“Apple Computer Inc., whose iPods are the top-selling music player in the U.S., lost an attempt to patent some of the device’s technology because rival Microsoft Corp. had already filed a similar application,” reports Bloomberg News.
“Microsoft beat Apple to the patent application by five months, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office documents show. Apple’s request, filed by Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs and other officials in October 2002, was rejected by patent officials last month,” Bloomberg News reports. “Apple plans to appeal the decision to ensure it won’t be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft on every iPod sale. The decision could be a setback for Apple, which is also facing increased competition from Microsoft, which makes software for rival music players, and other companies that want to take market share, said Rob Enderle, a technology analyst at Enderle Group. ‘It’s incredibly embarrassing,’ said Enderle, who is based in San Jose, California. ‘That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn’t on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time.'”
Bloomberg News reports, “‘Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the examiner was filed,’ Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said today in an e-mailed statement. The company has received other patents related to the iPod and has other patents pending on the device, she said. ‘The U.S. patent process is often a lengthy one, involving much back and forth,’ Kerris said. ‘Apple will continue to pursue this patent application.'”
Bloomberg reports, “Microsoft employee John C. Platt applied for the patent on behalf of his company in May 2002… Microsoft’s application was also rejected in December 2004, records at the patent office show. Platt amended the application in April, 2005 and on June 27 the office indicated that Microsoft’s pending patent would be approved after payment. ‘We don’t know at this stage whether he’s going to get a patent,’ said Gary Reback, an intellectual property litigator at Carr & Ferrell in Palo Alto, California. ‘It’s hard to know what the rejection means for Apple in light of that.’ Patents often can be issued after being initially rejected, Reback said. ‘It’s early in the game,’ he said.”
Full article here.
Apple introduced iPod to the world on October 23, 2001: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/oct/23ipod.html The only things that are “incredibly embarrassing” are Rob Enderle himself and the “news organizations” and “journalists” that continue to use his comments.
Related articles:
Microsoft researcher involved in rejected Apple iPod patent – August 10, 2005
Apple’s patent application for Pod’s menu-based software interface rejected – August 09, 2005
Can you imagine if Apple had to pay MS a % or all iPods sold!
Fsck that!
Do we know what part of the patent we are talking about?
Steve’s boys sleep at the wheel?
It’s incredibly embarrassing,’ said Enderle, who is based in San Jose, California. ‘That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn’t on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time.’
Uh, no. It actually makes Microsoft look more sneaky and underhanded than ever.
Monopolies even by the companies we love are not a good thing.
holy sh1t.
There is no way Microsoft will receive a patent when Apple already had a product for sale in the market 5 months before the application was filed.
At worst, Microsoft will receive the patent out of the incompetence of the patent office, but it will not stand in court and will most likely be overturned. The patent office would be smart enough to realize that you can’t approve a patent for something that a competitor had already invented months before you filed the application.
How can this happen ?????
A company like Apple, with all it’s control of it’s products.
It just doesn’t make sense !!
How F*ING embarassing!
–DJ
Mac user for ever!
Just shows to go ya that all MS is counting on for future revenue streams is money gained from litigation.
Next thing you know they’ll try to patent the lower case ‘i’ in order that Apple can’t name any future products according to their convention.
“I’m going to buy a new Book with Lfe and Work. I love Photo and Tunes. I also want to learn Move and DVD.”
open
How can you patent something that’s already out there and has been for months ? Even if Apple can’t get the patent itself, Microsoft won’t either due to prior art (I think). It’ll just take time to resolve. Nothing to see. Move along please.
Hey “Life’s not Fair”, you’re a fucking idiot. This Microsoft at what they’ve done in the past when they can’t handle competitors. Many of the disputes Apple has had legally with MS in the past have been over patents. Secondly, this is no monopolistic move by Apple– they are trying to protect technology that they have pioneered and they are obviously tired of fucktards who cannot come up with something as good as the iPod. So, forgive my lack of eloquence, but shut the fuck up.
With 50 bil in cash reserve, don’t you think M$ pays people to file a patent on anything out there that could even slightly reak of promising or be a distant future technology. Heck, I bet they even got a heads up patent on my wife’s secret salsa. By the way, since I lost my bet and if anyone doubts I ran around our building naked, I will send the video…but, are you sure you would even want to see it?? Ugh!
Newmanstein… not that I’m terribly interested in seeing you naked, but i believe we are definitely going to need some proof since we all read the wager… it’s the gentlemanly thing to do…
“…By the way, since I lost my bet and if anyone doubts I ran around our building naked, I will send the video…but, are you sure you would even want to see it?? Ugh!…..”
maybe Tera would ….. heck she might even post it !!
Have to agree with Hywel. If the iPod came out in 2001, that should qualify as “prior art” and can not be patented after that. The Patent Office is so screwed up, they should fire everyone there and start over. People should not be allowed to patent ideas, especially nebulously formed ones that could mean practically anything.
Maybe someone should start a petition to shut down and overhaul the Patent Office. People working there are so stupid.
Hey Amis
All your rankings and complaining will not change the system.
the fact that life is not fair is not changed by your lack of understanding of how things work. Someone patents something before the other… they have a claim. You want to change the system? then get off this board and do something other that talk bullshit.
I don’t agree that MS should have access to the work of Apple but if they were so stupid not to patent it before the competition who is to blame? MS? They are the predators, at least they are doing that job well.
Enderle is such a predictable troll…I just ignore everything that clueless dipsh*t ever says…
DBS,
Michael Jackson is a predator. Is he doing is job well? Does that make it good or right or fair?
No MDN, it is embarrassing that Apple didn’t file sooner. Enderle was spot-on in pointing that out (as much as I hate to admit).
Apple shouldn’t have to MS any royalties no matter what happens. Fsck that…
Apple should be exempt from anything MS patents, especially considering we all know where MS gets it’s R&D from (clearly, since the product was out before MS even filed the patent.)
Besides, the 1997 deal ($150M + ??) should have included a hidden clause like I do when I play Monopoly (and what is this computer industry but run by a few monopolies?)… if I sell a property to my brother so he can complete a set, I say to him “Fine, but if I land there, I’m exempt from rent and taxes etc”. In the same way, if MS copy any of Apple’s stuff, and patent it and then try to sue, Apple can say “Fsck you, we have this secret deal exempting us. Go sue Creative and Real!”.
hehehe.
(yea, I’m being a dick, but hey, stranger things have happened.)
Huh, magic word=covered. Yep, Apple certainly should have done so with the patents, but now it’ll be their ass which needs attention.
If one company releases a device and a rival tries to patent the idea five months later and doesn’t even have a physical product it should be a no brainer even for the US government! Oh yeah, they are just effing paperpushers.
Nothing like a Dell earnings miss to brighten my mood!
Apple had the product on the market before with filing. They also filed a patent on the components used in the device being marketed as the Apple iPOD digital music player.
As far as I know, MS has yet to bring any MP3 player to market.
There are some patent laws in place that guard against squatting technology.
The iPod menu system is a single column from Mac OS X’s column view. Apple has the “prior art” on this.
Then why hasn’t the evil empire just copied the iPod and started selling it as a MicroPod?