Slashdot Log In
Apple Sued Over iTunes UI
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:48 AM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It apppears that Contois Music Technology is suing Apple Computer over the UI to its iTunes music software. The suit claims patent infringement over a patent owned by Contois."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
LOL! (Score:4, Informative)
"By reason of Apple's infringing activities, Contois has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount yet to be determined," the suit reads. "On information and belief, Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful."
----
Yeah. And it's only been out for, what 4 and a half years now (Jan 2001)?
Re:LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah! Those are really neat inventions. Must have required a lot of intellect to bring that intellectual property to paper.
Go patents go!
Parent
Re:LOL! (Score:5, Funny)
"Yeah. And it's only been out for, what 4 and a half years now (Jan 2001)?
Longer, actually.
Apple bought SoundJam MP from Casady & Greene, and used it as the basis for iTunes. In fact, early version of iTunes have dialog boxes and controls identical to SoundJam, right down to screen placement when they're opened.
My SoundJam CD has a 1999 copyright date, and the about SoundJam file indicates a 1998 copyright date.
So poor old Contois, your "patents" have been infringed for far longer than you think, at least for 7 years.
And what about the software used by the first portible MP3 player, that surely must have infringed some of your patents, and yet, you did nothing about it, it seems, until 2005.
Indeed, the folks who own and license the rights to USB and FireWire certainly must be liable for SOME damages, what with their reckless aiding and abetting the transfer of bits to and from hard drives and flash RAM in portible MP3 players.
Such sloth on the part of your legal department surely has earned them all a collective bitchslap!
I would replace them all instantly! I hear that the SCO legal team will be looking for work soon.
Parent
Six years? I smell laches (Score:5, Informative)
My SoundJam CD has a 1999 copyright date ... you did nothing about it, it seems, until 2005.
"Laches" refers to the doctrine that if a patent holder delays legal action against an alleged infringer for long enough to harm the alleged infringer, the patent holder can't collect damages for infringements that occurred prior to legal action. If the patent holder waits at least six years before suing, the judge will almost always apply laches; in that case, a prevailing patent holder can get an injunction against further infringement but can collect only damages for infringements that occurred between the filing of the lawsuit and the injunction.
Parent
I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
1. That a computer program can have buttons to start and stop music.
2. That a computer program can display two or more data fields about that music during play.
There is another claim about controlling a player piano (!), but that seems irrelevant to this case.
The problems I see with this patent are:
1. The claims argued are blatently obvious. It's one step above a patent for displaying and manipulating data on a screen. The only difference is that this adds music! (rolls eyes)
2. Plenty of prior art exists. For example, MIDI and CD players throughout the 90's were capable of "controlling the playback of music" and "displaying two or more data fields about the song". Not to mention MP3 player that existed prior to January 1999.
3. The primary focus of the body of the patent is on player piano control. AFAIK, iTunes does not run player pianos.
4. The patent points to MIDI or a MIDI-like device as the stream being controlled. Digital audio is not a method of controlling a digital instrument, but rather a synthesis of a complete sound environment.
Perhaps the best reform would be to allow for reprocussions against the patent holder should his patent be found to be issued in error or inapplicablE? For example, if the patent holder was forced to pay court costs, he may think twice before initiating a baseless suit.
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
They might have a case for copyright infringement if they can show their ex-employees took the code to Apple. Might even have a case for contract law, if Apple NDA'd to see the software at the trade shows.
But the patent was applied for in 1999. How long has winamp existed? When winamp first came out, how much information did it display on the screen? How long have ID3 tags been around, with Winamp using them to display song name, artist, title... ooops, we've already passed the two fields in the patent! And the buttons, of course the buttons! Buttons are clearly a novel way to control a computer!
The patent as described in the abstract would have been a pretty cool invention. "Control a player piano from your computer!" Too bad the patent lawyers sank their teeth into it and turned it into a steaming pile of crap, knowing that the patent office would accept it anyway. "A computer controlled device" in this language could mean anything from a piano to a pair of speakers.... and imagine that, the music comes out my speakers when I hit play in either iTunes or Winamp!
Parent
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent was granted January 1999. It was actually filed Feb. 13, 1996, so you have to beat that date since that is the priority date and the date from which their 20 year term of protection begins. If you read the claims carefully, it is more than just a simple listing and selection of songs. In order to violate the patent, each and every element of an independent claim has to be present in what is alleged to be infringed upon. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.
Parent
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, their arguments aren't holding water. And I still don't see any player pianos.
