Apple files first lawsuit in defense of "Made for iPod" licensing - Page 2

No, its not JUST a USB connection.

Pin\tSignal\tDescription
1\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
2\tGND\tAudio & Video ground (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
3\tRight\tLine Out - R (+) (Audio output, right channel)
4\tLeft\tLine Out - L(+) (Audio output, left channel)
5\tRight In\tLine In - R (+)
6\tLeft In\tLine In - L (+)
8\tVideo Out\tComposite video output (only when slideshow active on iPod Photo)
9\tS-Video Chrominance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
10\tS-Video Luminance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
11\tGND\tSerial GND
12\tTx\tipod sending line, Serial TxD
13\tRx\tipod receiving line, Serial RxD
15\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with pin 16 on iPod motherboard
16\tGND\tUSB GND (-), internaly connected with pin 15 on iPod motherboard
18\t3.3V\t3.3V Power (+)
(Stepped up to provide +5 VDC to USB on iPod Camera Connector. If iPod is put to sleep while Camera Connector is present, +5 VDC at this pin slowly drains back to 0 VDC.)
19,20\t+12V\tFirewire Power 12 VDC (+)
21\tAccessory Indicator/Serial enable\t Different resistances indicate accessory type:
1kOhm - iPod docking station, beeps when connected
10kOhm - Takes some iPods into photo import mode
500kOhm - related to serial communication / used to enable serial communications Used in Dension Ice Link Plus car interface
1MOhm - Belkin auto adaptor, iPod shuts down automatically when power disconnected Connecting pin 21 to ground with a 1MOhm resistor does stop the ipod when power (i.e. Firewire-12V) is cut. Looks to be that when this pin is grounded it closes a switch so that on loss of power the Ipod shuts off. Dock has the same Resister.
22\tTPA (-)\tFireWire Data TPA (-)
23\t5 VDC (+)\tUSB Power 5 VDC (+)
24\tTPA (+)\tFireWire Data TPA (+)
25\tData (-)\tUSB Data (-)
26\tTPB (-)\tFireWire Data TPB (-)
27\tData (+)\tUSB Data (+)
Pins 25 and 27 may be used in different manner. To force the iPod 5G to charge in any case, when 'USB Power 5 VDC' (pin 23) is fed, 25 must be connected to 5V through a 10kOhm resistor, and 27 must be connected to the Ground (for example: pin 1) with a 10kOhm resistor.
28\tTPB (+)\tFireWire Data TPB (+)
29,30\tGND\tFireWire Ground (-)

Back side of dock connector;

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Pins 1,2 connected on motherboard.
Pins 15,16 connected on motherboard.
Pins 19,20 connected on motherboard.
Pins 29,30 connected on motherboard.

If you disassemble the original apple-ipod-dock-connector-cable and look at the connector itself, on the back side, where it is soldered, you can see the number 1 and 30 (e.g. pin 1 and 30). In this description NUMBERING is INVERSED: pin 1 is pin 30 and pin 30 is pin 2, so, don't look at numbers on connector.

The remote control, iTalk and other serial devices use Apple Accessory Protocol for communication with iPOD. This protocol was introduced with the 3rd generation iPods, and is also compatible with the 4th generation iPods and mini iPods. The connections uses a standard 8N1 (one startbit 8 data bits 1 Stopbit) serial protocol, 19200 baud (higher rates up to 57600 also possible, but speed faster than 38400 may cause problems with large amounts of data), delay of 12 microseconds inserted between end of the stopbit and the beginning of the next startbit (also working without this delay).
Electrical: high +3,3V low 0V
default line state: high. Codes used for communication with peripherals are here

This device may be connected to the firewire computer port by straight cable (TPB+/-, TPA +/- shoulde be twisted pairs in cable)

Why bother with this at all? When Apple makes a new iPod half the accessories no longer work anyway. Seems like most things with Apple only last a year or so before they change something and what you have is "obsolete" which seems to be their favorite phrase.

then it won't work with any ipod....apple is protecting its product and the consumer quality experience. can't allow erosion

Yes.


And yet, it happens all the time, defensibly so.

All of the examples I can think of have legitimate reasons. At least we have had the exact same 30-pin connector since the very first 5GB HDD-based iPod was released, and I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. I still use my FW-t0-30-pin connector and power supply for a very fast charging of my iPhone.

GIve an example where a company's IP has been legally copied but since they had other IP that were sold with it that it made it okay? You make it sound like I can legally stela hte formula for Coke-a-Cola but so long as I don't use their can I'm in the clear.

Just note that the 30-pin connector is a product in and of itself. They invented it, they patented it, they control the use of it and they are the ones who have to protect their brand.

What are those reasons?

1) Reducing controller size and cost by removing FW support once USB 2.0 became commonplace. I bit of a pain if you prefer FW, but you can still charge it.

