Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Gives In to Absurd Patent Claims

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the weird-time-to-get-soft dept.

gottabeme writes Apple has settled with a small Oregon company that claimed patents on simple aspects of iTunes, such as sorting and searching tracks, copying tracks to media players, and just plain choosing a track to play." From the article: "In the 10-page suit, lawyers for Contois said that David Contois, the owner, conceived of and developed a computer interface for playing music on an internal or external computer-responsive music device, which he then exhibited at the 1995 COMDEX trade show and the 1996 NAMM music industry trade show. According to the suit, persons who were at the time employed by or later became employed by Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software. The suit charged that Apple later 'copied' the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for iTunes."

13 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Scorched earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think between this and the Creative patent, Apple is purposely setting a legal precedent, so other media player makers who aren't as cash-flush will be forced out of business. They don't have the massive bankroll Apple does because they were already less successful than Apple. So in the future, it will become even more difficult to jump to the top. Scorched earth. Dangerous, but brilliant in a really evil way.

  2. prior art on this one. by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple Gives In to Absurd Patent Claims

    You're talking about the company that licensed "1-click" from Amazon. Why are you surprised?

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
  3. Interface by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that the point of contention in this lawsuit was the iTunes interface, which Apple did develop (although probably with the original team who they also acquired in the purchase). iTunes was originally Soundjam MP developed by Connectix. iTunes used the same base code but the interface is significantly different from Soundjam in many aspects.

  4. Hi. I've invented third normal form. Pay me. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Those areas included ... sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes."

    Hi. I've invented third normal form. Pay me.

    Always remember, I'm the only one allowed to index and sort database records by individual field contents, without a royalty.

    -- Terry

  5. jeebus by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    people claim "prior art" each and every time some other company than Apple goes to court - and here is an actaul case of prior art, and suddenly there is a whole bunch of folks running forward to defend apple?

    Seriously - Prior art - its documented.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  6. kill software patents by gsn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No the submitter is not jumping to conclusions - look at the bloody claims


    Those areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.


    A menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played - its a music player! File>Open is a damned menu! Please for a second picture a music player that doesn't allow the user to select the music to be played via a menu. mpg123 is all that comes to mind.

    The ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player - wait any OS can do this - its copying files for crissakes. Again trivially File>Save As ... heck your browser could then be a piece of software that can transfer tracks to a portable music player. Throw in the right plugin and it can open music files and save them to a portable music player.

    This sorting by genre>artist>title is something I've done for ages with tapes and then CDs. The Creative patent was stupid and this one is too - Indeed I'm stunned they don't sue each other.

    All of these patents are obvious and entirely frivolous, and really ought not to exist. So much as I dislike Apple and support underdogs I've got to side with Cupertino because this is ridiculous.
    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
  7. Re:iTunes came out when? by Aadain2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup, waiting until Apple had invested enough money, advertizing, and resources for them to just 'drop' iTunes or start over just to avoid a silly lawsuite or 12. It's become pretty common these days.

    --
    Space for rent, inquire within
  8. absurd??? by oohshiny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given Apple's litigious history, I don't think there's any reason to consider these claims absurd. Apple went as far as trying to claim rights to pretty much all graphical user interfaces without even having invented them.

  9. Death of a thousand cuts by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This, in addition to another few patent claims involving Apple lately, have begun to make me a bit concerned.

    In the short term, it might seem like it makes sense to "just settle" with a litigant with an absurd or overly broad patent, rather than fighting it. However, I'm not sure this is really a good idea in the long run -- it just invites more people to try the same trick over and over, damning you to a death by a thousand small wounds.

    Compare the difference to IBM's staunch opposition of the SCO lawsuit. I realize that the cases are different, but philosophically they represent very different approaches. IBM seemed to realize, at the very beginning, that even if it cost more to fight SCO's claims than to settle with them, it would be a worthy expenditure, because to settle would be to roll out the Welcome mat to every other numbskull with an axe to grind. Apple seems to be only looking for the immediate cost: will it cost more to fight a particular case, or to settle it?

    I think this might be because, while IBM realizes that it is a giant corporation with impossibly deep pockets, and thus a massive target, Apple has for so long been a relatively small player that it seems they haven't gotten their minds around the fact that a short term loss might be worthwhile, if it headed off similar future attacks.

    I'm not a shareholder in Apple, just someone who's reasonably fond of their products. However, if I was, I'd be very concerned that in making the quick out-of-court settlement their M.O., they're painting a bulls-eye on themselves, which can only get more inviting the bigger and more profitable they get.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Death of a thousand cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are quite different.
      SCO lawsuit is frivolous and laughable. It does not have any basis and is pretty much a sure win for IBM. IBM's business is in no danger of distruption because of SCO's injuctions.

      OTOH, these lawsuits by Creative and Contois, however, do have a good basis: valid USPTO patents. The fact that they are stupid, obvious patents that should have not been granted in the first place is beside the point. To make a good defense, Apple must get these patents invalidated, a process that takes a very long time and does not guarantee a positive outcome for Apple. In the meantime, Creative and Contois could have asked injuctions that cut into Apple's business core: iTunes Music Store and iPod. Not only would they lose their profit, the absence in the market would have opened a door for others to take over. Apple's accountants must have thought it was cheaper to settle and if Apple did a similar settlement as the one with Creative, Apple can turn these patents to their advantage without getting their hands dirty. Brilliant tactics, though it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

  10. Re:Defensive move by carpeweb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, I agree with the other responders who called bullshit on this.

    If your claim were true, then the most obvious thing for any company to do with any new product would be to provide seed funding for a small company to sue it with a bogus patent claim, but settle it in order to remain bullet-proof against any future claims. Life is never that easy.

  11. No legal precident by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think between this and the Creative patent, Apple is purposely setting a legal precedent
    No legal precedent is set until the court rules on the case. If Apple caves in before that happens, then there is no precedent.
  12. Re:Prior art by dthree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soon after CDROM drives came out for mac, there were XCMD's that could you could use in director to play audio files from a CD, so it could have been easily done.

    However, many 3rd party CDROM drives (like one I bought in 1993) came with their own audio CD player software that:

    1. allow the user to select music to be played
    2. search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
    3. the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to the local hard drive

    Well, 2 out of 3 - Close enough!

    --
    "I forgot my mantra."