seriously this patent crap needs to be fixed. the system is completely flawed.
Ditto. They should just be scrapped completely. The argument was won with software patents that they are basically a bad idea. They seem to just be another way for lawyers to make loads of money, whilst providing no actual benefit to the general public.
They are not required to protect a company's investment in a product (Apple have not managed to patent the iPod, but its doing alright for them), and serve to stifle innovation.
Apple do have a case as has been previously said the UI is based on column view in neXT OS. Also it's very difficult to patent the idea of scrolling down a list and building a system of hierarchies. Mobile phones use the same idea- Nokia have used a similar interface for years. Although obviously Zen have some sort of a case but whatever comes of this there is no doubt in my mind that this will set the precedent for software patents for years to come. Still it doesn't really seem realistic that the iPod- something of such cultural value- should be taken off the shelves- does it??
BENj
PS
Does anyone know if a Interim Injunction could also be filed in order to cease Apple from importing iPods during the case. I know this is the case with UK law but I'm not really familiar with US law? Anyone help me out?
I BELIEVE that the Creative Nomad predated the iPod, and had a vaguely similar UI. Calling it the "Zen Patent" might be just to get the name Zen in the press
Given the absurd way the NTP vs RIM patent tussle turned out, who knows what will happen.
However, I'm pretty sure Apple Legal would have been preparing for this from when the "Zen Patent" was (erroneously?) issued last year, as there must be a mountain of prior art.
Most mobile phones use a up/down scrolling menu, an item of which is clicked to go to the next deeper menu. That's been the case since the late 80s. The only difference is the horizontal side-to-side nature of the iPod's menu system.
But side-to-side hierarchical interfaces are nothing new. In fact, the diagrams of prospective Lisa interfaces dating from the late 1970s show a very similar arrangement.
The only difference is being on a smaller display.
They are not required to protect a company's investment in a product (Apple have not managed to patent the iPod, but its doing alright for them), and serve to stifle innovation.
This may come as a surprise, but the iPod is hardware. And they not only have a design patent on the iPod, but also the dock, etc.
Software patents are a necessity for the industry, and a huge economic benefit for the industry and the country as a whole. (I suspect our "trade gap" with China wouldn't look so lopsided if IP value was added in.) Software patents are one of the things that allows companies to justify vast expenditures in software research. I don't think it's coincidence that the countries with the best IP laws have the best economies.
However, patents are never supposed to be granted for anything that is "obvious to one practiced in the art". I think that bar needs to be set a little higher and there'd be a lot less griping. I have no qualms about innovative stuff being patented, but patenting the number of clicks for something is just nuts.
Maybe I could patent the process of turnning a great little app into bloatware and sue Apple for what iTunes has become, if I win, I will buy all of the senior members a shot
Does anyone know if a Interim Injunction could also be filed in order to cease Apple from importing iPods during the case. I know this is the case with UK law but I'm not really familiar with US law? Anyone help me out?
The ITC actually has excellent documentation on their site detailing the standard process for a 337 investigation. Interim injunctions are possible, but unlikely in the next 6 months or so (3 months for the ITC to determine whether to act on the complaint, and 3 months to any decision.)
Actually, Apple failed to patent the iPod interface because Microsoft got there first! (see here and here). I don't know where Creative think they are coming from with this.
while creative was shuffling patent paper work, Apple was shipping product; PRIOR ART.
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
Creative is looking for a golden parachute to get money for the company's execs and shareholders in an Apple buyout. Don't give them the pleasure. Spend a $Billion to make sure they all declare bankruptcy and die penniless.
The patent was filed 1/5/2001. The first iPod debuted 10/23/2001. While I'm not an alarmist, the patent is a close read for the iPod interface, and since the filing predates the product release by Apple, I'm concerned. According to this story , the interface referenced in the patent was used in Creative's NOMAD Jukebox, which debuted in September 2000. Apple's patent application for the iPod interface was not filed until October 28, 2002.
