Apple Tries to Patent iPod User Interface 426
harlows_monkeys writes "Apple's
trying to patent several aspects of the iPod user interface. This one is particularly interesting because the claims are written in fairly clear and simple language, easy to understand by anyone. If this one is granted, it won't be because an overworked examineer was confused by deliberate obfuscation by the application (which is what I think happens for a lot of the ridiculous patents). About half the claims are for things that were implemented in prior players (e.g., Archos), and the other half are for things that are in many other common device interfaces (DVD players, PVRs) and the only novelty is that Apple put them on a portable music player."
buh..? (Score:0, Interesting)
Yeah, thats right (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously lame.
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Interesting)
I see it as a somewhat good thing, I mean, they're not trying to patent the idea of "e$NOUN"
They're trying to patent something that they have created, a design, which is something vital to their business, why not?
Re:Too far? (Score:5, Interesting)
It probably won't help them at all. It's look and feel [wikipedia.org] all over again.
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
While this invention has been described in terms of a preferred embodiment, there are alterations, permutations, and equivalents that fall within the scope of this invention. It should also be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing both the process and apparatus of the present invention. It is therefore intended that the invention be interpreted as including all such alterations, permutations, and equivalents as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention.
Apple had already threatened to sue iRiver for attempting to use the scroll-wheel and a similar user interface in the iHP-120. iRiver went with the 'clit' manuevering device instead. If the iRiver iHP-120 had the same easy to use iPod interface while retaining all those features it could've been an iPod killer.
How's this bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, Apple has spent a lot of time and money in perfecting the look and feel of the iPod. And now they want to protect that. How's that a bad thing?
This makes a perfectly valid patent. (Score:3, Interesting)
As we were told where I work: If you come up with a new way to package / use existing technologies, you CAN patent that.
Interesting problem.. (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Apple is uber-cool. Steve Jobs can do no wrong, He is our master and overlord. I'd gladly give Mr. Jobs a hummer if I ever was lucky enough to meet him person. If Mr. Jobs thinks patents and copyrights are OKAY, then I think they're okay too ! OH ohh, the new iPod is cool cool, TAHNK OYU STEVE JOBS, I LOVE YOU.
2. Patents are bollocks, top to bottom, side to side, it doesn't matter, they're all evil.
So, whats the slashdot crowd to do ? Implode I hope, especially the iPod crowd.
Could 'portable, pocket-sized' apply to PDAs? (Score:2, Interesting)
13. In a portable, pocket-sized multimedia asset player, a method of selecting and playing an multi media asset from a group of multimedia assets stored therein, comprising: displaying at a home interface, a playlist list item corresponding to a number of playlists stored in the multimedia asset player, wherein each playlist is a user customizable group of multimedia assets, an artists item corresponding to all of a number of artists each of which is associated with at least one of the stored multimedia assets, and a songs list item associated with each of the stored multimedia assets; highlighting a desired one of the playlist list item, the artists item, or the songs list item; receiving a selection of the highlighted item; and automatically transitioning to a second interface based upon the selected item.
Apple blew it when they added 'pocket-sized' to the description, it the patent had been granted as just a 'multimedia asset player' it could possibly be applied to notebooks. As it is could this be applied to PDAs? and does the patent also apply to the "home interface'?
Re:Steve Jobs will own the patent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, whether he plays a positive or negative role is another matter. It's my understanding that much of the ever-changing UI in OS X+iApps is due to his input.
Re:How's this bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally believe that patents are just a tool. You can use it to protect or destroy.
Re:So? It's their's. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:2, Interesting)
That was 10 years ago, when Apple blew 30% of their revenues working on crazy futuristic technology. Things like the Newton, or 802.11.
The Apple of today doesn't really invent anything except marketing imagery. They use their muscle to get exclusive deals on things like the iPod's hard drive, add a bit of trivial firmware, and patent the whole thing.
Microsoft is a technological leech, but the modern Apple ain't much better.
Inconsistency in Interfaces. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too far? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Martyr Brigade (Score:3, Interesting)
If this were about Microsoft, we'd have Microsoft Martyrs describing why this is acceptable, pointing out that a profit must be made, and decrying anti-Microsoft opinions and criticism. Oh. And judious use of the term "slashbot".
As it is... this is a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft... but the Microsoft Martyrs still get a chance to cry about the injustices layed at the feet of their corporate hero.
Re:How's this bad? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, you'd be wrong. You're equating patents for one class of idea with patents for an entirely different class. The reason why people object to patents on drugs is because it seen as morally wrong to profiteer from the sick. Another objection involves the fact that a lot of drug patents have prior art in nature and therefore the drug companies haven't invented anything but just discovered it. The patent being discussed in this article is a design patent and as far as I know doesn't condemn people to premature death for no other reason than that they can't afford an iPod.
Apple's patent == OneClick (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't think that UI elements should be patentable. It's already extremely difficult to write software without infringing on a patent. I can't even imagine how hard it would be to design user interfaces without infringing on any mechanisms.
Re:Steve Jobs will own the patent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps...but click the link in the article, which takes you right to the patent application, and read the claims. They aren't trying to patent the scroll wheel (at least, with this patent). With this patent application, they are trying to patent things that were done before on other players, or that were done on other kinds of devices and all Apple did was copy them for use on the iPod.
Their broadest claims cover any media player that has a menu that brings up another menu (or even a dialog, for that matter), for example.
Re:Where is the outrage? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, to address you comments, Apple is not "inventing these great things" but rather is simply making a grab for IP rights on core technologies that its iPod competitors would always use. Despicable but how the patent game is played. Frankly, there's way to much prior art for this patent to ever be valid.
