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.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
... 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.
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.
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)
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!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Has anyone patented buttered bread yet?
No, but I have several butter related patents pending.
1. The Butter Pen. Put your standard stick of butter in and draw the butter on to your toast/pancakes/waffles/etc. The butter pen automatically maintains the butter at the perfect temperature for spreading. the butter.
2. The Butter Powered Clock. Harnessing the internal power of butter, just feed it a new stick of butter every sunday and this clock will keep running. Plus as an added bonus your room will smell nice and butttery.
3. Popcorn Irrigation System. Ever notice how the popcorn on top gets all the butter and by the time you reach the bottom, you are gnawing on dry butterless popcorn? The Popcorn Irrigation System solves that problem once and for all by equally distributing the butter to the entire batch. Using a system of pressurized tubes and nozzles along with liquid butter, each kernel is misted equally with delicious butter.
4. Butter Rifle. For long distance buttering hobbyists. How tight is your spread?
I better not spill all the beans, these inventions are really pushing the limits of butter technology to the next phase. You can see how exciting the field still is though.
music lover since 1969
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.
... 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.
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!
I run mine with non-ms products ... a law office running on linux systems. It's easy.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Nope, in the U.S. only, the first person to have invented the device wins, regardless of who filed first.
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?
The case is going to hinge on documentary evidence as to who completed work on the invention first. From 35 USC 102(g)(1):
These invention priority cases can get very messy, however, and the U.S. is probably soon going to change to "first to file."If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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.
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!
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!
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
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
Popcorn
Irrigation
Spray
System
An elaborate system of reservoirs, valves, pressure sensors and delivery ducts to evenly mist your popcorn with warm yellow liquid . . . salt included.
Hey! No need to get personal.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
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.
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."
How would "first to file" be of any benefit over what we currently have? This would just seem to make it easier for patent speculators to churn out patents without producing, or intent to produce, a damn thing, and then leaching off the sweat of everyone else's brow.
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."
This patent is in regards to the menuing software in the iPod.
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.