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."

21 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Seems Like A Bad Summary by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
    1. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

      particularly since the device/patent preceeds every other solid state mp3 player, not just the iPod (which wasn't the "first" by any measure).

      --
      Do you even lift?

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

    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: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.

    4. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A very bad summary indeed, and a quite bad article to start with.

      You sir, have summed up Slashdot quite well in one sentence.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by martinw89 · · Score: 5, Funny

      which wasn't the "first" by any measure

      Yes, because for those who remember, there was also this doohickey called a Creative Nomad. It happened to have more space and be much less lame than an iPod at the time.

    7. Re:Seems Like A Bad Summary by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The interface is for mouth-breathing plebes.

      right. as opposed to an interface designed for a sophisticated patrician such as yourself?

      i've yet to see a physical interface on a portable music player that is more intuitive and optimally designed for scrolling through huge lists of song titles/artists/albums than the iPod's click wheel. and the iPod's software interface is just as simple and straight-forward, but perhaps you need something more complicated and awkward to distinguish yourself from us lowly commoners.

      i got rid of both, my iPod nano and Video iPod, because i much prefer the PSP in terms of features & value. i like being able to surf the web, read e-books, and play games on it, though, sadly, the Zune is still the only portable media player that takes advantage of its WiFi capabilities for sharing music. i also think a portable media player should have some kind of expandable flash memory, though preferably Micro SD. the Video iPod's LCD screen is simply too small for watching movies or TV shows, and it's just too overpriced.

      far from being any kind of a fanboy, i see merits and flaws in all of the popular portables on the market. but even i have to admit that the iPod line has the smartest menu interface of any portable media player on the market. other media players have since caught up to the iPod (except for the PSP, of course, which Sony has left with a crippled media player that still can't handle play lists or anything but the most basic stop, play, pause, fwd/rew functions.), but the iPod was first to revolutionize usability on portable media players.

      so i'm sorry you have such an aversion to "solid colors" and polished surfaces. maybe you can get a leopard print mp3 player that's wrapped in sandpaper--how'd that work for ya?

  2. 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 eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends on how you define "success". The Rio players were quite successful well before Apple came along. Apple's was the first (and only, so far) to become a cultural phenomenon, but there was plenty of money being made in the MP3 player market before they got there.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Not patent-worthy by MPAB · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow! You were college friends with Bill Gates?

    6. Re:Not patent-worthy by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not even the first successful mp3 player; Linux Journal had one on the cover (IIRC) a couple of years before the first iPod was launched.

      I hear the drivers are almost ready!

  3. So Close to Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. Not just the iPod by eln · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. Re:how? by gruntled · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the very old days, you had to build an object to get a patent. That requirement hasn't existed for a long time.

  6. Re:how? by jimcrofty · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA refers to a solid state chip being used not 'flash drive'. There were non volatile storage options available in the 70s and 80s that would have been up to the task (at least in a prototype). Eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory

  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.

    1. Re:Summary. by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Funny

      How dare you take the hype and charm out of a Apple article by stating facts.

      If I had a goatee and a latte, I'd be using Safari to mod you as a troll with my only mouse button.