2) Disallowing colder iPods from being able to rent movies because the video out was still allowed unprotected through the 3.5" headphone jack.

Those are what I was thinking of, but they aren't accessories. if people want to berate Apple because they have to put their iPhone into airplane mode to use the FM transmitter that worked with their iPod or wonder why an accessory that worked with one iPod no longer works with the OS X based iPod Touch I guess I'll let them do their little rant.

Clearly my examples are crap. Does anyone else have any?

edit: The list below from Engadget looks more like trying to accomodate as many accessories within reason not destroy the market:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/01/i...s-what-doesnt/

This shows you know nothing about business, or technology.

No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.

Perhaps if you could name these products were...

• Copyright
• Patents
• Trademarks
• Industrial design rights
• Utility models
• Geographical indication
• Trade secrets
• Related rights
• Trade names
• Domain names
• Sui generis rights
• Database rights
• Mask work
• Plant breeders' rights
• Supplementary protection certificate, and
• Indigenous intellectual property

...is an expensive but ultimately fruitless endeavor to protect one's property.

No. What it means is that I'm aware of products that ATTEMPT to LOOK like other, more popular products. If all, or part, of any product is patented, it can't be duplicated, as long as that patent is still in effect.

What you don't seem to know, is that many companies also license others to use their patents, under certain conditions, as Apple does, with its partners. They get paid for that.

So what about the thousands of iPod accessory makers on eBay? Surely all of those guys aren't licensed through Apple for their products.

Over the past few years, I've owned a 5G iPod, 5.5G iPod, and I now have a 32GB iPod touch. I've NEVER purchased accessories direct from Apple or through any Apple-approved manufacturers like Belkin.

I've always gone straight to eBay to get cheap ass docking stations, speaker docks, wall chargers, sync cables, and car chargers. Typically, I can get a wall charger and a car charger together for about $6 or $7 shipped even after the crazy high shipping charges. Surely at that price, these companies (Accstation, everydaysource, etc.) aren't paying any royalties.

And I've never had a problem with this "non-approved" accessories over the years.

How MS tried to kill the "standard" by extending it marginally, so that it crippled the main premise of the standard - of being platform agnostic? How easy would it be for the market to be flooded with iPod Accessories, that worked in suboptimal ways - and created massive confusion in the market place?

Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.

Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.

How MS tried to kill the "standard" by extending it marginally, so that it crippled the main premise of the standard - of being platform agnostic? How easy would it be for the market to be flooded with iPod Accessories, that worked in suboptimal ways - and created massive confusion in the market place?

Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.

Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.

This sort of argument has been repeated several times, but I really don't buy it at all. That's basically like suggesting that a person that buys a $1 cable for a $100 DVD player is automatically going to blame the DVD player maker if the cable doesn't work. I know you'll find some wacko that would think that, but for the most part, I don't think that would be the general case.

Null.

No one thinks that. But it could damage their iPod business if every player manufacturer began to make players compatible with the vast number of accessories out there for the iPod, that will now work ONLY with the iPod. Part of the success of the iPod is due to that large number of accessories that no other player has, from the really cheap ones, to the multiple thousand dollar ones.

Make every player compatible, and the wall of accessories that now says "iPod", will instead say, "player".

Null.

What would it benefit an accessory maker to come up with a radically new docking system? The whole point of an accessory is to compliment. This product has iPod all over it, so obviously they're trying to use the popularity of the iPod to sell their product. And I'm not sure how many people would say "wow, these speakers are awesome! I think I'll go buy an iPod so I can use them!" There are plenty of other players out there with their own accessories. People generally buy an iPod because that's what they want.

Although Apple products are a lot easier to find now, Apple's biggest draw, I think, comes from word of mouth. This was especially true when the iPod came out and the patent was granted. Apple has always had early adopters who will buy the product either because they love Apple or because it's the next big thing. Their sales continue to increase because people tell their friends. The average person doesn't distinguish between Apple and the company who makes the accessory. And poor accessories result in more than just not being able to play the iPod through the speakers. Like someone else said, it can completely fry the iPod. And so even if people don't blame Apple, if the product is under warranty Apple has to pay for repairs, provided the iPod is still under warranty. And most people who would buy accessories for it would do so within the first two years.

While I am sure that Apple is not really worried about this small company, Apple MUST inforce its trademarks and patents or they lose them.

That is why the sellers of styrofoam cups will monitor local newspapers and you will see retractions when they are caught saying "the party enjoyed drinks in styrofoam cups" or the such and have to say "expanded polystyrene cups". The same applies to what they print on the box. Use my name and if I do not protect it, I lose it.

