Apple fails to patent iPod interface

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nagromme

    OS X Column view is VERY much like the iPod, and is clearly the inspiration for the iPod UI. OS X even progresses from pane to pane one at a time, if you simply reduce the window to only fit one.



    That in turn was of course based on NeXT.



    And NeXT wasn't first to have a file viewer in the form either:



    Smalltalk - the birthplace of several modern GUI concepts in the mid to late 70s, but only brought to market in a stripped-down form:





    See anything iPod-like about that file browser window?



    From:

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/




    That's all very true when comparing looks, to a certain extent. But its function is very different. a list view is common and is a simple menu. That's not the point. It's the way it's coded, the way the intelligence behind it works.



    If this was as similar as some seem to think, then both Platt and Apple wouldn't have been trying to patent it. They both knew about all of these earlier works. Especially Jobs.



    Remember that beauty is skin deep. It's whats underneath that counts. The look they could copyright, if it were possible.
  • Reply 22 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    All Apple has to do is make minor variations to their application and resubmit. They can also cite prior art.



    On top of this, they can easily license existing patents that may overlap.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SpamSandwich

    All Apple has to do is make minor variations to their application and resubmit. They can also cite prior art.



    On top of this, they can easily license existing patents that may overlap.




    The Patent Office doesn't allow continual re-applications. The variations must be meaningful - by their definition.



    Citing prior art will disallow a patent issuance. Why to you suggest that? Are you trying to negate BOTH patent claims?



    You can't recieve a patent that overlaps anothers' unless the patents are in different areas, or the invention is an advance over the one it overlaps, and the overlapping parts are not considered essential to the process. So licensing the other patent might be a good idea, but you still won't get yours.
  • Reply 24 of 47
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Thanks, Zoboo!



    (Sorry, I just had to.)
  • Reply 25 of 47
    gee4orcegee4orce Posts: 165member
    I can't believe that an engineer working at or for a company was allowed (by that company) to patent technology he apparently helped develop whilst employed there. If that's the case, I've got a ton of things I"m going to patent !
  • Reply 26 of 47
    Wait - the iPod was released October 23, 2001. The 3rd party patent in question was applied for May 2002.



    How is the iPod not prior art?
  • Reply 27 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gee4orce

    I can't believe that an engineer working at or for a company was allowed (by that company) to patent technology he apparently helped develop whilst employed there. If that's the case, I've got a ton of things I"m going to patent !



    By law, the inventor of the patent is the individual(s) who developed the patent. That is the name on the patent. That is who owns the patent. By custom, here in the USA the inventor assigns the patent over to the company, and in return receives royalties, or license fees from it.



    You joke about your prowess, but if you really do have inventions, by all means, go and patent them.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    aquamacaquamac Posts: 585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

    Maybe it is time to use some of the cash on hand. Platt becomes rich and Apple has the patent. Done.



    Or hire him to work on the iPod project.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kenaustus

    Look for a LOT of MP3 players looking and acting just like the iPod in the near future. The best protection Apple has right now is the half a billion dollars that consumers have invested in the iTunes Music Store.



    This is also a lesson for Apple to submit their patent application the day before a product is released.






    Awesome! Will adding this new GUI also stop my dell jukebox from crashing -- its really getting quite annoying.
  • Reply 30 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mike518

    Awesome! Will adding this new GUI also stop my dell jukebox from crashing -- its really getting quite annoying.



    Is this a real question, or is it satirical?
  • Reply 31 of 47
    The thing is, Apple didn't even make the iPod UI. They bought the technology from a different company (whose name escapes me) and they customized it for the iPod.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Apple STILL uses and has used for a long time that UI in its OS. In the finder of OS 9 - X (at least) for organizing files from folders to subfolders, etc.
  • Reply 33 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    You joke about your prowess, but if you really do have inventions, by all means, go and patent them.



    The problem is I can't figure out to what level of the stupidly obvious I should stoop.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    The problem is I can't figure out to what level of the stupidly obvious I should stoop.



    If it's stupidly obvious, then you won't get a patent.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    If it's stupidly obvious, then you won't get a patent.



    I've seen plenty of stupid and worthless patents. It's not the problem of getting patents so much as it is the problem of applying the patents and getting money for them.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    If it's stupidly obvious, then you won't get a patent.



    Amazon's one-click shopping patent?

    Microsoft's patent on double-clicking (on a PDA, as if somehow that restriction makes it original)?
  • Reply 37 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by icfireball

    I've seen plenty of stupid and worthless patents. It's not the problem of getting patents so much as it is the problem of applying the patents and getting money for them.



    Have you gone through the process, because I have. It's not that simple.



    Getting money from patents can be difficult if you are an independent inventor. Industry feels uncomfortable dealing with outsiders. You often have to start up your own company.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Amazon's one-click shopping patent?

    Microsoft's patent on double-clicking (on a PDA, as if somehow that restriction makes it original)?




    I don't agree that all patents should be issued. But if no one else has thought of it before, and therefore it can be considered as being "non obvious to the average practicioner in the field", then often it will be granted.



    E=MC^ is pretty obvious now, but it wasn't to Einstein when he came up with it.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    E=MC^ is pretty obvious now, but it wasn't to Einstein when he came up with it.



    Even now, it's a whole lot less obvious than one-click shopping. While most people still don't really grasp the full meaning of that equation, even if they can quote it, you can bet that plenty of utterly clueless computer newbies imagine one-click shopping before it was even available, simply being afraid that one wrong click would take their money.



    Push a button and you've bought something. Yeah, whoduh ever thunk it!



    Besises, Einstein didn't try to file a patent on e = mc^2 either.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Even now, it's a whole lot less obvious than one-click shopping. While most people still don't really grasp the full meaning of that equation, even if they can quote it, you can bet that plenty of utterly clueless computer newbies imagine one-click shopping before it was even available, simply being afraid that one wrong click would take their money.



    Push a button and you've bought something. Yeah, whoduh ever thunk it!



    Besises, Einstein didn't try to file a patent on e = mc^2 either.




    I used the equation to make a point. It's not obvious to most of the public, but it is now to the average worker in the field, though it wasn't then, which is all that matters.



    Besides, I doubt very much if one click shopping was as obvious as you seem to think. If it was, others would have had it first. In addition, even if YOU claim to have had the idea first, it doesn't matter. To understand patents you must understand that ideas can't be patented. So, even if Einstein would have wanted to, he couldn't have patented it.



    It's the expression of an idea in the form of a tangible product or process that is patentable. you can't patent an equation. the patent resulted from hundreds of hours of work, experiments and tests. It wasn't a freebie.



    I'm not so sure about MS's patent as I haven't followed it so I'm not knowledgeable about what it entails.
Sign In or Register to comment.