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but neither does iTunes. According to their patent, the software must be capable of "b) sending a data stream from the computer to the computer controlled music device in response to step a) for controlling the playing of the selected song;". Or in other words, the external device must respond directly to the stream provided by the computer device.
iTunes does no such thing. It merely downloads the music to the player for storage, control, and later playback by the player. i.e. An iPod cannot be reasonably compared with directly controlling a "player piano".
Parent
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
The invention resides not in any one of these features per se, but rather in the particular combination of all of them herein disclosed and claimed and it is distinguished from the prior art in this particular combination of all of its structures for the functions specified.
So they admit they haven't invented anything, but they got a patent because of the amazingly innovative combination of those features like choosing a track combined with then playing the track. WOW!!!!!!!!
Parent
Re:I can't believe the guts of this lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a patent lawyer either, but I'd like to point out that "rediculous" is not a disqualifying characteristic for a patent.
But not on a computer. Those MIDI and CD players throughout the 90s would have also been patentable (and I'm sure they're
Bullshit patent. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
This my friends is why we don't like software patents.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't agree. "Computer Controlled" specifically means that the parent computer is the interface to which the attached device responds. The patent even goes into great detail of this interface and calls the device a "player piano". An iPod, OTOH, is an independent device. It is in no way "controlled" by the host computer, but merely interfaces for file transfers. There is currently no method by which an iPod can begin play by "pressing the play button on the computer interface." (in the patent, look it up) Rather, the user must interface directly with the iPod to access the downloaded database.
Parent
Good ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if enough big companies get shafted through patent lawsuits they may consider working to get rid of software patents.
But then again....
Re:Good ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Their thinking is that if we get MORE software patents, the costs will offset and we win.
It's fundamentally just an arms race, where the one with the biggest wallet wins and consumers always lose.
Parent
It's about time we throw the baby out with the (Score:5, Insightful)
If the child is a brat, you discipline the child. If the child tries to stab you to death for disciplining it, you put the child in a mental ward for safe observation and help. If when the child (or in this case patent industry) is mature and tries it again, society prescribes the death penalty (in the US). Why shouldn't the patent system be any different?
The big IT corporations don't need patents to maintain their control because they are in a unique position to crush upstarts that few industries have. They industry as a whole has proven that they can't use them responsibly and the very fact that a hobbyist can turn their hobby into a business means that patents are bad. I'm sorry, but the ends justify the means here. Patent holders have time and again proven that milking their work and not innovating is their real goal, at least in IT. It's time that the entire system be flushed out and simplified.
Re:It's about time we throw the baby out with the (Score:3, Interesting)
We individual citizens are but the lowlings in a feudal system. Corporations and goverment organizastions are the lords. It may sound a bit dramatic since many of us lead pretty good lives, but it is only because we are grudgingly allowed to, it is no longer an inalienable righ
Patent Text (Score:5, Insightful)
Abstract
A computer system and method for controlling a media playing device. The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accessed or selected piece of media. In one embodiment there is a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical music. Another embodiment allows the user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to a selected music category. Another embodiment allows a user to direct the media playing device to automatically play selected music pieces that are related to the selected music composer or artist."
My only question is: Where are the lawsuits against Microsoft's WMP, Realplayer, the Microsoft XBox Media Player, MusicMatch, etc?
iTunes has been out for over 4 years, and just now there's a lawsuit? I understand it takes time to find a lawyer that will accept a case, but *4* years? Hmmm, right at the height of popularity too, kinda amazing how it worked out like that...
Re:Patent Text (Score:3, Interesting)
1995 Prior Art? Project Jukebox (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~newrep/vol13/no4news.html [soton.ac.uk]
Scroll down to the article "Jukebox is a sound success"
Does anyone have any more details about this? Does it cover the same claims as the Contois patent?
Re:1995 Prior Art? Project Jukebox (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Open and Shut Case (Score:3, Funny)
Then again I also voted to acquit Michael Jackson...
Part of the basis... (Score:3, Insightful)
The implication is that they saw his app and were so entralled at his genious to organize music by Genere, then artist, and finally album, that they quit their jobs, convinced Apple to hire them, and then applied such unique cataloging skills to iTunes.
Similar... (Score:5, Funny)
But I do have to admit that the two referenced images look eerily similar
-c
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Contois is seeking a trial by jury.
biting the hand that feeds you (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is getting its just deserts from supporting the software patent system.