Them is the rules of the game. Period.

en

No DVD players, or really ANY other entertainment components ever, have been a carefully balanced vertical business architecture with every piece controlled by the hardware designer like the iPod. Their use of a unique connector has the tendency of being perceived as Apple's technology and as such accessories that screw up operation have the syllogistic result of being perceived as carelessness on Apple's part.

AND

There's an additional risk of the consumer coming to a false 'realization' that non-Apple accessories cannot work as well as first-party solutions - allowing a cheapo charger to damage third-party brandnames.

BUT ALSO

They cannot stop defending their intellectual property. That's not good for them, even without those other speculative conclusions above.

If it weren't for Apple's proprietary iPod/itunes/docking system, the consumer wouldn't be enjoying $0.99 songs. They would still be enjoying $3.00 sings.

Apple's proprietary system MADE the entire download business. a business that even those companies not seen as doing well with their players, are still selling many more of them than they were BEFORE Apple's proprietary components came about.

You must be VERY young not to know this.

Null.

iPod/iTunes I can understand WRT your argument. I don't get what the docking system has to do with the price of audio tracks.

Patents are supposed to exist for non-obvious inventions, be limited in time and scope, and ultimately benefit the public.

Is there something particularly non-obvious about the iPod dock connector? Something that has a practical benefit, and isn't purely an exercise in obfuscation and preventing compatibility?

I do agree that the product in question here goes way too close to Apple's trademarked logos, and obviously on purpose. Customers have a right to know when they are dealing with an official Apple approved supplier and when they are not. So maybe it'd be fair that they were forced to change the packaging and hand over to Apple a part of the profits gained so far. If their product was not up to "Made for iPod" standards (which could have caused damage to Apple's reputation) that would be further cause for compensation. But that's all.

I'm not saying Apple shouldn't play the system the best it can. It's obligated to. I'm saying the system is fubar.

In a way, we're going through a similar agrument in another thread here that involves Apple's possible music service over 3G.

If Apple loses it's doninance, who do you think will resist the labels demand for much higher fees?

Microsoft? They were the ones willing to give $5 a player to the labels. Anyone else?

I don't think so.

While this is only a part of the sweater, it only needs one thread to unravel the entire thing. It happens slowly at first.

This is what happened to IBM's PC empire. A few small slips, and it was all gone.

Please read my post to Slewis.

Apple is not clearly in the right until a court says so. It is questionably that a court will do this. Apple may own the patents to the Dock, but it doesn't own the Patents to the technology connecting to the Dock. Moreover, the company in question isn't using Apple's "Made for iPod" trademark. It is merely advertising the product works with iPods.

I still don't see the relevance. It reads more like a slippery slope fallacy than anything else.

That's your term. there is nothing false about the "slippery slope". It's a common failing.

You've made a good point there.

Until we know if Apple was able to patent the mate to the dock, we won't know the conclusion to this argument.

Null.

There are valid reasons why that sort of argument is discouraged, as outlined in many of the collections of logical fallacies.

Besides, Slewis made a better argument on the topic.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

A careful inspection does reveal one period in the middle, which is a beauty flaw, but it's still one serious wall of text.

No. Appropriating the direct functionality of certain aspects of the competition is done all of the time, always has been. I fully understand that you don't LIKE it, but you need to admit that is how it works, even if you still think that it shouldn't.


Some do, MOST don't.

It doesn't preclude better competition. If someone actually makes a better player, and that doesn't mean more features, then possibly, people will buy it.

If someone comes out with a better iTunes then iTunes, then possibly people will buy from it.

Nothing lasts forever, including diamonds.

But it's also a fashion decision, so to speak. If your friends have one, you're likely to get one too.

That's happening to Macs now as well. As more people know more people with Macs, the decision to buy a Mac gets easier.

Apple has to stay on its toes. It competes against itself, so we see new, and better, players.


That's basically the idea. I don't agree about the standardizing the dock though.

If other manufacturers want to come up with some standard, let them do so. I know that they are trying. They formed some organization to do this, but I don't know how far its gotten. It's been a good two years, I think. That shows why it's not always better for these "standards". A single company can usually come up with something better in less time. When you have to please numerous constituencies, the best design is never adopted.

Even if Apple were to offer this, I'd bet other companies would want to "adapt" and "improve" it. I've seen it happen too often.

He did make a good argument, but this one is still valid. I could point out a number of times its happened.

This is why companies sue.

Actually though, it's "most companies do, some don't."

But those were in better days. now we have rogue states.

We now have the problem of a state like Chine, shielding these manufacturers. Often they only produce a small number of items, and go out of "business", only to pop up again. That's why it's difficult to sue them. Even top governmental involvement has only gotten promises from the Chinese government, and but for a few well publicised cases, no action. Many of these companies are even owned by the chidren of the top officials.

That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't take action where it can.

Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.

Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.

To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.

In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.

With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.