“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
MacJack has it down pat. Column view. Done deal.
Its all about the pirates of Silicon Valley…You know that Gates is loving every minute of this. Hopefully the courts recognize that no royalties should be paid.
Andrew Hamilton
Hamilton International Productions
http://www.hiproductions.com
Patent rights go to the inventor that can show they invented the item first, based on documention, or of course, a released product. The article doesn’t say when each company first documented their ideas, but it certainly sounds as if it was Apple first.
We’re just hearing the details of the patent application process that are normally too dull for anyone to pay attention to. It will all work out in the end.
As for Enderle’s ‘It’s incredibly embarrassing,’…’That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn’t on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time.’…
…oops, dropped my last sentence…
As for Enderle’s comment, I’m sorry, but it’s only embarrassing for Enderle. Date of filing is not important. Poor Enderle has embarrassed himself by showing he doesn’t understand the patent process.
Tom’s right. Date of invention is suppposed to be the critical issue in patent ownership, although earlier filing does provide a stronger starting position. Even if M$ were to receive a patent for some iPod technology, Apple would likely take ownership of the patent based upon prior invention date unless the technology is now considered to be in the public domain (waited too long to file after public disclosure) or it is covered under an earlier patent (which would spell trouble for Apple).
At this point, I consider this dispute to be of minimal importance.