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."
This guy's patents would have expired before the iPod reached the market. It sounds like Apple used the inventor's testimony to establish the prior art in order to invalidate some patentee's claims.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
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.
Now we just need the news to break that this man was once employed by The Beatles' label and you will hear the sound of a thousand lawyers climaxing at once.
TFA suggests the patent was just for a method of storing music on a solid state storage device, which covers any number of MP3 players out there.
However, the fact that the patent lapsed and others got to use the tech seems to me to be an illustration of how the patent system is supposed to work. Although, the fact that he could have actually extended the patent if he had the money to is a little disturbing. How long can you extend international patents, assuming you keep paying the fees?
Huh? The patent would have expired two years before the iPod was introduced! At most, Kramer could have earned some royalties from Rio and those other early MP3-player makers whose names escape me.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
So..explain to me how this patent was granted? I was under the impression that in order for a patent to be granted, a prototype has to be built. I wasn't aware flash drives even existed back in 1979.
Many clever inventions. The banks however, won't touch anything but property with a ten foot pole.
Deleted
Sound was compressible and storable back then. Very high-end answering machines, note recorders, and PBX's used it. Think EEPROMS or even conventional RAM. Most everything was done in hardware, however -- sampling and digitizing, etc.
C|N>K
on something called a "transistor". Apparently Apple hovered in the wings waiting for the patent on this technology to expire so they could steal it.
Who is this Taco fellow and why can't he read for comprehension?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
According to the article, the guy came up with a digital music player in 1979. Everyone on Slashdot should know that Apple's wasn't the first digital music player, nor even the first commercially successful one, not by a long shot. So no news here, except that Apple hired this guy to help defend themselves against a patent troll.
"Apple was unavailable for comment at the time of writing."
What, the entire company?
Proverbs 21:19
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.
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.
Star Trek invented the flip phone in the '60s, too. Not to mention the stun gun, the replicator, matter transport, and FTL. :-)