Can someone explain this to me? (Score:1, Interesting)
Surely they can't patent the idea of a hierarchical menu system???
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
Although he read the summary rather than the claims, he did get the right idea as to what they are trying to claim. Here's the first claim:
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Interesting)
All Apple is trying to do is lay claim to core IP that is both obvious and non-innovative. Since such applications are not really scrutinized, the patent may issue but it could never be valid. Such a patent would be useful in a portfolio or against a weak opponent only.
Re:Filed AFTER introduction of iPod (Score:2, Interesting)
According to Apple, the iPod was announced october 23, 2001 [apple.com]:
CUPERTINO, California--October 23, 2001--Apple(R) today introduced iPod(TM), a breakthrough MP3 music player that...
Did they miss 5 days (it was not yet on the market, but info was general available it seems)?
What ever happened to "non-obvious"? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, PLEASE!!! Applying well-known user-interface techniques from other domains to a new domain (mp3 player)??? That isn't obvious to one skilled in the field?
I hate the patent system. And yes, I have applied for/received a patent -- but it takes alot of time & money. I can't possibly afford to patent every stinking idea at the level of those being applied for by Apple. In effect, the patent system is being used as a mechanism for established companies (with cash flow) to lock out small players. A horribly anti-competitive system!
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent has read the claims. Most posters haven't, before they started bashing.
Parent has done a great job in pointing out the main weakness: Apple doesn't ask for technicalities, but design. Essentially.
Claim 26 is the most precise one: They ask for protection for an Interface Design Aspect that automagically changes the underlying interfaces along with the user interaction.
This is a clear sign of a patent system flawed over time, since the idea is not basically a technical one. Imagine your mail-client (or just look at it) and imagine you click on the sender of a mail and the interfaces changes to display all mails of that sender. You click on a subject and all mails of this subject come up. Not a bad one, no. I'd even agree that it may be discussed if the author should get royalties. But a patent ? Only over my dead body. (I quit the Patent Office to have a life !)
This is the typical kind of software patentry where you describe a rather vague idea, ask for a patent and sue the implementer.
I can only call on everyone - in US and EU - to put all efforts into stopping this madness.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:buh..? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, technically, NeXT [toastytech.com] had it first, but since Apple bought NeXT, and then Apple designed/released the iPod [mibasoft.dk], it really still is an Apple invention.
Throughout all three products, at least, Steve Jobs was at the helm.
Re:Hierarchical Menus and Playlists (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Familiar names... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it perfect? Hell no. For one thing, it plays fast and loose with ID3 tags, so even songs that are tagged correctly in iTunes sometimes lose their tags when they come out of it. Some of the really useful apple extensions like the star rating disappear when you move the files (which sucks when you're auditioning several thousand songs for possible deletion). For another, the "let's appease the RIAA" decision of not allowing copying FROM an iPod means I need to maintain other applications to get stuff that I placed on the iPod.
Finally, using iTunes sort of requires you to adopt the iPod Way of doing things -- e.g. you have to let it control your library, or else it goes a bit whacko. This makes sense. You should ALWAYS control the lowest level of abstraction using the highest level whenever possible, or risk having to maintain the abstraction on each level. iTunes' ability to treat metadata as a pseudo filesystem makes it a very useful high level abstraction. It takes very little extra effort to do all your file maintenance in iTunes, but if you're such a control freak that you're constantly moving files around, you shouldn't be using a music library application in the first place.
Incidentally, the library handling is much saner on OSX, where you can move files to your heart's content and not worry about the app not being able to find them.
What's worse? UI patents or being ripped off? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cool UI, FireWire, SuperDrive, etc (long list).
Does that long list include the iPod's interface?
Well, that doesn't seem to have a B&W answer. Not because I'm an Apple whore, but also because the patent system is pretty fucked up. Assuming Apple is wrong (in a slash-dotter's eyes), bitching at just them doesn't solve anything anyway. Bitch about what's allowed to be patented (yeah, I'm syphoning blame from Apple). You shouldn't expect companies to follow ethic guidelines, you need harder rules.
Also, ask yourself: If you invented the iPod & iPod-interface, and someone tried to copy it exactly, would you let it go? People who copy the interface are basically trying to get a free ride off of Apple's work.
If company-A makes something cool, they probably spent time & money to do it. If company-B copies company-A's cool gizmo, and sells an equal number as company-A, they make more money than company-A did because they didn't have to spend money on design. Result; company-B is more successful due to parasitic product-design strategy.
Is that fair?
I'm sure apple wont sue anyone who uses stylistically different hierarchal menus on mp3 players, just the ones that copy them pixel-for-pixel, so I'm not worried.
Conclusion: Patents on blurry issues like UI might not be cool, but getting your product ripped off by lazy designers isn't cool either.
Re:Familiar names... (Score:2, Interesting)
My Neo-25 predates this patent,matches most claims (Score:3, Interesting)
The NEO-25 supported hierarchical lists (drill down throgh folders of songs, playlists, etc.) And while it did not simultaneoulsy let you drill down by artist, genre, etc. you could certainly arrange things in any of those orders (I had songs, playlists, "xfer" and "misc" as my top level folders). And if you were wearing cargo pants it was pocket-sized. And it fit in my jacket pockets in any case. SSI America was the US importer I bought mine through but there was at least one other branding for the same player. And since it used FAT-32 (or could use FAT-32) you could actually create alias directories and support multiple organization arrangements simultaneously. Which reminds me, I still have to see if the iPod supports aliases/shortcuts/soft links so I can cut down on the number of copies of some songs that appear on multiple albums (where it is the same track, not a remix,live,etc different version).