Prior Art?? (Score:5, Informative)
Okay Here is the deal. iTunes is based on a MP3 player application Apple bought from Casady & Greene called Soundjam MP. Apple bought this app in 2001 and re-designed it into iTunes. Casady & Greene first released Sound Jam MP Two years before Apple bought them. So that would put the desing of the app at about the same time the patent was issued.
Just to clarify my above facts a little bit, Casady & Greene published SoundJam they weren't the developers. So it looks like the individuals that may or may not have been privy to the deep dark secrets of this patent originally cam from the SoundJam developer team.
now by no means was SoundJam the first MP3 player on the market, so there is going to be prior art all over this.
I'm not getting this one... (Score:5, Informative)
It is a feature of the invention to provide a computer user interface. The interface is for providing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accesses or selected piece of media.
It is another feature of the invention to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music categories.
A further feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display music selections that are related only to a selected composer, like Duke Ellington or Gershwin. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music composer.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected artist, like Dave Contois, or your own personal recordings. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music artist.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected song or music piece, like Alexander's Rag Time Band or Andante & Rondo Capriciosso, Op. 14. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music piece.
A feature of the invention is also to provide a computer system that can access others media recording data bases from other sources like internet or world wide web.
It goes on and on like this. But this is the kicker:
The invention resides not in any one of these features per se, but rather in the particular combination of all of them herein disclosed and claimed and it is distinguished from the prior art in this particular combination of all of its structures for the functions specified.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, that annoys me, because they basically admit that there is tons of prior art for this stuff, and what makes their patent special is that it combines it all. Which would be fine, for example in the case of a "player piano" as they describe. But the iPod/iTunes system hardly describes a computer controlling a media player device to playback media. I would argue the controls for the iPod are , on the iPod itself. All iTunes does it supply music for download and transfer those songs, which are not then played automatically as they so many times describe, but rather are played when selected, and only after the player is disconnected from the computer, i.e. not controlled by the computer.
The ITMS certainly uses their method of selecting media (just like every other media player on the planet), but does not do so to select which songs to automatically play on an attached media device - merely to decide which songs to buy, or in the case of the iTunes software, which songs to transfer. Buying, transferring and playing are different. The patent is for playing.
Personally, I think software patents are ridiculous, but if they want to sue for infringement, it better at least be a match. They only mention the internet (or a remote database) tangentially in their patent, and don't even provide an example. I'm say Apple can take them to court and win.
Paris Hilton (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Paris Hilton (Score:3, Funny)
Design patents and infringement (Score:5, Interesting)
Design patents prohibit a third-party from making, selling or using a product of the protected design. To infringe a design patent, the infringing container and the container shape shown in the design patent must look alike to the eye of the ordinary observer.
In Gorham v. White (1871), the Supreme Court set the standard for design patent infringement:
"If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other."
Just having similar functions and a vaguely similar appearance is not sufficient, as shown by the amusing "Colida v. Sharp Electronics and Audiovox" (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2005):
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/03/desig
The functional features described in a design patent are not particularly relevant. (They would be in a functional patent, of course.) To infringe on a design patent, the infringing product has to look so much like his sketch that the infringing product would deceive the customer into thinking it was the patented product.
An example of a product which might be found to infringe on a well-known design patent might be:
http://www2.luxpro.com.tw/e_575d.htm [luxpro.com.tw]
Almost 30 years of prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
So that's what it's called. This user interface predates the Macintosh, in fact it predates the Xerox Star office system that inspired the Macintosh. It comes from the Smalltalk [pdx.edu] class [ucsb.edu] browser [gatech.edu].
Parent
You know, I was using something that infringed... (Score:3, Interesting)
SIDPlayer and SID Symphony on the Commodore 64.
The 64 could control a MDI device, it could transfer MIDI data from one device to another via it's serial line, it could even move digital music from the C64 to a portible music player (A Walkman cassette player) via the sound out port and a patch cable.
Sounds like a WHOLE lot of WAY prior art to me.
I'm blown away (Score:3, Funny)
One skilled in the art will recognize that it is not essential to have the computer system separate from the media playing device. It is conceivable to have the computer system physically incorporated in part or in whole into the media playing device.
It is noted that the embodiment of the invention discusses the use of a standard known computer, where in fact all components of the computer can be replaced with any new advancing technologies, like holographics or voice activated systems and still not depart from the intent of the invention of allowing easier user access to the underlying media data base information.
The preferred embodiment of the invention discusses the control of only a single media playing device, like a player piano. However, one skilled in the art would easily understand how to simultaneously control several media playing devices with the same control system in view of this disclosure. For example, the coordination of the control of a player piano along with a music video is contemplated.