But I *love* the whole notion of Apple buying Creative to quell the patent issue... OMG, can you image the tirade Jobs would go on?
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
It's almost refreshing to see the voice of reason amongst a thread of knee-jerk reactions from zealots.
First, yes, patents are very important. Anyone who doesn't understand that, surely doesn't have the capacity to actually create something that's worth protecting.
Second, to your point, what's ridiculous is the type of thing that they allow you to patent. To that end, I agree, the bar needs to be raised significantly.
The main problem I see with software patents (actually two problems) is that they can be difficult for the examiners to understand in their relation to prior art. The Office of Patents and Trademarks is seriously underfunded. That's why these patents are granted. Often they depend upon third parties to provide them with evidence of prior art. If none surfaces, the patent will be granted.
But, that doesn't mean that the patent is invalid. Those here, who assume that this patent is groundless have no evidence that they are presenting that shows that. The browser is not an equivalent. Just because something, at first glance, seems similar,it doesn't mean that it is, where it counts.
I'm sure that something as obvious as the Next browser would have been asserted as evidence that both this patent, and the one that MS received, were invalid before both were granted, if it were true.
Certainly, if it were true, then Apple itself would not have found the need to patent its iPod interface. Don't forget that.
The fact that they did, shows that the Next browser has nothing to do with it.
To get back to the beginning, the second reason is that, unlike, hardware patents, software becomes obsolete in a shorter period of time, generally.
I feel that software patents should last for about five years. That would give the holder ample time to recoup the costs, and make proper income from it, without stifling development for more than a short time.
Patent office will ask the public to "peer review" inventions
The US Patent and Trademark Office has launched "Peer to Patent," a community patent peer review project. The USPTO is overloaded with patent filings, so it does little or no investigation into patnets before rubber-stamping them, expecting that the courts will sort out who invented what. This changes the patent system from something that promotes invention to something that rewards companies who aggressively sue inventors.
Peer to Patent aims to address this by encouraging the public to review patents, to determine whether they are valid based on the at-large expert knowledge about what has already been invented and what is a new, useful, nonobvious invention. IBM has agreed to have its patents vetted by the public as a guinea pig in the project.
Project founder Beth Novacek sez,
This Friday, May 12, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a briefing on the community patent peer review project.
The May 12 briefing will be hosted by John Doll, Commissioner for Patents, USPTO, and Jay Lucas, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
The purpose of the May 12, 2006 briefing is to provide greater in-depth analysis of the peer review pilot project as well as answer the question of what constitutes valid prior art.
The represents a kick-off of the peer review project and the effort to move from proposal to working prototype with a launch at the beginning of 2007.
Patent office will ask the public to "peer review" inventions
The US Patent and Trademark Office has launched "Peer to Patent," a community patent peer review project. The USPTO is overloaded with patent filings, so it does little or no investigation into patnets before rubber-stamping them, expecting that the courts will sort out who invented what. This changes the patent system from something that promotes invention to something that rewards companies who aggressively sue inventors.
Peer to Patent aims to address this by encouraging the public to review patents, to determine whether they are valid based on the at-large expert knowledge about what has already been invented and what is a new, useful, nonobvious invention. IBM has agreed to have its patents vetted by the public as a guinea pig in the project.
Project founder Beth Novacek sez,
This Friday, May 12, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a briefing on the community patent peer review project.
The May 12 briefing will be hosted by John Doll, Commissioner for Patents, USPTO, and Jay Lucas, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
The purpose of the May 12, 2006 briefing is to provide greater in-depth analysis of the peer review pilot project as well as answer the question of what constitutes valid prior art.
The represents a kick-off of the peer review project and the effort to move from proposal to working prototype with a launch at the beginning of 2007.
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
I'm with you, there needs to be some protection but anyone can have a good idea and sitting on it waiting for someone else to do the hard work & implement it (or failing to implement it successfuly yourself-ouch!) isn't to the benefit of all. Especially as the patent was filed when the iPod must have been in the later stages of design i.e. Apple hardly poached an existing design.
