Slashdot Mirror
Apple Admits iPod Is From 1970s UK
MattSparkes writes "Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod over three decades ago in the 1970s. Unfortunately, he let the patent run out. When another company tried to grab a portion of its iPod profits, though, Apple went running to him to defend them in court. In return, it looks like he's in for a share of the cash generated from the sale of 163 million iPods."
The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary. Any person/company could have imagined such a music player. The only thing the world was waiting for was the right technology to make it a reality.
iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, was it?
Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
He didn't invent the iPod, he patented (and didn't actually develop if I understood correctly) a digital music player.
Here's what I don't understand : what does it have to do with the iPod, shouldn't every other digital music player be equally affected, the patent slipped in the public in 1988, so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple??
You just got troll'd!
Also from TFA, the patent was simply about a (single song) music player with solid-state storage, which means it's the ancestor of every "MP3 player", not only the iPod, which wasn't the first MP3 player anyway.
A very bad summary indeed, and a quite bad article to start with.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Lameness filter encountered. Don't use acronyms. It's like yelling.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If that is the case, how then, can business method and software patents even exist? (I agree with you, however, that this is how it *should* be).
Requirement to build a prototype would favor large corporations and put individual inventor in a huge disadvantage. A lot of modern inventions, especially in electronics industry, would take a very large amount of money to prototype.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Lots of people invent interesting devices. But inventing and bringing to market *at a point when the customer/market is ready to accept it* are two different things. Few items succeed merely on technical merits and most succeed purely on marketing (how else to explain the music top-40 list or clothing fashion?).
I'd say the iPod is the product of a Wurlitzer jukebox crossed with the Sony Walkman and fueled by the Napster music-sharing craze. Napster was the greater technological breakthrough, since it involved new economic as well as social dynamics and rocked an entire industry. The Sony Walkman enabled personal, portable music, and the jukebox gave access to a wide catalog. All were well understood ideas, but the iPod brought them together and Apple marketed it well. Breakthrough? Not really, I'd say it is an application and refinement of existing technologies enabling new behaviors but technology has allowed the device to scale to a point that it is practical.
for anyone still confused by the summary, it would make more sense if you changed the title from "Apple Admits IPod Is From 1970s UK" to
"Patent Troll Foiled by Original Inventor of Digital Music Player"
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
No. In the United States, under the Constitution the only legitimate use of patents (and copyrights) is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Rewarding inventors is not the goal; getting technologies out there for people to use is.
Of course, it's not like the Constitution means much. Under our corporate plutocracy, the only "legitimate" use of patents (and copyrights, and pretty much all other laws) is to fatten the pockets of the investment class.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
While this notion sounds a bit quaint to modern ears, in times past it was understood that the word "invention" referred to something that, heretofore, had not yet existed.
It is only within the last generation or so that the word "invention" has come to mean the first formal description of something that already exists or that is in the process of entering the market. Back in the day, the "patent office" was not the equivalent of a frontier "land office".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This isn't a "legal ploy". It is called "prior art".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not only that - but the first iPods were NOT solid state, they used a small hard drive - so his invention has NOTHING to do with iPods.
Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod over three decades ago in the 1970's.
Interpretation: Apple has not admitted that a British man invented the iPod.
Unfortunately, he let the patent run out.
Interpretation: Like all patents, this patent expired.
When another company tried to grab a portion of its iPod profits, though, Apple went running to him to defend them in court
Interpretation: Apple used "prior art" to invalidate someone else's claim that they recently invented a "solid state audio recorder/player".
In return, it looks like he's in for a share of the cash generated from the sale of 163 million iPods.
Interpretation: His patent pre-dated the technology to make a decent flash audio recorder/player, and therefore he was unable to collect royalties on his patent. Apple and the world may give him a pat on the back for inventing the solid-state audio recorder/player, but it would be financially irresponsible for them to give him royalties on a long-expired patent.
Yes I agree. Currently almost every 'mp3 player' has the same technical characteristics. In my opinion, the most outstanding part of iPod is not its technology but its design and user interface.
You mean the most retarded part.
The interface is for mouth-breathing plebes.
The design amounts to shiny, solid colors, and horrible build quality.
Which, if they want to maximise market share, is outstanding design. If, on the other hand, they want a tiny market consisting of just a few geeks then I agree that it's retarded.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
And yet here we are.
I only read /. for the comments.
Are you a patent lawyer? Putting music boxes and player pianos in the same category as iPods? How overly generalized and vague can you get?
Hell, with categories that vague I doubt anything "new" has been invented in the past 100 years.
Maybe not