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).
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:Familiar names... (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried using itunes for windows a few weeks ago. My motivation was to try downloading the free songs I had won from my mass comsumption of pepsi products. After about a week of use I switched back to what I've been using for over four years, an open source project that used to be called freeamp, but because of a trademark issue is now called zinf (Zinf Is Not Freeamp). Zinf is open source and cross-platform, I use it in windows and in Linux.
Sure itunes looks nice, but I found the way it handled my music library annoying at best. I wouldn't use it even for the free music that I won. I really don't understand the fawning, sycophantic praise for anything apple generates.
Re:Familiar names... (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that not everyone likes the iTunes interface and that for *some* people, it isn't the most intuitive. Every human is different and each views their experiences through a filter of their own subjectivity. Therefor, not everyone will like iTunes.
However, rather than assume the praise of the iTunes interface originates from a "fawning, sycophantic praise for anything apple generates," couldn't one just as easily surmise that the praise originates from the effectiveness of th
Re: iTunes and opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO though, this just strikes me as jealousy. (Wow - someone actually has a business that's so well liked by their customers that they're excited whenever they release a new product?! That's just not right! We have to tear that down A.S.A.P.!)
The fact is, I *rarely* meet a non Apple user who doesn't at least say "Wow, that really is a nice app/feature/design!" if they really sit down and give the products and software a good look.
The Apple "iApps" are a prime example of this. The point isn't that you can't find flaws in them if you try hard enough. (The new iPhoto, for example, has a bug where photo previews often look blurry... Clicking away from one and back onto it again sometimes makes it snap into focus. Annoying!) But *overall*, they give users a usable, clean interface that's hard to describe as anything but "sensible".
Even if you don't personally like the way iTunes organizes your music library, the point is - it DOES organize it for you. Not every program does this, you know. It lets you create custom playlists based on all sorts of criteria, has the ability to cross-fade the end of one track into the start of the next (nice for playing MP3 songs ripped from "live" albums where normally, you hear a sharp cutoff when the audience is clapping at the end of a song), has easy, *built-in* ability to write to CD (as music or data format), and lots of other good stuff you want in a player. Plus, it's free.
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.
Re:Familiar names... (Score:3, Informative)
That's a very neutral summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see astroturfer same-ole same-old -- at least it's predictable.
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:4, Insightful)
A fair point, but I think we all agree here that a patent filer deserves to be flamed if their implementation of the patent is garbage (ie, MS WMP). iTunes/Apple has legitimately pioneered most of this new territory everyone else now has no problem ripping off. There was a post a few days ago by someone noting how Apple just doesn't get innovative software handed to them from a magical gnome cave--they spend a lot of money and hire the top talent.
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Insightful)
We're flaming Apple because they're patenting something semi-obvious (though most posts will return to the usual flaming of the totally broken US Intellectual Property system). That I have no problem with.
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.
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:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple once again found the sweet spot with iTunes, but they didn't really break any new ground.
LK
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
For me... when I switched to iTunes (and Mac) completely about a year ago, it was about three things:
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Informative)
Can you say 'FireWire'? I knew you could.
(tig)
Well, duh (Score:5, Funny)
If Microsoft were trying to patent the Apple iPod they'd deserve all the flames they could possibly get...
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Insightful)
We bitch and moan about Microsoft because of the behemoth it is. Apple has 'slashdot-cred' because they produce cool stuff (OS X, iPods, powerbooks... drool).
You must be new here... (obligatory!)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ab
Re:That's a very neutral summary (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw this article as being an example of a writing style I wish slashdot had more of, relativly neutral, factual articles. Let the rants come in the comments.
Question (Score:4, Insightful)
What does this mean, does Apple secure exclusive rights to the specific combination of all the features of the iPod or to the individual features?
If this patent is approved what would be the impact on the portable music player market?
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.
Scroll wheel (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Simple things get patented all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple things get patented all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Instaed of a flat lid you had to tear a corner out of, someone created one you could actually drink out of.
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:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
-
I am stupid when it comes to most things related to patents.
If history is any indicator, the portable music player market could forget having a user interface even remotely similar to Apple's in any shape, form or fashion. If they did, Apple would unleash the lawyers and sue them into oblivion. Do you remember the whole thing with Amazon and 1-click ordering? Same process, just a different area. Apple has also shown interest in following up with lawsuits, remember the PC makers who got sued for making colored PCs that were just a bit too iMac looking? One of them basically asked for it (IIRC, it looked exactly like an iMac, just had a PC inside and a different company logo), but at least one of the others was more general, having a colored monitor/case.What does this mean, does Apple secure exclusive rights to the specific combination of all the features of the iPod or to the individual features?