Hopefully this means Apple will realise they're a bit prone in their dependency on the US market and will get those TV shows (or other local TV shows) out to other iTMSs ASAP to help boost overseas iPod sales.
Hopefully this means Apple will realise they're a bit prone in their dependency on the US market and will get those TV shows (or other local TV shows) out to other iTMSs ASAP to help boost overseas iPod sales.
McDave [/B]
Do I read this as a hint as to where they should be going?
Actually, this isn't up to Apple. I'm sure they'd love to get them to you, but the licensing issues are just tremendous. That's why it took so long to get the iTunes store out and about for just music.
Comments
Originally posted by Elixir
seriously this patent crap needs to be fixed. the system is completely flawed.
Ditto. They should just be scrapped completely. The argument was won with software patents that they are basically a bad idea. They seem to just be another way for lawyers to make loads of money, whilst providing no actual benefit to the general public.
They are not required to protect a company's investment in a product (Apple have not managed to patent the iPod, but its doing alright for them), and serve to stifle innovation.
Originally posted by Odedh
doesn't really matter since Creative market Cap is 460m$, and Apple has 8b$ in cash, Apple can buy them and their moronic Patent
That's very funny!
BENj
PS
Does anyone know if a Interim Injunction could also be filed in order to cease Apple from importing iPods during the case. I know this is the case with UK law but I'm not really familiar with US law? Anyone help me out?
Originally posted by nagromme
I BELIEVE that the Creative Nomad predated the iPod, and had a vaguely similar UI. Calling it the "Zen Patent" might be just to get the name Zen in the press
Someone correct me if my memory has failed me.
hit the nail on the head,
However, I'm pretty sure Apple Legal would have been preparing for this from when the "Zen Patent" was (erroneously?) issued last year, as there must be a mountain of prior art.
Most mobile phones use a up/down scrolling menu, an item of which is clicked to go to the next deeper menu. That's been the case since the late 80s. The only difference is the horizontal side-to-side nature of the iPod's menu system.
But side-to-side hierarchical interfaces are nothing new. In fact, the diagrams of prospective Lisa interfaces dating from the late 1970s show a very similar arrangement.
The only difference is being on a smaller display.
Originally posted by Mr. H
They are not required to protect a company's investment in a product (Apple have not managed to patent the iPod, but its doing alright for them), and serve to stifle innovation.
This may come as a surprise, but the iPod is hardware. And they not only have a design patent on the iPod, but also the dock, etc.
Software patents are a necessity for the industry, and a huge economic benefit for the industry and the country as a whole. (I suspect our "trade gap" with China wouldn't look so lopsided if IP value was added in.) Software patents are one of the things that allows companies to justify vast expenditures in software research. I don't think it's coincidence that the countries with the best IP laws have the best economies.
However, patents are never supposed to be granted for anything that is "obvious to one practiced in the art". I think that bar needs to be set a little higher and there'd be a lot less griping. I have no qualms about innovative stuff being patented, but patenting the number of clicks for something is just nuts.
software patents are bullshit, period.
Originally posted by BenJ
Does anyone know if a Interim Injunction could also be filed in order to cease Apple from importing iPods during the case. I know this is the case with UK law but I'm not really familiar with US law? Anyone help me out?
The ITC actually has excellent documentation on their site detailing the standard process for a 337 investigation. Interim injunctions are possible, but unlikely in the next 6 months or so (3 months for the ITC to determine whether to act on the complaint, and 3 months to any decision.)
Originally posted by Odedh
doesn't really matter since Creative market Cap is 460m$, and Apple has 8b$ in cash, Apple can buy them and their moronic Patent
Hmmmm...the Apple soundblaster live EAX...whats that sound, the sound of hard core gamers ordering up a Turtle beach...lol
Originally posted by Mr. H
Actually, Apple failed to patent the iPod interface because Microsoft got there first! (see here and here). I don't know where Creative think they are coming from with this.
while creative was shuffling patent paper work, Apple was shipping product; PRIOR ART.
