“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
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.