If this patent is approved what would be the impact on the portable music player market?
Basically it'd be at best a major nuisance, and at worst force everyone else to have ungainly user interfaces. (At least accepting that iPod's UI is good and easy to use, my (admittedly limited) experience with it was one of great frustration personally.)
In any case since elements of the user interface have existed in other products prior to the iPod, prior art should invalidate the patent claim. The US Patent Office has issued many questionable patents where prior art existed, and the excuse so far has been the patent was written to obfuscate, or was confusing, so they didn't pick up on it. This time the patent is written clearly, so the interesting thing will be to see if the US Patent Office issues a patent in face of prior art when the patent isn't hard to understand. Many would consider their issuing this patent a sign that the whole patent process is broken beyond repair.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
How would it force everyone else to have "ungainly" UIs? If they can't directly copy the iPod interaction design then *GASP* they would instead have to innovate and come up with a new and perhaps better way of going about playing music on a portable device. Imagine that...
(At least accepting that iPod's UI is good and easy to use, my (admittedly limited) experience with it was one of great frustration personally.)
Well there you go...you even say that you find the iPod frustrating to use. It's quite entirely possible that someone could come up with something better, perhaps the design to rule them all even to suit your taste in device interactions.
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Tim
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Abstractions such as 'scroll wheels', 'menus', and hierachical elements far preceeded Apple's ipod--that why they were good to use. Patenting the use of such elements on media players forces other players into different--and thus counterintuitive--interface widgets.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and they should. And the market should come up with a user interface that is better, more intuitive than iPod's. And original. The keyword is be innovative. When it came out, the iPod UI doesn't look like anything on the market at that time. And I think Apple deserve credit for that. Now every player wants to look and feel like iPod.
Is it a Slashdot mindset that it is always bad if you can't copy anything at will? Why can't other player maker come up with better UI? Why can't we come up with something better and original? Why does every Linux Desktop UI has to look like Windows or Aqua?
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Because user interfaces are supposed to be similar.
"Why can't other car makers come up with a better UI than pedals and a wheel? Why can't they come up with something better and original?"
"Why can't other telephone makers come up with a better UI than a 3x4 array of keys with numbers and letters? Why can't they come up with something better and original?"
"Why can't other CD player makers c
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.
Steve Jobs will own the patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
*grin*
Re:Steve Jobs will own the patent? (Score:5, Funny)
Perks of the Position (Score:2)
There is a downside to this perk however. Gates knows this....
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: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:Steve Jobs will own the patent? (Score:3, Funny)
You could say that. Here's how it works:
Designer: Hey Mr. Jobs. Look at this new product idea I came up with! It's a small, off-white digital music player. It's stylish, matches any outfit, and fits in your pocket!
Steve Jobs: Hmm.. Change the color from "off-white", to "white". Oh, and don't forget to add my name to the patent application. Ciao. I've got a 12:30 facial.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Too far? (Score:5, Insightful)
M
Re:Too far? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Too far? (Score:5, Interesting)
It probably won't help them at all. It's look and feel [wikipedia.org] all over again.
Re:Too far? (Score:3, Interesting)
That was copyright. This is a patent. As your link points out:
This patent is not even really a software patent - it's about how a physical device is used. The fact that the only feasible way to implement it is to use software isn't really all that significant (imho, at least). So: the look and feel case isn't likely to be relevant at all here.
Re:Too far? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be demonstrable incompetence in their Intellectual Properties division if Apple was succesfully sued for patent infringement for the iPod by another company?
Now, if this technology cannot be Patented/is not patentable, then Apple is covered, because then Apple can't be sued for patent infringement.
Alternatively, if they are awared a patent on several of their claims, then it makes for good counter-ammunition when someone else trys to sue them.
99% of the time, Patent Portfolio's are built up as a defensive mechanism, kind of like mutually assured destruction.
Any company large enough to have a patent attorney will be doing this sort of thing.
Why is it a ridiculous patent? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:APPLE PATENTS EVERYTHING (Score:3, Informative)
So? It's their's. (Score:4, Insightful)
I did't RTA, so I'm just as qualified to comment.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I did't RTA, so I'm just as qualified to commen (Score:2)
Apple is pretty much here describing what's unique about the iPod UI so that anybody else who wants to make a competiting music player had better design their own UI rather than copy the iPod's. It's not that hard, just avoid the using the same menu structure and same "
"There is nothing new under the sun." (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if I went searching through old articles, I would find someone posting that the Segway wasn't worthy of being patented, because it used gyroscopes, handlebars, wheels, and even a grip-throttle - all of which everyone knew had been around for ages in other devices.
