Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Accused of Violating Software Patent
outz writes "And it begins... Creative Technology, a maker of portable music players, has accused Apple Computer of violating a newly granted software patent covering the way users navigate music selections." From the NYT article: "Creative Technology, which is based in Singapore and has United States operations in Milpitas, Calif., said it would consider every option available to defend the patent, including possible legal action. Apple declined to comment on the patent. The patent, which the company calls the Zen Patent, covers Creative's interface for portable players, which allows users to select a song, album or track by navigating a succession of menus. The patent office awarded the patent on Aug. 9." We reported on the granting of the patent a few days ago.
You must eb old, since this has been the case for a very long time. Thomas Edison did the same thing.
The only issue here is that they allow software patent, which they should not do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Didn't Apple already have this interface for the iPod prior to the Zen? And if so why would the patent be awarded to Creative if there was prior art?
The patent application date was January, 2001. The iPod was developed and released after that.
It isn't a patent on hierarchical menus, it's a patent on "automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata."
"Apple restricts back-up copies
They restrict converting to other formats
They only work with Apple brand DRM
They restrict compatiblity with other players.
No editing of the songs."
How does Apple restrict back-up copies? The iTunes Store encourages you to backup your purchased songs on blank media. You just have to remember your iTunes account password to reload them.
And Mr. Coward, show us a legitimate rival online music store that offers the features you ask for? Napster doesn't offer to convert purchased tracks from WMA to AAC or any other format. And which service allows you to edit your purchased songs?
Thought so.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
It seems to me that Apple shouldn't even need to prove prior art to kill this patent where it stands -- the defense that the invention is obvious, and therefore unpatentable, should be all they need.
Are there any lawyers in the audience who know exactly how the "obviousness" requirement is treated in courts of law these days?
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
As it happened, the court's approach seemed to invalidate the copyrighting of a broad "look and feel" of a piece of software, though this was not decisively stated in the court's ruling. The fact that Apple and Microsoft had entered into the licensing agreement for Windows 1.0 made a large part of the case a mere contractual matter rather than a matter of copyright law -- much against Apple's preference -- so it was not necessary for the court to set a precedent in its ruling. It remains unclear what would have happened if Apple had acquired a software patent purporting to secure the "look and feel" of the Macintosh user interface as an invention, and had then pursued Microsoft and HP under patent law.
From the Wikipedia article, of course.
I hate to break this to you, but someone actually did patent something about perianal hygine (i.e. wiping one's arse) and they USPTO actually rejected it.
Apparently, there's prior art in what certain congresscritters have been doing with the constitution. Who knew?
The first iPod shipped October 23, 2001. I can't believe that Apple managed to design, prototype, test, mass produce, market and ship the iPod in 9 months.
:-)
They're good, aren't they?
Seriously, they didn't develop the hardware, they bought it. They developed the software in a few months in 2001. And the patent is about the software.
At least that's the chronology on this page.
If you as an outsider know about prior art for a patent you can request a rexamination for a patent and submit the prior art to be considered. This process is conducted by patent examiners not a court : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/05-3 8.htm
You know, it's funny, but in some ways the patent office has gotten better over the years.
I heard that Smucker's tried to patent Uncrustables a while back (process patent?). For those of you who don't know, Uncrustables are fillings (PB & J, Cheese) that are wrapped in a neat doughy pod thing.
Anyway, the patent office refused to grant the patent, because they said that Uncrustables were basically big ravioli.
That's about what the PO should have done here. The Creative interface is basically a Smalltalk object browser. I suppose that's obscure enough that an examiner wouldn't know what it was, though - there's a big difference between ravioli and music players.
So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.
Read the Patent
I've seen a number of posts similar to this in this discussion already, but Creative didn't patent menu heirarchy. They patented the automatic creation and filing of the heirarchy based on reading the meta-data of the music.
A community-oriented lyrics site
The format is not proprietary, but the algorithms to create files in the format are. The Fraunhofer corporation visciously defends its mp3 patent against any software on the market incorporating an mp3 encoder.
To those in the world of proprietary software, with companies available to pay royalty fees, it is a meaningless distinction. But to those of us in the free software community, the fraunhofer patent is a major annoyance, because we can't legally ship mp3 encoders in our favorite distros/oses. It's one of the many motivations in developing the ogg vorbis codec and flac.
[/pedant mode]If what you meant was something like "the mp3 format is ubiquitous, unrestricted, and unencumbered for most people", then I apologize, as that is definitely true.
- Concertina (peeved that iTunes does not support more open formats)
This might have been true in 1850, or even 1950, when "centralized referencing" implied a centralized database filled with file drawers of patent application hardcopies, but this is no longer true.
You could very easily maintain an externally-accessible central database, or even a distributed database which linked the different systems belonging to the patent granting firms.
The ability to reference the patents centrally does not imply that a single monolithic patent-granting body is needed.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I remember reading that when Congress implemented the fee system they claimed that the extra funding would improve the USPTO. Which it might have ... but then Congress went and cut their regular funding. The net effect was to make it harder for smaller inventors to acquire and maintain their patents due to the fees, while simultaneously reducing the Patent Office's effectiveness by encouraging it to grant anything just to stay funded. Pretty good job all around, actually, if you believe that creativity and invention only abound within the confines of corporate R&D, and aren't of much use anyway.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Oh, but of course, the NeXT example covers a browser for files and the Smalltalk example covers a browser for objects, and in the mad calculus of patent law this is totally different from a browser for music files."
Precisely. You have pointed out what all the "prior art! prior art! Bok bok bok!" screamers have missed: it's the platform that counts here. Even an app that plays MP3 files on the PC likely wouldn't count; the "my PC is just a big fancy MP3 player!" argument likely won't cut it. The legal geniuses around here will likely need to find prior art on an MP3 player.
Additionally, "Hierarchical browser" is oversimplifying the patent by an order of magnitude. If all readers have to go on is the two-word summary (RTFA is hard enough, but RTFPA is not to be expected), I can certainly understand why they're not sure how such a trivial concept was patent-worthy.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.