of the prosecution history.
The rejection is a 102(e) "anticipation" over Microsoft's allowed application, which, like a 102(a) rejection referenced in my parent post, might be overcomed by a "131" declaration, and, in fact, the inventors appeared to have done just that ( including Steve Jobs, who signed his copy). The declarations were filed on April 11 2005. A final rejection was submitted on July 11 and mailed two days later. What is very puzzling, however, is the examiner did not mention the 131 affidavit at all, which he should have done, even if it was grossly ineffective to establish an earlier date of invention for whatever reason(s). I can only speculate that the declarations were not properly forwarded or timely scanned into the file wrapper database and that the examiner was unaware of them at the time the action was prepared. Certainly, if the applicant files an amendment/response after final rejection this will be pointed out.
BTW the evidence contained in the 131 declaration is a press release announcing the ipod on November 9, 2001. My knowledge of 131 practice is weak so I don't know if the press release is sufficient to legally establish that the iPod as announced, with all the features, actually existed. I certainly know that if the press release were being used to reject claims like here in some hypothetical patent application by, say, Microsoft that it wouldn't suffice; you'd have to show something with more details that actually show that the features were actually there and were not "just press release vapor". I'm sure that the iPod was public and that it did have all the features claimed, but that would need to be shown more concretely than a press release. In any event the 131 declaration should have been addressed in the final rejection.
Patent someone else's technology more than 6 months after it is released.
You really need to stop taking /. and its sources seriously. If a story isn't patently false then it's extremely exageratted. This generates lots of posts, and therefore lots of ad revenue. This is all wild speculation. It's true that MSR has done a LOT of UI research, especially around music players in the last ~5 years. You can visit MSR and see some of what they've accomplished. Obviously if they've spend millions on research in this area, they are going to try and protect that investment, and you can't blame them for that. However, Microsoft has not done anything to indicate that there is anything infringing in the iPod. This is just some struggling e-journalist making a loose correlation between a recent Apple patent rejection and another patent filed by MS in 2002.
/. for any level of journalistic integrity. One day of trusting /. will turn you into a mindless anti-M$ drone in no time.
I've even been accused on Slashdot of being a Microsoft astroturfer
Ya, me too, and I don't let wild speculation change my opinion of MS. I call BS on MS in full force when appropriate. They're a corporation that needs to know when it's customers aren't happy with their behavior. Just don't trust
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Let's see how your lawyers fare when soldiers use guns on them.
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.
One of the great ironies of history is that Lincoln maintained, in 1856, that "The ballot is greater than the bullet," [and then, about four years later, proceeded to murder several hundred thousand constitutionalists in the epic anti-constitutionalist crusade that would prove himself, probably unintentionally, to be a hypocrit in this very regard], whereas Mao said that "All power emanates from the barrel of a gun."
Anyway, the supreme irony is that Mao - likely the greatest mass murderer in the history of our species [at least in absolute terms: Pol Pot would surely best him in relative terms] - was more honest about this question than was Lincoln.
Of course, "Honest" Abe was a lawyer, so draw your own conclusions.
PS: As a post-script, let me state for the record that there are alternative approaches to these questions, and that Lincoln may very well have felt a personal attraction to those alternatives, but that his professional approach to the great questions of his day was absolutely monstrous, as is, to this day, his terrible legacy.
Did Melinda Gates ever make a quip about the origins of the name Microsoft?
is a good example of the one big point where US laws needs to get in sync with the laws in the sensible part of the world.
Here, you MUST react within reasonable time (6 months has been established as general standard) after you find out your rights are violated. If you do not do that, you wate your chance.
So you can not bet on everybody using your thing before you want money. You must play fair.
Didn't anybody notice that Apple and MS had a patent cross-license agreement in effect when the iPod shipped?
Nothing to see here, guys. Really.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The older I get, the more I realize that I picked the wrong career.
There are enough bottom-feeding psuedo-professionals in this country. Every one LESS we can manage is a positive, not a negative, no matter how you look at it.
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.
Maybe in addition to the $10 fee, MS will require Apple to bundle Internet Explorer with every iPod sold.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
... at least you can sleep at night.
At least you realize now that you should have gone into IT instead of the law.
