“While Microsoft has struggled to challenge the iPod in the market, the software giant’s lawyers have managed to slow Apple Computer’s attempt to patent its digital music technology,” Ina Fried reports for CNET News. “In a ruling issued last month, a patent examiner rejected Apple’s attempt to patent some of the user interface concepts behind the popular digital music player, noting that Microsoft developer John Platt filed for similar claims five months before Apple did.”
Fried reports, “A Microsoft executive noted on Friday that the company is always open to licensing its technology. ‘In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products,’ David Kaefer, Microsoft’s director of intellectual property licensing, said in a statement. ‘Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple.’ But in an interview, Kaefer agreed that it may be a bit premature to speculate that Apple will have to send Microsoft a check for each iPod.”
Apple “invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the examiner was filed,” Apple said in a statement.
Full article here.
Related articles:
The real story on Microsoft’s ‘Apple iPod’ playlist patent – August 12, 2005
Patent lawyer: Microsoft and Apple iPod patent saga is much ado about nothing – August 12, 2005
Microsoft beats Apple in iPod patent race? – August 11, 2005
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
MICROSOFT are taking the piss or what!!
FFS – anyone think they invented the iPod!
I say Apple should fight them in the patent courts – this is bloody ridiculous – next Microsoft will put a patent in for the wheel, or the combustion engine!
Jesus this patent thing smells of back-handers – they probably have someone on the inside or someone at Microsoft plays golf with someone at the patent office.
The patent law NEED to be changed to say that a patent can ONLY be granted if an actual product is made – not someone thinks about doing something and patents it!
Talk about a joke – Microsoft at it’s best!! – They can’t beat Apple in teh music market so they go down the back-handed route of trying to get the iPod OS patented before Apple – even though they haven’t even physically produced anything.
Steve Jobs should just give Billy the finger and just install a mobile version of OSX on the iPod.
my hatred of Microsoft has never been higher than it is right now.
How f-ing gracious of them to license something to Apple that Apple invented. If there was ever a case of showing what a crap-ass company MS is, and how they haven’t got an original idea in the whole company, this is it.
I read another article somewhere that Apple’s patent request was initially rejected because they had sufficient coverage in other patents. Myabe it was dead wrong and why I haven’t seen it pop back up.
This is just weird though that Microsoft could be given a patent for something someone else invented and released to the public.
“Perhaps” the US Patent office needs to be shaken and stirred a bit.
MW:perhaps.
the patent office will get what’s coming to them if they make their web site useable by internet explorer users only, as they proposed last week.
can you spell virus?
This quotation just kills me:
“‘In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products,’ David Kaefer, Microsoft’s director of intellectual property licensing, said in a statement.”
Ha, ha!
It’s a good thing M$ didn’t invent anything to do with it or every time an iPod was connected to a PC it would get infected with special PC iPod viruses. :-0
MDN MW: foot as in ‘They put their foot in it again!
Don’t sweat it, Apple and Microsoft have a long history of patent sharing between them.
The real losers could be should Apple now ensure that the license is closed under an exclusivity clause denying anyone else who wishes to develop any similar device to the iPod from doing so.
Those others, iRiver etc are already out there and have their own system of how listeners choose the music contained on that respective device.
Dear bamboozled that was the U.S. Copyright office (part of the Library of Congress) not the Patent & Trademark Office.
I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone above, and yes if someone said to me Microsoft invented the iPod I’ll ask them if they think Microsoft invented the wheel too? In continuance to that point from above.
In the other news story about ZOTOB virus, this will now mean far more in the next few days including some DoS attacks against Microsoft.
I have no shame nor sympathy for Microsoft and applaud anyone who manages to cause major problems for users of their system.
Since apple will appeal this decision, it will be at this point that apple in their lodgement will state when the iPod was released and way before Microsoft lodged their claim.
This part now disclosed is only in reference to the time Apple and Microsoft made their claims.
