Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 14, 2005, 12:22:26 pm
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article305638.ece
Looks like M$ beat them to the punch.
-
I hate ****ing M$:mad:
But in a way it's kinda funny :)
-
Yay for the broken patent system.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/
According to AppleInsider, a patent filed in 2002 by a Microsoft researcher has prompted the US Patent and Trademark Office to reject an Apple application to patent its iPod user interface.
But leave the black helicopters grounded for a moment: the conspiracy theories may not be flightworthy.
The AppleInsider story says the Apple application "to patent the menu-based software interface of its popular iPod digital music player has ultimately proved unsuccessful."
However that isn't the case. The story is coy about the patents it discusses, doesn't mention the Microsoft connection and upon further research, it's clear that several key aspects of the iPod are adequately covered by separate Apple IP applications. Both patents discussed have weathered multiple rejections by the USPTO.
The story reports that last month an iPod-related patent application for "rotational user inputs" by Apple was rejected, with the examiner citing an earlier 2002 application filed by John Platt. A Microsoft Research scientist who used to work for touch pad vendor Synaptics, Platt filed a claim for "playlist generation based on seed items" on May 30 2002, some seven months after the iPod was unveiled.
Comparing the two applications, it's hard to see how they overlap. AppleInsider claims "the process by which the iPod's software displays its own menu-based interface is very similar to the process Platt's filing goes on to describe." Such a similarity eluded us, although you can judge for yourselves - the links are at the end of this report.
Apple's application, assigned to iTunes engineer Jeffrey Robbins, Apple CEO Steve Jobs and VP of marketing Phil Schiller, was made on September 26 2002, and describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface. "Although the type of computing device can vary, the improved approaches are particularly well-suited for use with a portable media player," according to the filing.
AppleInsider reports that the rotational patent has been rejected by the USPTO. However, this isn't as final as the statement suggests. "Non-Final Rejections" (NFR) of this kind aren't unusual. Patents are frequently bounced back to the inventor, and many successful patents are accepted only after several NFRs. For example, an Amazon.com e-commerce patent we wrote about recently succeeded at the fifth attempt in four years.
Apple's rotation application, we discover, received its first NFR on September 29, 2004 and was bounced again on June 13 this year.
But Platt's playlist application also has a rejection history. It received an NFR on 17 November 2002, and a more serious Final Rejection on 14 June 2004. After further documentation was received, and extension granted, the application received another NFR on 11 December last year.
Apple has filed a number of applications to protect the iPod and iTunes user interfaces, including 60/359,551 ("Touch Pad for Handheld Device") and 60/387,692 ("Method and Apparatus for Use of Rotational User Inputs").
Apple is facing two infringement suits claiming the iPod violates existing IP.
-
Dang...Micro$oft is stealing from Apple again. I thought they would just take Windows and leave.:doubt:
-
Man, this is fecal.
-
Originally posted by Solatar
Dang...Micro$oft is stealing from Apple again. I thought they would just take Windows and leave.:doubt:
I find it incredibly funny that everyone is instantly blaming the 3vil 3mpire.
Besides I find this infinitely superior to the overrated iPod Mini.
(http://www.iriverhk.com/images/product/H10Grey/gray.jpg)
-
That's 'cause Microsoft's head wankers have been known to speak out on their insatiable love for software patents. That's one of the reasons widespread acceptance of C# in the open source community may never occur, the mono (http://www.go-mono.com) project could get ****ed over royally by Microsoft patents. Too bad eh, C# wasn't even a totally bad idea either.
Apart from that, it appears the patent attributed to Microsoft is a pure software patent, which software developers tend to abhor (for good reason). The ipod patent appears to be a patent on a physical invention using software. So naturally the Microsoft patent will get more hate here.
-
I still think Apple is marketing the iPod to be better than it really is. It has a nice design and all, but it's pretty bloody annoying that it doesn't include nice features like a built-in FM tuner (with recording) and voice recording.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
I find it incredibly funny that everyone is instantly blaming the 3vil 3mpire.
Besides I find this infinitely superior to the overrated iPod Mini.
(http://www.iriverhk.com/images/product/H10Grey/gray.jpg)
iPod mini = crap. iPod shuffle is even worse...
My 15gig normal iPod has served me well though. I ended up breaking it, and I mailed it in on a Weds and a replacement was at my door on Saturday, so support was great. I still wouldn't say it's better than the other mp3 players on the market. It's just what I happened to get for my birthday.
-
Woot for Microsoft. I hate Apple. Call me brainwashed, but I despise it.
-
I don't like either of them to be honest.
-
I think they both have their strong and weak points.
-
i said it once and il say it again
:mad: BURN DOWN THE PATENT OFFICE! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
I find it incredibly funny that everyone is instantly blaming the 3vil 3mpire.
Well, you are talking about a company that tried to patent the ISNOT operator......
-
Honestly, uptight use of Patents are tearing society apart, if only we could embrace sharing and let go of this capatialistic view on technology, it would make the world a much better place and oh my God i've become a communist *puts on a red shirt*...well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...*marches off to destroy Capitalism*
-
I just wish Xerox would just sue MS and get it over and done with. Just file a patent on the WIMP style of GUI and then sue MS into oblivion.
They can point to this case as an example of MS attempting to sue on a patent only secured after the product was made. The fact that they're trying to patent something 20 years old shouldn't matter :D