Perhaps Microsoft is wary of OS X running on plain x86 boxes and an Apple office suite. According to the WWDC 2005 keynote address, Apple had secretly maintained an Intel port of OS X from the very beginning as a "Just In Case" scenario (23:44 into the presentation). The possibility of them suddenly getting into direct competition with Microsoft with an OS and office suite may be another card up their sleeve, despite all the discussion that Apple's business model is mainly as a hardware manufacturer. Microsoft may be building up a patent portfolio to interfere with Apple as their own "Just In Case" scenario.
After all, NeXT started out as a hardware company that later became a software company. Since OS X is founded on NeXTSTEP, Apple could very easily take the same route as NeXT. Maybe Apple is adopting NeXT's business model as well. It may not be the planned route, but could be another contingency plan. Most people didn't think that Apple would switch to Intel and make a multi-button mouse. Apple could suddenly rock the boat and threaten Microsoft's market dominance, especially with all the delays of Windows Vista. I'm sure the people at Apple would be happy to be in Microsoft's market position rather than keep their hardware business model any day.
If most people are going to have to get a new computer to run Windows Vista, as well as new versions of the software they use written for it, they could just as easily upgrade their entire system to one running OS X. After all this time, Windows Vista still hasn't made it to market. And it will be released lacking full implementations of new features it was meant to have, like WinFS, .Net, and a new shell. In fact, it almost seemed to resemble vaporware for a while. Meanwhile, OS X already has Spotlight and a Unix shell. Any monopoly that grows too complacent in productivity can eventually be challenged by something newer. It may be highly improbable, but not impossible.
I have the original Diamond Rio. 32 MB of songs baby! I can listen to it all day... over and over and over. And it's got that slick parallel cable for uploading, not that slow USB..
Seriously though I keep it around for God knows what. I'll try to plug it in and see if it works someday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_PMP300
Can everyone please hold off on patenting buttered bread?
Al Gore just invented buttered bread but he hasn't had a chance to patent it yet.
Thanks.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
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 generally agree to this because they generally agree to the views of the lawyers and judges, or don't care enough to take action when they don't. Standards of behavior and ethics universally agreed upon are what allows systems of government and law to succeed.
Totalitarian governments only work as long as the populace allows them to work. If the entire population of [insert police state here] suddenly decided they didn't like how their system of government or justice was functioning, they would be able to overthrow the government by revolution, or simply ignore the laws. Such systems cannot be enforced by violence becuase the ruling party doesn't have the power to contain the entire populace, the population will usually be able to leave the country (leaving the rulers with nobody to rule).
Yeah, people would still invent stuff if patents didn't exist, but it's really the pace and direction of research that patents (and the concept of IP in general) influences. How much longer would we have had to wait for AZT if chemicals were unpatentable? How much longer would we have had to wait for blue lasers? Go ahead and condemn the patent system if you like, but it's done a lot more for us than you seem to realize.
You'll love it -- it's a joke based on a myth, too.
Postscript 'armed citizens' is redundant 'unarmed citizens' are called 'subjects'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said: "Good writers borrow. Great writers steal." But he probably stole that from somewhere.
Paying for FAT licenses? BS. They probably exchanged them through cross licensing.
Ah, good point, I should have remembered that detail. Apologies.
Still, Microsoft is soaking people for FAT32, a file system that is such a wretched hive of scum and villainy it makes Mos Eisley look like Blandsville Iowa by comparison, which people only use because it's what they have to do if they're going to support Windows.
It should not be hard to develop another FS.
If you use your iPod on a Mac, you can format it in HFS+. So, Apple doesn't need to develop a new FS, they already have one. No problem, right?
The problem is that you can't access it from Windows if you do that.
Whoops.
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.
From now on when a MS aplogist here tells you that MS will only use patents for defensive purposes they will officially be lying.
Whoo Hoo.
evil is as evil does
Why not Apple file a lawsuit against US Patent Office and cover all judicial cost plus some extra bucks? or better a class action from customers?
Yes, she said Bill has a very small p3n1s. However, she will stay with him for the money. She said she can get good d1ck anywhere, but you can't come by billions so easily.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I've seen a couple of electronic Juke Boxes that possibly predate either patent, from a quick read of the patent I would have thought that it describes an average Juke Box very well.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Thanks for the clarification.
I know Apple recently rejected some kind of DRM deal, but haven't gotten the details yet.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It was a joke, it's been on the internet for soooo long..... *giggle* Although some of the funnier stuff on blue-screen crew are even better.. just google for the monkey dance...
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/microsoft_ apple_patent/