“Contois Music Technology last week asked a Federal Court to stop the iPod maker from distributing its iTunes jukebox software and is seeking damages over an alleged patent violation by the iTunes software,” Kasper Jade and Prince McLean report for AppleInsider. “The suit, filed on June 13th in Vermont District Court, alleges that Apple’s iTunes software design infringes on Contois’ six-year old design patent (US Patent No. 5,864,868) entitled ‘Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices.'”
Jade and McLean report, “The Essex Junction, Vt.-based Contois is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Apple from further distributing its iTunes software in its current form. The company also asked the Court for an unspecified amount of monetary damages resulting from Apple’s ‘copying and willful infringement’ of its design patent as well as reimbursement of legal fees associated with the lawsuit.”
Full article with more information and images of Contois’ Exhibit Comparing Both Software Application Interfaces here.
Oh, and yes, Vermont is awesome. Particularly in Autumn.
webmaster’s apprentice,
I like your logic on the Contois patent. From the press release about the suit, it mentioned current and future Apple employees visiting the booth. I wonder what kind of mementos were left behind or given away? Demo floppies (it was ’95) in exchange for a business card or entry in a guest book?
This one should be interesting!
The patent states “A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer…”
They constantly state (rather vaguely) “…playing the selected song item … on the computer responsive music device…”
“..sending a data stream from the computer to the computer controlled music device..”
“…receiving the data stream by the computer controlled music device from the computer…”
It further uses a player piano as an example of a “music device”… “playing the selected song title on the player piano”.
“…a pause play button that will temporarily suspend the player piano from receiving the data stream…”
“…wherein the media information includes movie videos and the media playing means is a video player…” This is a very vague patent that itself may even infringe upon other computer software devices of the time (1996) that controlled video tape decks and other such devices. It can also be a stretch that the software within a Sony Walkman infringed upon their patent, too.
iTunes is of itself a music player and does not control external music devices. Even if you think that iTunes plays the CDs on the computer’s CD drive, a CD drive is not a music device but a computer data device.
There are numerous existing devices more similar to their patent such as MIDI software that utilize similar play/stop icons and file management for actual “musical devices”.
Never does the patent mention the software actually doing the playing of the music. All it outlines is something very similar to FileMaker for categorizing files, as well as displaying images and playing music connected to those files.
I strongly feel that ANYONE would see that the patent is for controlling MUSIC DEVICES, and does NOT apply to the controls self-contained on the music device itself. If so, they could claim the sort of interface is infringed by numerous electronic music devices. I personally know that my parents had an electronic organ (made in late 80’s) with a similar method of saving (recording) and playing music.
Mr. Robbins later developed SoundJam for Cassidy & Greene while still an employee at Apple. Then later, Apple aquired the rights to SoundJam for conversion to iTunes. Then Mr Robbin became lead on the iTunes project. So, Mr. Contois WAS at Comdex selling his product, when along came Mr. Robbin to look at this software, later to become his iTunes brainchild.
The only problem with the above said is that SoundJam looks nothing like iTunes and was more of a WinAmp wannabee (though WAY better). I was sort of sad to see SoundJam go and was very close to buying it before iTunes came out of nowhere and for free.
It’s all about money, like “Meja” said.
Jack Arends:
“America’s national sport is NOT baseball, it’s litigation.”
…nice!
It won’t hold. In fact Apple can sue back. As you remember Apple bought the software called SoundJamMP in the late 90s. This was created well before this patent. SoundJamMP became iTunes.
scotty
Apple has a Patent on it already… Maybe they should sue the patent office…
Link here: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/3114/
i hope apple crush these scumbags like gnats
re: stabtheman (the surreal one)
I get the impression that this ‘dave’ guy is running a one man band type company – prbably from his bedroom!
Apple deserves this for the dispicable attitude they have towards other peoples or companies innovation. They will pay like it or not.
Apple should sue Microsoft for using “windows” as a means of interfacing with and organizing computer data files.