Although this embodiment focuses upon the application of the software to control a player piano or video player, one skilled in the art will realize that this software interface could be used on any media playing device where a user needs to select what media item is to be played from a vast media data base. For example, it is contemplated to operate an electric guitar, a computer controlled multimedia system, a pipe organ, a television, a movie video player, or a computer screen.
Wow. So the player doesn't even have to be outside of the computer. So, iTunes, Zinf (Freeamp), Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMMS, Amarok, RhythmBox, GStreamer, well, just about every media player infringes. Even the holographic, voice-activated system that controls 73 copies of Winamp over the net infringes. Heck, if I use an interface to control playback of something on my computer screen, it infringes (assuming a filesystem counts as a database, which it should). I'm sure several million software writers would be interested to know about this. After reading the whole patent, I'm not really sure what, exactly, if anything, they are patenting. I know it has to do with media, and playback, and maybe something about automatic, but beyond that, I'm lost. Is it on a computer? How about an iPod? Does a stereo count? Is it over the internet? Are the interface and the player seperate, or not? What is a player? Is it a screen, a TV, a Playstation, a pair of speakers, or none (or all) of those?
I though patents were for implementations, not abstract, all-encompassing ideas...
In other news, 5 year-old Sally Jones was sued by Steven Olson of St. Paul, MN, after being observed in her backyard swinging in a way [uspto.gov] such that she infringed on his patent. He is claiming damages of over $1 million.
iTunes history (Score:3, Informative)
No Infringement Here (Score:5, Informative)
A quick reading of independent claim 1 pretty much eliminates any question of infringment, i.e., there is none. It reads:
"1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer
When last I checked, the iPod was not controlled, i.e., told to play a song, by the computer hosting the iTunes software. Without that step, the patent is not infringed. Period.
I want to point out one more thing. The patent in question is not a design patent, but a utility patent. Design patents have identifiers that always begin with "D" and they pertain only to the appearance of something, not to what the patented thing does.
Re:IANAL but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a 100 disc CD changer and write a computer program to allow you to choose and begin playing selections from that changer, you violate this patent.
Here's the first claim from the patent:
1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer, comprising the steps of:
a) simultaneously displaying on a display device, at least two individual data fields selected from music categories, composers, artists, and songs;
b) selecting at least one item from at least one of the data fields;
c) in response to step b), redisplaying all data fields not having an item selected therefrom with data related only to the at least one item selected in step b), and simultaneously maintaining all items originally displayed in the data fields with at lest one item selected therefrom;
d) selecting an item in the songs data field in response to step c), and
e) playing the selected song item from step d) on the computer responsive music device.
Now come on. If you are going to use a computer for connecting to a music device, how obvious is a user interface that categorizes the data? 90% of what a computer does when it isn't playing games is categorizing data!
Parent
Re:How is that solid? Music not in database (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore the bit about playing music in certain categories is very unlike playlists.
But a lot like the iTunes Music Store.
Re:How is that solid? Music not in database (Score:3, Informative)
Read abstract (Score:4, Insightful)
The system provides a user interface for allowing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database
I don't think you can seriously refer to a directory as a "media database". They might have something if they had sued based on the iPod. To me that wordind in the abstract indicates intent and kills the claim.
Parent
Re:side by side image of the patented player & (Score:3, Informative)
Re:side by side image of the patented player & (Score:3, Insightful)
So does that mean that if you ever see something presented at a developer's conference, say SIGGRAPH, then you are automatically prevented from ever using any information that you saw there? This would mean that you would never be able to develop 2D or 3D image processing software ever again for having attended SIGGRAPH because some slimeball would have a patent on something that was presented a
Re:Are you joking me? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is no joke; it's real, and it's why more needs to be done to stop software patents. If they're not stopped, there will be more and more lawsuits just like this one. If there are enough of these lawsuits, they will have a dramatically negative impact on the economy, because wealth will be flowing from those who are being productive to those who are really nothing more than leaches.
Software already enjoys the protection of copyright, it does not need patent protection as well.
Parent
Treatife on the Value of Ideaf (Score:3, Insightful)
What you will learn by the time you get to be an old geek is that you can't eat ideas. Even if you have a nearly endless supply of ideas, putting bread on the table with them requires a whole bunch of things you probably aren't as richly supplied with:
* Dedication
* Vision
* Experience/Judgement
* Cunning
* Persuasiveness
* Guts
* Capital
Basically, what I'm saying is that ideas are like the air we breath: essential, but economically speaking, n