Perhaps a flying car wouldn't be worthy because it used parts from cars and airplanes, both of which have been around in some form or another for a hundred years.
See where I'm going here?
If you take enough different ideas or things from enough different places, and put them together in a way that hasn't been seen before, and the result is something that significantly improves upon what had been seen before, to the extent that people look at it and say, "Wow, that's sure new and different," you've basically had an original idea. Sure, you've been standing on the shoulders of giants - but so has everyone else.
That's a rather poor, straw-man analogy. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, patents aren't the devil. Poorly awarded patents are stupid, but that doesn't make the process inherently something to mindlessly oppose.
Hierarchical Menus and Playlists (Score:5, Insightful)
2) This patent seems to involve the graphical display of content and features of a MP3 player through a hierarchical menu structure and through playlists.
3) They are patenting a feature on a physical device, not a software method. They're not patenting the software. The technology they are patenting is embodied in a physical device.
4) A patent can be based on other work, even other patented work. If any previous art that Apple has built on is patented and that patent is owned by another company, Apple must still pay that other company. If a third party wants to license the technology, they must pay both Apple and the other company.
5) Patents mostly suck, unless Apple applies for them, because of 1).
Re:Hierarchical Menus and Playlists (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed re: 1) and 5). I'm trying to find a way to say tactfully and nontrollfully that there's a bizarre element of doublethink going on here.
Slashdot posts about one "gee, that's a silly patent" story per week. There's usually a good mix (I read at +4, +3 for that brief time that the server was too slow to hand out enough mod points) of comments saying "the patent isn't so broad as the submitter made it out, and really this is perfectly legitimate" or "I know how to make money! I'll patent the use of cookies as incentives...in a porable media player!" or "This is another example of why the patent system is seriously messed up and needs to be reformed" or "I found prior art!" or "This patent is frivolous because algorithms are copyrightable speech, not patentable inventions" or "This patent is utter nonsense because it's common sense" or something else.
This time reading at +3/4 I see only vocal supporters of Apple. After reading the list of claims that seem pretty broad on something kind of intuitive - reading an MP3 file...on a portable media player! And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these claims cumulative rather than limiting? That's quite a lot to assert.
It seems like for whatever reason Apple gets the benefit of the doubt a lot more often than other companies; I'm not sure why. Every corporation seeks to maximize its profits.
Re:Hierarchical Menus and Playlists (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main reason apple tends to get the benefit of the doubt in a lot of cases is because most of the time they focus on and succeed in creating products that are technologically better than the competition. People on slashdot tend to notice good technology when they see it, and are appreciative of it. They get bonus points for using an open source kernel in their OS. They get bonus points for creating rendezvous and documenting it nicely so others can use it. They get bonus points for expose, which is a truly useful innovation. The list goes on...
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?
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 mus
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.
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.
Where is the outrage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't we have outrage over all the non-innovative cloners not taking innovative risks to make life better for end users? Why can't we have articles like "dell refuses to innovate" or "Gateway poo-poos idea that would make things easier for end users because it was deemed too risky"? Why can't we have these kinds of articles in addition to "Apple sues dell for copying their innovation" or "Apple threatens gateway for look-and-feel infringement"?
Why can't we be outraged over Creative Labs or Diamond Rio or anyone else not being the first to make an ergonomically excellent hard-disk based portable mp3 players with a superior UI? Why can there only be outrage over Apple preventing these people from copying the UI that they themselves weren't willing to make in the first place?
Why can't we have outrage over Open Source/Free Software projects caring little about things like interface design or not coming up with innovative UI's? Why can't we have articles like "linux distribution spends $700,000,000 on dot-com buyouts and $50 on usability research" or "$DESKTOP_PROJECT coordinator tells HCI person with legitimate UI complaint 'quit whining about what you get for free' while telling industry pundit 'quit spreading M$ FUD About Linux Being Hard To Use'"? Why can we only feel outrage over articles like "Apple threatens $DESKTOP_PROJECT over copying Expose" or "Apple Sues Linux Distribution For Copying Aqua Theme?"
We shouldn't be pissed about Apple trying to horde and brutally protect it's innovations, we should be pissed about them being the only ones creating innovations worth hording and brutally protecting.
Re:Where is the outrage? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where is the outrage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, software isn't innovative because developers are scared to death to implement any feature that could be patented?
