Microsoft beats apple to patent iTunes menu!

[ainwood]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1226

Apple fails to patent iPod interface

By Kasper Jade and Katie Marsal

Published: 01:00 PM EST
A near three-year-long attempt by Apple Computer to patent the menu-based software interface of its popular iPod digital music player has ultimately proved unsuccessful, AppleInsider has discovered.

Advertisement

The company's patent application, which lists Apple vice president Jeff Robbin and Apple chief executive Steve Jobs as two of its primary inventors, received a final rejection last month from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Standing in Apple's way appears to be a prior filing by inventor John Platt, who submitted a patent application for a similar software design for a portable device in May of 2002 -- just five months before Robbin submitted his claims on behalf of Apple.

Platt's application describes his invention as a system or method that "generates playlists for a library collection of media items via selecting a plurality of seed items, at least one which is an undesirable seed item." The process by which the iPod's software displays its own menu-based interface is very similar to the process Platt's filing goes on to describe.

In an attempt to trump Platt's application, Robbin through his patent lawyer petitioned the patent office to review an amended set of claims last November, shortly after his initial filing had been rejected in light of Platt's.

Upon review, the patent office in July issued a 6-page document pointing to prior claims made by Platt and offering its final rejection of Robbin's application. In forming a basis for the rejection, an examiner for the patent office began by citing Platt's preexisting claims:

"Platt discloses an apparatus and a method of assisting user interaction with a multimedia asset player by way of a hierarchically ordered user interface, comprising: displaying a first order user interface having a first list of user selectable items; receiving a user selection of one of the user selectable items; and automatically transitioning to and displaying a second order user interface having a second list of user selectable items based upon the user selection."

It's unclear how Robbin and Apple will proceed in their attempts to secure rights to the iPod's software design interface. The United States Patent and Trademark Office allows a three-month window period for reply to the final rejection, in which Robbin and Apple can appeal the decision, request reconsideration, or file a continuation of their original application.

With the fuses burning short on a number of patent filings from the early evolution of digital music players, it has yet to be determined who will ultimately score ownership in the industry. As it stands right now, Robbin's iPod software design is open territory that Apple cannot necessarily protect others from duplicating.

Prior to working alongside Jobs on Apple's iPod team, Robbin was employed by Casady & Greene, a small software company which developed applications for the Mac OS platform.

Casady & Greene was widely known among Mac users for its SoundJam MP3 player software, which Apple eventually took control of and re-branded as iTunes after hiring Robbin. In his first role as an engineering manager at Apple, Robbin was credited with leading the iPod's software development in the early days of the project.

 

[MarineCorps]

The article doesn't even mention Microsoft....

 

[ainwood]

The article doesn't even mention Microsoft....

Sorry - John Platt is a M$ employee.

More info here.

Apple blunder gives Gates iPod royalty

15.08.05

By Katherine Griffiths

Apple Computer may be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft for every iPod it sells after it emerged that Bill Gates's software giant beat Steve Jobs' firm in the race to file a crucial patent on technology used in the popular portable music players. The total bill could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although Apple introduced the iPod in November 2001, it did not file a provisional patent application until July 2002, and a full application was filed only in October that year.

In the meantime, Microsoft submitted an application in May 2002 to patent some key elements of music players, including song menu software.

Apple and Microsoft were two of several companies that developed portable players, but the iPod, with its sleek design and user-friendly controls, has dominated the market.

IPods make up three of every four portable music players bought in the US and account for almost one-third of Apple's sales.

Piper Jaffray, a US analyst, believes Apple will sell 25 million iPods this year, bringing the total sold in the four years since its launch to 35 million.

In July, the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Apple's application, saying some ideas were similar to an earlier application filed by a Microsoft employee, John Platt. The dispute, which emerged this week on the closely watched website, Appleinsider.com, could lead to Apple having to pay a licence fee for the technology of up to US$10 a machine.

David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing and business development, said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products."

Apple has signalled it will resist the move.

A spokeswoman said Apple would continue to try to get its patent recognised. The company could take the case to the patent office's appeals board.

"Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application was filed," it said in a statement.

The battle comes as Microsoft is squaring up against another competitor, Google.

Microsoft last month launched a lawsuit against the search-engine giant, accusing it of poaching a top executive to head a new research laboratory in China. The Redmond, Washington-based company also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee.

- INDEPENDENT

 

[MarineCorps]

Ah. I really wish they would stop granting M$ patents.

 

[The Person]

I really wish software patents were never allowed. If this article doesn't make them seem ridiculous, I don't know.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

So they patented a system originally developed by Winamp?

 

[farting bob]

I dont see what apple can do. They werent the first to design the diea, it was hardly a "race" as the article put it, with 6 months between patent submissions. Apple simply made it more common, but that doesnt mean they can overright exsisting patents.
This is nothing different to any other time a patent has been submitted after another simular one.

 

[ainwood]

I dont see what apple can do. They werent the first to design the diea, it was hardly a "race" as the article put it, with 6 months between patent submissions. Apple simply made it more common, but that doesnt mean they can overright exsisting patents.
This is nothing different to any other time a patent has been submitted after another simular one.

Well, you could infer from the article that apple actually 'published' the idea when they included it in the first iPods (November 2001). They didn't file a patent on it then - but by the time the got around to doing it, someone else had already filed a similar one. I'd suggest this is the basis of the law suit.

 

[I am the Future]

I agree with MarineCorps

It is stupid to allow a patent on software. if anything is allowed it should be copywrites since in reality it is the most fitting term. PAtent-thing Copywrite-writing/words
It is a step in the wrong direction of social advancment.

On another note Cyberpunks Suck

 

[vbraun]

Software patents is for losers.

Software Pantens kill Open-Source Software.

 

[MarineCorps]

Software Pantens kill Open-Source Software.

One of the reason M$ wants them so much. Besides being evil and greedy/

 

[The Person]

No, Micro$oft isn't evil. They just want to make lots of money, and they do it in a way which seems evil. Don't we all want to become filthy rich one day?

And since I want to become filthy rich, I don't want software patents, as they seriously hamper my newly founded software company. Most of the time will be spent checking our software for patented stuff to avoid lawsuits which will ruin my company. But all this checking eats into my company's profits as well, bankrupting it anyway.

But once my company gets as big as Micro$oft, I'll do everything I can to get software patents. I don't want any small company to release a product which is more popular than my company's products, right?

Hopefully that little rant cleared up why software patents are the work of the devil.

 

[Padma]

Software patents are illogical, bad for the industry as a whole, and downright stupid.

All software is copyrighted. Patents are intended to be the "copyright" for hardware. In both cases, the original intent was to allow ideas to enter the public domain, so they could be *used*. With all the crap that has been layered onto copyright/patent law over the last 20-30 years, it is clear the intent now is to prevent ideas from entering the public domain, so monopolies can be maintained.

 

[The Person]

You caught the gist of my post. It's all about the money. And becoming a monopoly is the best way of ensuring a steady flow of money.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

talking about microsoft being evil:dictionary.com
look at the definition