Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Admits iPod Is From 1970s UK

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the thats-why-mine-is-filled-with-beegees dept.

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."

13 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Not patent-worthy by SolusSD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not patent-worthy by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing. Last night I was at a restaurant and being one of those people who can't spend more than one minute of idleness without something to read, I read the bottle of ketchup.

      On the bottle was a picture of company founder Henry John Heinz, and a quote:

      To do a common thing uncommonly well, brings success.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Not patent-worthy by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the 1970s it sure was.
      What is clearly evolutionary today would have been mind boggling science fiction in the 1970s.
      The cheapest PC you can buy today makes a high end workstation from the 80s look like a toy. In the 70s hard drives might have fit into the trunk of your car. If you had a big car. A megabyte of ram was what you may have in a super computer. The idea of compressing audio and storing gigabytes of data in your pocket?
      Just a little more practical than warp drive.

      In the yearly 80s I was saving up for a Commodore 64. They had just been anounced and I decided that was the computer I really wanted. I got mine in November of 82.
      When I got it my friend that was in college asked me why I got it. He was taking programing and asked. "What will you ever do that takes 64k of memory?"
      So in the 70s yes it very well could have been patent-worthy.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Not patent-worthy by John+Whitley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary.

      The patentability of any particular innovation is a nuanced matter, but a blanket assessment that any product is "not patent-worthy" because it "isn't revolutionary- [it's] evolutionary" is utterly inane.

      Here's a perspective: The iPod's design was the first digital music player that allowed quick and easy navigation of a large library. A collection of well-thought out design innovations made the iPod and its successors the smash hits they've been. Sure, Apple's had its marketing machine at work. But as Apple's varied market failures have well proven, even they can't sell a lemon.

      By comparison, the contemporary players at the launch of the first iPod largely sucked. Many had UI so bad that you'd have had a hard time finding any of the music whether a few meg of flash or 20GB of music on a lurching laptop-sized drive. Others, the relatively successful ones, simply paled in comparison to the iPods relative simplicity and ease of use. This is the revolution that the iPod has ridden: that the user experience should kick ass, not just be a bunch of marketing bullet-points.

  2. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by alexhs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:how? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ROM. EPROM. PROM. EAROM. EEPROM.

    Lameness filter encountered. Don't use acronyms. It's like yelling.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  4. So? by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Horrible Summary... by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by CrazyTalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Summary. by lancejjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by yyup · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  10. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet here we are.

    I only read /. for the comments.