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."
Familiar names... (Score:5, Informative)
Jeff Robbin was the primary author of SoundJam, licensed by Cassidy & Greene years ago. I worked w/ Jeff on some SoundJam and iTunes related software before Apple bought SoundJam (or whatever it is they did) from Cassidy & Greene. A landslide of credit goes to him for bringing iTunes to where it is today in a variety of categories (the most obvious being the UI). Although he probably wears additional hats at Apple, he's currently one of the iTunes senior engineers (if not the chief).
Patenting after the fact? (Score:1, Informative)
APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:5, Informative)
Once it starts seeming like Apple is considering *using* said patent, then thi will be news. Until then, this doesn't tell us anything. I've never seen Apple attempt to use any of these patents. Even when they were harassing creators of Aqua schemes, they never resorted to patents, always arguing in terms of copyright...
Re:Question (Score:1, Informative)
I did't RTA, so I'm just as qualified to comment.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
It looks to me like the broadest claims cover 'multimedia player' so will cover video/audio players. Who knows of the claims which ones Apple expects to succeed with, and with which they are trying it on.
Re:Maybe, maybe not (Score:5, Informative)
US Patent law also gives the inventors a year after the invention is made public to file an application without the public knowledge of that invention being held against the inventors. After 1 year, the invention would be rejected under 35 USC 102(b) [cornell.edu].
Re:How's this bad? (Score:3, Informative)
The pPod program is a $20 program for WinCE/PocketPC devices that is a software emulator of an iPod's user interface, right down to the concept of a virtual scroll wheel (by tracking finger movements in the designated circle on the touchscreen) and displaying the user's music files in the same menu structure as an iPod.
The writers of the program are ripping off Apple's design work, and not even trying to hide the fact that they did so. This application may be the forerunner to a court case...
Combination Patent (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Informative)
This is PATENT not TRADEMARK (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding (IANAL and all that) is that that isn't how patent law works. You're allowed to take your patent and hide, and when you see fit start suing as selectively as you please. On the other hand, you must agressively pursue trademark infringements or risk losing it. This allowed Unisys to lie in waiting while GIF became popular and then come out and ambush the big guys. IBM is known to not pursue violations of their "small" patents till they decide its time to kill someone at which point they can almost always find something out of their huge portfolio of patents that their victim is violating.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story [slashdot.org] only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
Re:APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:4, Informative)
I just wanted to comment that the Staircase they have a patent for is the staircase design in every two-story Apple Store. I have been to four of them, and each with this exact design. (did anyone realize this?)
I don't see this design patent all that funny... it's a unique design that is used in the real world. =) Very cool if you ask me!
Go Apple!
Re:Familiar names... (Score:5, Informative)
I worked with Tim Wasko at NeXT and Apple. You'd be surprised how much of the UI credit should go to him.
His role is basically that of Keith Ohlfs for OS X.
In fact, before I left Tim was still disappointed that Keith couldn't be rehired.
Re:Where is the outrage? [Cocoa UI Clarification] (Score:4, Informative)
Not to take the wind out of your sails because I agree with your insights but the Cocoa UI you are referring to hasn't to do with Cocoa but with QUARTZ which is proprietary, and rightfully so. I'd hate to think of the comments from Andrew Barnes, Peter Graffanino and the rest of the brilliant engineers who made Quartz happen, if Steve walked in one day and said, "I've have an epiphany! Let's give the world Quartz via Open Source." I'm sure Freedesktop.org is counting on that never happening.
The Cocoa APIs are freely available and accessible, on-line. GNUstep implements the Openstep Standard that NeXT and SUN co-drafted and released in 1994.
Re:APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Informative)
Can you say 'FireWire'? I knew you could.
(tig)
Re:Filed AFTER introduction of iPod (Score:3, Informative)
Actually this claims priority to US provisional application No. 60/399,806 which was filed July 30, 2002.
US Patent law also gives the inventors a year after the invention is made public to file an application without the public knowledge of that invention being held against the inventors. After 1 year, the invention would be rejected under 35 USC 102(b).
Donald Knuth on patents (Score:5, Informative)
Since 1994, Donald Knuth has lobbied against algorithm patents. Perhaps we ought to ask whether interface patents are not just as destructive of freedom and human rights.
Do interface patents "take away [our] right to use fundamental building blocks" (in Knuth's words)?
Here is the text of Knuth's letter [mit.edu].
Sony have been using scroll wheels for ages... (Score:4, Informative)
Incidentally the 'scroll wheel' in some form or other is pretty much universal on any Sony product, including their Vaio notebooks and Clie PDAs. My last Vaio had one on the side; they've now moved it to between the mouse buttons and it is effectively now just a mouse scroll wheel. AFAIK, Sony never tried to patent the idea.
It qualifies as non obvious! (Score:3, Informative)
Have you used an iPod? Have you used Apple's Finder? Specifically it's 'column view'? They're the same. You drill down a hierarchical list via columns of objects, until you get to the object you want. The only prior art I can think of is... NeXTStep's Workspace explorer (whatever they called it)... and Apple's Finder in OS X.
It is totally non obvious, Apple's implementation, and it's genius in it's simplicity.
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:4, Informative)
And with the iPod, it didn't exist in the (predecessor) Nomads and Lyras, and I'm fairly sure it was in the Archos!
Those devices were playlist centric, in which you either selected playlists, or songs in playlists, an an explorer style folder view, which is *very* different than Apple's disclosure view, and very different from Apple's column view.
The iPod has implemented in hardware Apple's Finder's column view. Take a look at it, and tell me it isn't genius, if you ever handle an iPod.
Re:APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:1, Informative)
OMG, why do I have the impression that you were definitely not "old enough" (or even born?!?) in the early '80s? You really don't get it, do you?
At the time, the Apple II was still the main (even the only) money maker for Apple. Forget the Apple III or the Lisa.
And for the Apple II to work, you needed AppleSoft BASIC, made by M$. No AppleSoft, no Apple II, and no money to finance development of the Lisa and of the Macintosh -- heck, even no money to keep the company alive!
So much software was written that was taking advantage of every little routine in ROM, that was calling them *directly* (read: NO APIs, no insulation of the underlying code from the outside, like what you saw in the Mac's ROMs!) that you just could not replace AppleSoft with anything else. You lost AppleSoft, you lost your whole software base!!!
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, elements of the automotive UI were patented, the most famous be the intermittent wipers patent [inc.com]. Many aspects of early telephone and telegraph dials [privateline.com] were patented.
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Familiar names... (Score:3, Informative)