Oh, wait…
Scott Jackson,
“Apple bought the software called SoundJamMP in the late 90s. This was created well before this patent.”
The Contois patent was granted in 1996. SoundJam was published in 1999. Apple’s patent for a media player interface was filed in 2001.
I’ve just patented nose picking. All you slow typists pay up now.
Isn’t it funny that when a company claims Apple is infringing on their patent, everybody screams that its stifling innovation. But when Apple gets ridiculous software patents, its for protecting their intellectual property.
Folks, software patents are evil. Whether Apple gets them or someone else. I think Richard Stallman said it best yesterday here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html
Software should be copyrighted, not patented. Their patent is nothing more than a very crude FileMaker data base with an audio and image data fields.
They do not explain HOW the “music device” is to be controlled. All they present is a vague concept for the user interface for such a device. This is much more art than device and should copyrighted. While iTunes may be similar in appearance, there are many more differences and is not enough to claim that Apple copied it. Everything they present ALREADY EXISTED, such as the pause/play icons and “their concept” of file retrieval by category.
Once again, iTunes does NOT control a “music device”. They might have a better chance at going after Apple for GarageBand and its control of MIDI devices, but then GarageBand doesn’t look anything like their device other than the ubiquitous pause/play icons.
To those saying there is nothing in the patent to show control of music you may have missed this:
“According to the suit, persons who were at the time employed by, or later became employed by, Apple were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois’ software.”
So, there was some software demonstrated on which the patent was based. That is what will show you how it was played.
This one seems a little more than just cyber-squatting or the idiot suing TiVo.
I’d say good luck to them. Why did it take so long and only now they want to sue. Another company trying to get rich quick scam.
I wonder if these people are the same people who were running SCO. Whatever happened to that lawsuit about them owning the Unix operating system yet they never proved one line of code was there’s to date.
So, if I patent tele-porting as an idea does this mean I can sue anybody who eventually gets it to work ?
I think not. Another bonkers case for a lawyer to rack up an expenses claim.
Hey…..
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
I just found a finger in my iTunes!
I am gonna sue
Hiya all,
Just a little reminder of how the Apple Lisa’s column browser looked like back in 1980:
It’s quite obvious that this hierarchical folder/content mode has been floating around for a while, and has been adapted to a lot of applications, namely the 1988 NeXT file viewer:
Nowadays, this way of presenting content (ANY kind of content, not just music) is part of various other pieces of Apple and 3rd party software. It’s part of the Mac OS X GUI guidelines as well.
Nothing new…
u guys are idiots.
read the patent.
they aren’t sueing apple because they have the three pane look.
the are sueing on how itunes organizes music.
stupid blind fans…. when are u guys gonna stop licking job’s arse?
I think I will sit back and wait. I demonstrated a menu system using the cursor keys and on screen navigation for selecting files and then launching the relevant application (which could include a music player) at the West Coast Computer Fair in 1979. I met both Mr Gates and Mr Jobs as well as the Woz and a bunch of others on that trip from Oz to the USA. I even have the original source code backed up on 8″ floppy, 5.25″ floppy and 1/2″ reel to reel tape. It was the first commercial program I wrote and owned myself and I sold over 10,000 copies in the next few years.
If this jerk, wins I’ll sue it all off him.
As for the time it has taken him to file, he could have (and should have) launched his case by self filing and then adjourned to ensure proper representation. At the very least if he issued formal notices of intent to sue he should make those public.
It just seems a little convenient to me. I wonder if his lawyers have any clients in Redmond?
In order for them to prove any infringement, they’ll have to prove that software code had been pilfered. They purposely configured the iTunes browser to mimic the choices on their software. There are many more choices that are available in the browser than what they show in their graphic. And it’s pretty low to put a bow-tied Liberace in the iTunes window just because they had some bow-tied guy who looks more like Merv Griffin in theirs.
I would say that Contois’ lawyer needed to make a payment on the ol’ BMW so he’s allowing a patently frivelous lawsuit to go through, which he must know hasn’t got a snowball’s chance, so he can soak 10 or 20 grand from him.