I am still confident that in appeal that Apple will not have to pay Microsoft anything and be required to share this patent freely without any losses or gains to either party.
Yes the U.S Copyright Office, if that is who lead to this PR disaster do need a shake up as it is quite likely that the laws governing them have not changed a bit since 1777 one year after Independence was gained.
The media is trying to spin this story the wrong way. Microcrap must pay people to subit these stories. This is BS. WHA WHA WHA cry cry cry MS you are too little too late! get over it.
It must have been a very slow news week to allow such a NON-STORY to get so big.
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath and have a look at the actual patents that were applied for.
They have NOTHING to do with the iPOD. In fact, the iPOD had been on the market a good year before this MS patent was filed.
Leave it to the moronic technology news corp to take something so utterly unrelated to the iPOD and turn it into this ridiculous assumption that somehow, Apple is going to have to license the iPOD from MS.
This whole thing is so STUPID I can’t even believe it is still in the news.
It’s been pointed out in posts on related articles that “Prior Art” from Apple will likely blow this so-called patent right out of the water. Microsoft can’t patent something that another vendor has been selling for years. Frankly, I’m surprised that the patent even made it this far.
This isn’t the first time that Microsoft and the Patent Office has screwed up and it certainly won’t be the last. Some years ago, Microsoft offered its patented FAT-32 file system free-of-charge and the entire digital camera industry scooped it up. About a year ago, Microsoft began charging license fees for any company using its patent on the FAT-32 file structure.
Two things happened as a result: 1) The digital camera industry removed FAT-32 as a standard and more importantly, 2) a group of programmers challanged the validity of a patent on FAT-32. The programmers successfully proved that there was nothing in FAT-32 that could be patented. The end result was that the patent on FAT-32 was cancelled by the Patent Office.
I agree that this story has gone way too far. From what I understand, the issue is just that the description on Apple’s application was too broad and somehow overlapped with the MS patent. If they refine it a bit more it should be fine. I think the MS manager that was interviewed was just throwing jabs with his licensing comment.
Tommy Boy, I hate to tell you, but the Patent office is going Windows only too. The Copyright Office solicited opinions on making theirs available o only IE, but the Patent Office didn’t even ask, they’re just doing it. The article can be found here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5830864.html
I would rather see apple create a manditory return and exchange program to give people new ipods with a different UI which has nothing to do with the patent.
I don’t think this is a big issue.
Apple clearly invented the technology and actually released it on the market prior to MSFT’s patent application. That makes MSFT’s patent unenforceable.
Apple has two ways to go: they can sue to have MSFT’s patent vacated, or ignore MSFT’s unenforceable patent.
Given that Apple shipped product using the technology before MSFT’s application I feel strongly that the Patent Office will be forced to vacate their patent and award it to Apple. I think this is the most likely scenario.
The alternative is to ignore MSFT’s patent and force them to defend it in court. In court, MSFT’s patent would be deemed invalid and therefore unenforceable.
No one else can challenge, or ignore, MSFT’s patent. If they do, Apple sues them all. The competition doesn’t have the pockets to fend off an action from either MSFT or Apple.
re: Tommy Boy, I hate to tell you, but the Patent office is going Windows only too. The Copyright Office solicited opinions on making theirs available o only IE, but the Patent Office didn’t even ask, they’re just doing it. The article can be found here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5830864.html
This just proves how ‘in bed with Microsoft’ the patent office is!
George Orwell was totally correct – 1984…
I think I will patent human excrement – everytime someone has a crap they send me $1. (Is this patent already owned by Microsoft?)
If it is possible to patent ideas and not actual physical inventions, how about that faster than light speed spaceship I dreamt about last night and drew up the blueprints for this morning, U.S Copyright office?
I wholeheartedly agree this isn’t as big an issue as the media will as it always does blow this out of all proportion and spin and hype it up.
I’m with you there Mac Daddy and Gregg Thurman.
Microsoft filed a patent for the iPod Apple was already selling?!?!?!?
