“What does ‘select’ mean – in the context of searching an online jukebox for a tune to buy? That’s one of the questions a federal judge is weighing as Apple Computer and a man accusing it of patent infringement debate the terminology that may be used in an upcoming trial,” The Associated Press reports. “David Contois, owner of Contois Music & Technology of Essex Junction, is accusing the Cupertino, Calif.-based computer giant of stealing his patented software design and using it with the hugely popular digital jukebox iTunes.”
“Contois, whose lawsuit says he got his patent in 1999 – two years before iTunes hit the market, wants a court order blocking Apple from distributing iTunes, as well as unspecified money damages and legal fees,” AP reports. “Apple has denied the claims and has filed suit against Contois for its legal expenses.”
Full article here.
This definitely feels like one of those “grinds-on-forever” lawsuits.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099.
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Contois Music & Technology sues Apple for patent infringement in iTunes software – February 06, 2006
Apple sued over iTunes software interface; injunction sought to prevent iTunes distribution – June 20, 2005
…and Apple bought out ???? (I’m drawing a blank) to get iTunes up and running… Lawyers… ruling the world.
How come you wait, oh, SEVEN YEARS to bring this up?
soundjam anyone?
Yeah, this claim is about as valid as Barry Bonds home run tally.
I was wondering if and when this dude was going to pop up again. These lawsuits are like roaches, they just won’t go away.
Give him a $100 and tell him to shut the fsck up.
So whats this all about?
Some guy is saying Apple copied him because they use the term ‘Select’?…
just about every manual I have for just about every electrical gadget and gizmo has the word ‘select’ in it!
I have a personal cd player which has a giant button on it with ‘SELECT’ embossed into it!
Don’t you have to “aggressively defend” your patents to keep them effective/relevant? I swear I heard that somewhere. It’s been, what, five years since iTunes came out? It would be hard to argue this guy’s seriousness if this is only coming out now.. unless he’s filed before that is. He kind of sounds like a troll though.
CrazyMomma, you’re exactly right! Involving something as prevelant and widely known as iTunes, the litigant surely should have realized the infringemnt earlier. What probably happend is that this jackass tried to extort money from Apple who told him to go pound sand and so he finds a lawyer who’s willing to try the case. I wonder if this guy will have to pay legal fees to his attorney if his case loses? I’m betting not. Furthermore, I seriously doubt Mr. Contois’ two-bit attorney is any match for Apple’s legal muscle.
Like Shyster Sal always tells his clients:
“If you can’t make any money with your invention you can always sue a big company that is for successfully developing and selling a product vaguely similar to the POS I’m charging you and arm-and-a-leg to patent.”
Hey David the Inventor:
1) SoundJam preceded iTunes, and was around long before your 1999 patent.
2) I’m holding up 5 fingers, guess which one has “Select” on it?
For what its worth this guy started his suit a few years back. I think its a crock, but it isn’t like he waited until last week to serve notice.
Can he sue the Grimlin??
Software patents are the devils work. They should be illegal. Period. I don’t care if Apple owns them, Microsoft owns them, or Joe Blow owns them. They are wrong.
CrazyMomma & Bill,
No. In the U.S. you don’t have to actively defend your patents in order to keep them valid. (I don’t know that much about non-U.S. patent defenses as I don’t have many non-U.S. patents, and I’ve never had to do a patent defense outside the U.S.)
Legally you can sit on a patent in the U.S. until a few months before it expires and sue anyone who made something that violated it even though they started shipping the item before you even filed for the patent. (Patents used to be valid for 17 years after issue but now are good for 20 years after filing. People used to file and keep getting the issuance delayed so they’d actually have an active patent for 30 or more years. Can’t do that now.) I don’t agree with those realities, but that’s the way it is.
The U.S. Patent system is supposed to be based upon a “first to invent” system. You could invent something, be able to prove you invented it at a certain time and day, then file for a patent several years later. The patent would still be valid. The hazard with trying this is that the methods and technologies used in the “invention” could become common knowledge between the time you “invented” it and the time the patent would be issued. If this happens the USPTO is *supposed* to deny the patent. Unfortunately often they do not — they issue the patent and let the courts fight it out.
Bye-the-bye, while you don’t have to actively defend your patents you *do* have to actively defend your trademarks or risk losing all control over them. (Another thing the USPTO is supposed to oversee.)
Unfortunately, the USPTO has been issuing patents for a lot of very, very general “systems and methods”. Many, many are just plain common knowledge and common usage which should never have been able to be patented. This guy’s patent, as I understand it, is a perfect example of one of those patents.
Many years ago, a group of mathematicians including Alan Turing proved that a device with certain capabilities could perform any calculation possible (within time and space limitations).
It should have ended there. But due to a lack of understanding of computer science, politicians and courts have been hoodwinked into believing that a new operation with a universal computer is somehow a new idea. It’s like if I invented a robot that would do anything asked and people started patenting specific instructions for the robot. It’s just not a new idea.
RE: harry
exactly. Turn your attention to Cassidy & Greene, bub.
It is trade marking that needs to be aggressively and actively protected.
Still remembered from my youth:
At the Jack-in-the-Box drive thru…
“I’d like a Jumbo Jack and a Coke”
“Okay, that’s a Jumbo Jack and a Jack Cola”
“Is that a “Coke”?”
“No, it’s “Jack Cola”. We don’t have “Coke”.”
Thank God that they finally got “Coke” so we could put an end to that dance. BUT… would that chain have switched to authentic Coca Cola if they had been able to serve up “Jack Cola” whenever someone ordered a “Coke”? Doubt it.
“Still remembered from my youth:
At the Jack-in-the-Box drive thru…
“I’d like a Jumbo Jack and a Coke”
And for the love of God, hold the Jack sauce.
Apple bought SoundJam from Cassidy & Greene, which released SoundJam in or before August 1999. So Cassidy & Greene may well predate this guy. I’m sure it will all go away soon enough.
So Apple was supposed to change the word “select” to “choose” in order to avoid a patent on the term “select”? Please.
Seems to be one of those get rich fast suits if you ask me. He patented the word select, come on you can do better than that. I hope the courts won’t uphold this case, what a freakin joke.
So what did he make? Show us his version of iTunes?
Let’s see his version of the software?
Probably hoping to settle out of court.
<b>iBeef</i>: Choice or Select?
SoundJam did not predate David Contois’ software. Read – http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/44065.html
If I recall, Apple and others (as in the iTunes principal software engineers) visited and played with the demo David Contois put together in 1995. He may very well have a legit point.
There may well have been a very well documented timeline of communications between David Contois and Apple or SoundJam asking for some fair renumeration for his ideas.
There’s too much unknown by us to make an informed opinion. Besides, the counter-suit sounds very Microsoft-like. Don’t you think?