The patent system is broken for software. Every time you pay to get a designer in for a new, innovative interface, not only do you risk producing something that puts off users because of its novelty, you also risk treading on the toes of Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, and now Apple (the list goes on). Every one of these companies is prepared to nuke small developers into oblivion if it will help their bottom line.
Software patents are inevitably overbroad, overly durable and unnecessary legal instruments. This is obvious. Developers are so afraid of submarine patents that it is understandable to avoid creating anything that is even remotely similar to a possibly-patented product. Apple and others are crushing innovation with their patent bullshit, and you post here claiming they're a force for good in software? Delicious.
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.
Inconsistency in Interfaces. (Score:4, Interesting)
Give 'em a break (Score:4, Funny)
form factor patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:form factor patent (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be an interesting comment if Apple were trying to patent their scroll wheel. However, this patent application has nothing to do with that. Go look at the claims--they are fairly clearly written and not hard to read.
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:Apple's patent == OneClick (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, sorry, totally different thing.
The problem most people here have with OneClick is that it is an incredibly obvious and simple idea that doesn't appear to have required any real work on the part of anyone at Amazon.
What Apple is trying to do with this design patent is protect the work of those that conceived of the iPod's unique UI. To suggest that imagining the thing in the first place isn't "work" s
Sony Ericsson, Nokia et al won't be amused... (Score:3, Insightful)
My current gritty (and dog old) cell is a Siemens M30... it's a complete prior art: hierarchical, up/down/click to enter subsection thing... the only "design" attribute I give to the iPod is having a wheel adding a sexy circular motion to a very rigid UI. It's a kind of Zen thing I really like.
So, although typing on a TiBook I must laugh at Apple's claims.
Ciao
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].
Maybe it's just a defense set up for Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
The wankers over in Redmond are about to release thier self-proclaimed "iPod killer" brick and since it's been proven time and time again that they aren't interested in innovating (just copying and/or smothering). So maybe it's a protective measure against Billy & Co. Apple has been Redmond's R&D lab for many years. Don't beleive me? Go here and read the part about "New graphics with the Desktop Composition Engine" [winsupersite.com]. It still goes on to this day.
I'd be a little worried if I were Apple. I mean, look at Microsoft's track record - they missed the boat on the GUI, office productivity apps, the internet and now the search engine. They missed the mark early on only to copy and then dominate those respective areas (don't you dare take Google away you bastards!). In typical fashion, Microsoft slowly looks at the digital music phenomena and says to itself "hmmm...there's something bright over here...let's exterminate it".
Apple may be setting themselves up to take MS to court if they end up having to. At least the EU has proven that they aren't blinded and seduced by corporate money like the current U.S. administration. Admittedly, I have no idea if a U.S. patent makes a rats ass bit of difference over in the EU.
Everybody calm down (Score:4, Insightful)
So at this point Creative, Archos, and anyone else who thinks they invented the "invention" or publicly used/sold this "invention" prior to October 28, 2001 will be sending into the USPTO documentary evidence of that fact. That's what the publication of the application is for.
Just as bad as a software patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Any type of menu, XP Start Menu, Mozilla file menu etc.
They are also trying to patent the very playlists themselves IMHO Mp3's were the first format out that enabled playlists created from the tags in the songs.
I had expected to see a patent on the physical interface itself as I thought it was very unique and worthy of a patent. However the process of the playlists are hardly new and worthy of a patent at all.
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.
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).
A tricky situation indeed: two sides (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Apple will create things and Microsoft copies them enough to fool casual consumers means that most people have more frustrating experiences with computers than they need to. As a result, Apple makes less money for making genuinely good products. If Dell and Microsoft can knock off anything Apple makes to the point that consumers don't see any reason to buy from Apple, Apple can't make money and the good ideas dry up. The industry as a whole takes the hit.
On the other hand, the concepts in the iPod (which actually incorporate some ideas from NeXT) will eventually become commonplace, so it would be silly to have them protected forever. Some ideas in the iPod are logical conclusions, but some are creative and quite unique.
This takes a very gentle touch.
- Scott
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:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
errr.. have you read the patent application.
Here is the summary:
That sounds an awful lot like a menu system to me.
I don't have an IPod. Could someone with some experience of them fill me in - is there anything especially clever and non-obvious about the design of the menu system that warrants patent protection?
Dan.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
It's times like this that I wish the flash tag was still around...
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:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, thats right (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Haha (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:buh..? (Score:5, Funny)
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: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).
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.