Sounds like this patent examiner is no Einstein.
Kind of reminds me of that brilliant spoof news item from The Onion: “Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes”.
(Can’t link directly to the Onion story anymore, but someone’s posted it here: http://home.att.net/~jbcole/humor/Microsoft_patents.htm )
Magic Word: “Cut”. As in “Cut it out, Bill”
“I think I will patent human excrement – everytime someone has a crap they send me $1. (Is this patent already owned by Microsoft?)”
Yeah, they do have the patent on it. The next version of it is shipping in late 2006.
They make my panties bunch.
Back in 1899, then Patent Commissioner, Charles H. Duell reportedly announced that “everything that can be invented has been invented.”
He was wrong, however there is a rumour that his Great grandchildren all work for M$!!! and worse still, Mr Duell is till working there and has just organised M$ to sort out their website!!!!!
Amazing!!!!!!!!!
Everyone calm down. Microsoft’s filing hasn’t been approved either. As of right now nobody owns the patent, and all likely legal scenarios point to the fact that nobody will, as Apple was selling their product well before Microsoft filed. Apple won’t be paying Microsoft any iPod license fees— ever. Period. Done. Fini.
Once again, I’m here to tell you to check your fair play detectors at the door, kids.
First, regardless of whether you think it’s fair or not, the patent system isn’t based on who did what first — it’s based on who filed. If you build something and someone else builds the same thing a year later and you haven’t filed for patent, you deserve what you get. If you’re a first-time inventor, I feel bad for you. If you’re Apple, you know better.
Second, I see a lot of “MS shouldn’t charge Apple for license of the patent,” which is funny. Maybe you’d prefer that MS does what Apple does with *its* patents and not allow their use at all? (FairPlay, anyone?)
Get real. Apple was asleep at the switch. If they’re *lucky* they’ll get to pay to use it. If MS is smart, they’ll trade licensing rights for FairPlay rights. If, however, turnabout is FairPlay, they’ll be forced to stop using the protected technology entirely.
Dish it? Take it.
Patient # 8345889109 July 10th, 2004
MS applies to patient the wheel, but their still waiting for approval, so they can claim the royalties…
PC Apologist, the US patent system is indeed based on who did what first – if the device was publicly known at the time an application was filed a patent will be denied.
Apparently Apple was told by the USPTO previously this device was covered by their previous patents. Meanwhile why did Microsoft file this app? Just to raise a little hell I’d say.
PC Apologist,
Your posts are typically sound, intelligent, and reasonable.
But today, you sound like you have Steve Balmer’s sausage tucked firmly in your colon.
Once again, I’m here to tell you to check your fair play detectors at the door, kids.
You do make a good PC apologist.
You come armed with nothing but BS.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
As was stated to you above, releasing a product into the market DOES provide protection of the invention against “squatters” who would attempt to subvert the patent laws and make money off of someone else’s work. Besides, as was also stated, many of the iPOD’s features are covered under existing Apple patents.
Thank god the system doesn’t work the way you say it does.
How about a little more research next time to avoid letting your A** do the talking for you?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
Sorry, PC Aplogist, you’ve got it wrong.
Most of the world is based upon a “first to file” basis when granting priorities and considering “prior art” with regard to patents.
The U.S. is based upon “first to invent”. While there is considerable pressure from the international community for the U.S. to convert to a “first to file” system even if the U.S. changed over next month, applications already in process would stay with the “first to invent” criteria.
Additionally, as many have stated here and elsewhere, in the U.S. you cannot receive a patent for something that is already being sold. It is one of the most basic rules. If Apple’s iPod utilizes the interface described in the Microsoft filing and even one iPod was sold even one day before the initial Microsoft filing then the Microsoft filing will be eventually rejected (or if a patent is improperly issued then the patent will be easily appealed and canceled).
Also, I don’t believe FairPlay was patented. The software and implementation of the mathematics is most likely copyrighted.
