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.
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.
I DO understand that, which is why a lot of what I'm seeing going on with patents is frustrating. A lot of them, like one-click shopping, don't look like much more than mere ideas to me.
As far as I'm concerned, taking an idea and turning into a sentence that starts with "A process to...", and then maybe slapping on a few crude, high-level ball-and-stick diagrams should hardly elevate a simple idea to something patentable, especially when you've never made a working system.
I sort of vaguely recall someone went after Apple for iTunes not too long ago because they had an old patent they'd been granted for THE IDEA *cough!*, I mean, er, the process, of "selling and distributing digital audio content over a computer network", or some such extremely broad phrasing, wanting of much in the way of supporting specifics or ingenuity. I don't know if the system had even been implemented in prototype, it certainly had never been commercialized.
I DO understand that, which is why a lot of what I'm seeing going on with patents is frustrating. A lot of them, like one-click shopping, don't look like much more than mere ideas to me.
As far as I'm concerned, taking an idea and turning into a sentence that starts with "A process to...", and then maybe slapping on a few crude, high-level ball-and-stick diagrams should hardly elevate a simple idea to something patentable, especially when you've never made a working system.
I sort of vaguely recall someone went after Apple for iTunes not too long ago because they had an old patent they'd been granted for THE IDEA *cough!*, I mean, er, the process, of "selling and distributing digital audio content over a computer network", or some such extremely broad phrasing, wanting of much in the way of supporting specifics or ingenuity. I don't know if the system had even been implemented in prototype, it certainly had never been commercialized.
But you're missing it here. It's not the idea. It was the work that turned the idea into a functioning product. Just because it doesn't look like that to you doesn't mean that it isn't. The Patent Office stopped reguiring a model ages ago because it became too expensive and complex to build one for the purpose of demonstration. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter and will fall by the wayside, or be challenged. But if it does...
My wife is an attorney for CitiGroup, and is responsible for Copyrights, Trademarks, and patents, among other things. She tells me about their new financial "products" all the time. These are fleshed out ideas that have been made workable through a great deal of sweat. You want to demean them because you are not involved with items like this and so don't understand what goes into making them work. I know that you say you do.
Many of the best patents have been first written on a scrap of paper. That doesn't mean that they are any less valuable.
Posted online: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 0235 hours IST
In a surprise twist to portable music wars, the US patent office has denied Apple?s application to patent the iPod?s method of using hierarchical navigation menus. The basis: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher?s patent application, filed before Apple sought its own patent.
??I?m sure there?s a certain amount of glee among Microsoft executives,?? said analyst Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research. Apple?s Natalie Kerris said in a statement that Apple ??invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application.?? Microsoft doesn?t intend to try to block Apple from the market, said David Kaefer, business development director for Microsoft.??Frankly, we?re both mutually dependent on the good ideas of another,?? Kaefer said. ?NYT
I forget the name of the first spreadsheet program, but at that time software patents were basically non-existant. If the man who developed it had patented it, Microsoft Excel would have just come out recently.
Here is John Platt's Home Page. . . at Microsoft.com!
Edit:
He originally worked at Synaptics, the manufacturer of Apple's Click Wheel. You have to wonder if he patented the idea from knowledge he gained while at Synaptics, or from a previous co-worker depending when he left Synaptics. Something don't smell right!
Seems fishy to me as well.
Didn't Apple lose the GUI fight to Microsoft in court? Now, they come out with this interface first (which also looks alot like the next type interface posted after your post) and they lose again.
Maybe somebody is exchanging favors with some government officals...
Comments
Originally posted by UnnDunn
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.
It was Pixo, I believe.
GTSC
Originally posted by melgross
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.
I DO understand that, which is why a lot of what I'm seeing going on with patents is frustrating. A lot of them, like one-click shopping, don't look like much more than mere ideas to me.
As far as I'm concerned, taking an idea and turning into a sentence that starts with "A process to...", and then maybe slapping on a few crude, high-level ball-and-stick diagrams should hardly elevate a simple idea to something patentable, especially when you've never made a working system.
I sort of vaguely recall someone went after Apple for iTunes not too long ago because they had an old patent they'd been granted for THE IDEA *cough!*, I mean, er, the process, of "selling and distributing digital audio content over a computer network", or some such extremely broad phrasing, wanting of much in the way of supporting specifics or ingenuity. I don't know if the system had even been implemented in prototype, it certainly had never been commercialized.
Originally posted by shetline
I DO understand that, which is why a lot of what I'm seeing going on with patents is frustrating. A lot of them, like one-click shopping, don't look like much more than mere ideas to me.
As far as I'm concerned, taking an idea and turning into a sentence that starts with "A process to...", and then maybe slapping on a few crude, high-level ball-and-stick diagrams should hardly elevate a simple idea to something patentable, especially when you've never made a working system.
I sort of vaguely recall someone went after Apple for iTunes not too long ago because they had an old patent they'd been granted for THE IDEA *cough!*, I mean, er, the process, of "selling and distributing digital audio content over a computer network", or some such extremely broad phrasing, wanting of much in the way of supporting specifics or ingenuity. I don't know if the system had even been implemented in prototype, it certainly had never been commercialized.
But you're missing it here. It's not the idea. It was the work that turned the idea into a functioning product. Just because it doesn't look like that to you doesn't mean that it isn't. The Patent Office stopped reguiring a model ages ago because it became too expensive and complex to build one for the purpose of demonstration. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter and will fall by the wayside, or be challenged. But if it does...
My wife is an attorney for CitiGroup, and is responsible for Copyrights, Trademarks, and patents, among other things. She tells me about their new financial "products" all the time. These are fleshed out ideas that have been made workable through a great deal of sweat. You want to demean them because you are not involved with items like this and so don't understand what goes into making them work. I know that you say you do.
Many of the best patents have been first written on a scrap of paper. That doesn't mean that they are any less valuable.
From:
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_st...ntent_id=76264
Posted online: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 0235 hours IST
In a surprise twist to portable music wars, the US patent office has denied Apple?s application to patent the iPod?s method of using hierarchical navigation menus. The basis: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher?s patent application, filed before Apple sought its own patent.
??I?m sure there?s a certain amount of glee among Microsoft executives,?? said analyst Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research. Apple?s Natalie Kerris said in a statement that Apple ??invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application.?? Microsoft doesn?t intend to try to block Apple from the market, said David Kaefer, business development director for Microsoft.??Frankly, we?re both mutually dependent on the good ideas of another,?? Kaefer said. ?NYT
Software patents are stupid.
Originally posted by fahlman
Here is John Platt's Home Page. . . at Microsoft.com!
Edit:
He originally worked at Synaptics, the manufacturer of Apple's Click Wheel. You have to wonder if he patented the idea from knowledge he gained while at Synaptics, or from a previous co-worker depending when he left Synaptics. Something don't smell right!
Seems fishy to me as well.
Didn't Apple lose the GUI fight to Microsoft in court? Now, they come out with this interface first (which also looks alot like the next type interface posted after your post) and they lose again.
Maybe somebody is exchanging favors with some government officals...
- Mark
- apple and microsoft cross-license each others patents.
this can be verified by calling apple investor relations,
who will recite material from previous 10Q and 10K reports.
- u.s. is a first-to-invent, rather than first-to-file system,
meaning that in an interference proceeding, the seniority
of invention date trumps filing date. witness the
ibm / unisys LZW claims, whereby ibm was first-to-invent
the "W" modification to the LZ algorithm.