Ina Fried has never been a very diligent reporter and here she quotes an Apple press release while interviewing a Microsoft representative who most certainly makes the most of the rumor mill (no matter how wrong it is). The she gets a quote from a lawyer who states cross licencing makes sense. Of course it would if there were anything to cross licence, but there isn’t and almost definitely will not be.
MW: pattern
as in — There’s a pattern here. Sloppy reporting causes too much concern about nothing and then even more pundits way in without any knowledge of the system.
Everybody go back and read :rolleyes: post – I agree 100%
I also read both patent apps and here is my summary:
Apple has applied to patent a scroll wheel control that allows you to select items in a linear menu. This seems somewhat obvious to me;analogous to turning a knob to select a station on a radio – but maybe I’m missing something.
MS has applied to patent a method for creating playlists using metadata. Seems very similar to “Smart Playlists” to me. Also, it seems like this is the definition of a database – I remember using databases back in the 80’s….
Seems like there is a lack of obviousness and some prior art in both apps – but that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong
MDN word: “own” As in MS would like to own the world.
Check that – I meant Nonobviousness – As in both ideas seem obvious based on previous prior art.
Macjammer wondered, “If it is possible to patent ideas and not actual physical inventions, how about that faster than light speed spaceship I dreamt about last night and drew up the blueprints for this morning, U.S Copyright office?”
Breaking that down…
Is it possible to patent ideas? No. You cannot patent ideas, concepts or mathematical expressions.
What about having blue prints for a “pie in the sky concept”?
However… You CAN patent specific implementations of those same ideas, concepts and mathematics. So if you really do have have blueprints of a FTL craft (the more detailed the better), by all means file! All your filing has to do is be able to allow anyone with working knowledge in that same field to be able to build the item (or implement the system when a “systems and methods” patent is involved). It does not necessarily have to work.
(AFAIK the only items which requires a WORKING prototype to be filed along with the paperwork is anything that violates the laws of thermodynamics, i.e., if you are stating you have invented a perpetual motion machine or a machine that gets “free energy” then you have to present a working prototype with any filing. FTL craft don’t necessarily fall under that constraint.)
To PC Ass-ologist:
AGAIN, Microsoft’s patent hasn’t been accepted either. It’s a bit early to be talking royalty checks, dumbass. Go spongebathe your grandma.
Is it only me who see how weird and wrong the american pantet system is??
Didn’t Apple lose the GUI fight with Microsoft? And Apple had it first.
Now, Apple has the iPod interface first (which looks alot like the next browser interface) and then they lose this fight.
I think there is something fishy going on…
– Mark
Funny how everyone is railing against Microsoft in this. Frankly, M$ was very shrewd. It was Apple that was lazy and inattentive in this (assuming their advice about prior patents being sufficient was true).
If Apple and Microsoft were in different corners, the tunes would sound a little different on these boards.
I’m curious how prior art will play in this considering the product was out and shipping before M$’s application landed.
How can someone get a patent for a concept when an actual shipping device has been sold previously. Case in point – the iPod.
October, 2001
Go check out the web archives for Apple. Click on a link from anytime after October 23rd, 2001 and you’ll see a the iPod on the front page and also available in their store:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://apple.com
May, 2002
Microsoft files for Patent of the interface used in the iPod.
October, 2002
Apple files for Patent of the interface used in the iPod.
Patent dates from: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1226
Even if MS gets the patent, this won’t stand up in patent courts since there was a shipping product before the patent was filed.
Here is another tidbit to supplement your argument Quevar. Apple was developing the interface to the iPod long before its release. It’s a good guess that Apple programmers began work on the interface two years before and have the documentation to back it up (prior art).
I don’t know. The iPods interface just looks and works like the column browser from OSX to me. Wasn’t that derived from NeXT a decade or so ago?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Crapple did a dumb thing not patenting their invention when they invented it. They are getting what they deserve because of that. This will teach them a lesson.