Originally posted by a_greer
software patents are bullshit, period.
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
Die Creative, Die!
But I *love* the whole notion of Apple buying Creative to quell the patent issue... OMG, can you image the tirade Jobs would go on?
Originally posted by Booga
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
It's almost refreshing to see the voice of reason amongst a thread of knee-jerk reactions from zealots.
First, yes, patents are very important. Anyone who doesn't understand that, surely doesn't have the capacity to actually create something that's worth protecting.
Second, to your point, what's ridiculous is the type of thing that they allow you to patent. To that end, I agree, the bar needs to be raised significantly.
Steve
But, that doesn't mean that the patent is invalid. Those here, who assume that this patent is groundless have no evidence that they are presenting that shows that. The browser is not an equivalent. Just because something, at first glance, seems similar,it doesn't mean that it is, where it counts.
I'm sure that something as obvious as the Next browser would have been asserted as evidence that both this patent, and the one that MS received, were invalid before both were granted, if it were true.
Certainly, if it were true, then Apple itself would not have found the need to patent its iPod interface. Don't forget that.
The fact that they did, shows that the Next browser has nothing to do with it.
To get back to the beginning, the second reason is that, unlike, hardware patents, software becomes obsolete in a shorter period of time, generally.
I feel that software patents should last for about five years. That would give the holder ample time to recoup the costs, and make proper income from it, without stifling development for more than a short time.
Patent office will ask the public to "peer review" inventions
The US Patent and Trademark Office has launched "Peer to Patent," a community patent peer review project. The USPTO is overloaded with patent filings, so it does little or no investigation into patnets before rubber-stamping them, expecting that the courts will sort out who invented what. This changes the patent system from something that promotes invention to something that rewards companies who aggressively sue inventors.
Peer to Patent aims to address this by encouraging the public to review patents, to determine whether they are valid based on the at-large expert knowledge about what has already been invented and what is a new, useful, nonobvious invention. IBM has agreed to have its patents vetted by the public as a guinea pig in the project.
Project founder Beth Novacek sez,
This Friday, May 12, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a briefing on the community patent peer review project.
The May 12 briefing will be hosted by John Doll, Commissioner for Patents, USPTO, and Jay Lucas, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
The purpose of the May 12, 2006 briefing is to provide greater in-depth analysis of the peer review pilot project as well as answer the question of what constitutes valid prior art.
The represents a kick-off of the peer review project and the effort to move from proposal to working prototype with a launch at the beginning of 2007.
Link: http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
In the same vein:
Patent office will ask the public to "peer review" inventions
The US Patent and Trademark Office has launched "Peer to Patent," a community patent peer review project. The USPTO is overloaded with patent filings, so it does little or no investigation into patnets before rubber-stamping them, expecting that the courts will sort out who invented what. This changes the patent system from something that promotes invention to something that rewards companies who aggressively sue inventors.
Peer to Patent aims to address this by encouraging the public to review patents, to determine whether they are valid based on the at-large expert knowledge about what has already been invented and what is a new, useful, nonobvious invention. IBM has agreed to have its patents vetted by the public as a guinea pig in the project.
Project founder Beth Novacek sez,
This Friday, May 12, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a briefing on the community patent peer review project.
The May 12 briefing will be hosted by John Doll, Commissioner for Patents, USPTO, and Jay Lucas, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
The purpose of the May 12, 2006 briefing is to provide greater in-depth analysis of the peer review pilot project as well as answer the question of what constitutes valid prior art.
The represents a kick-off of the peer review project and the effort to move from proposal to working prototype with a launch at the beginning of 2007.
Link: http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/
Yes. Very good. That explains it with detail.
There are already, several groups that watch the patent process and chime in when they find something that they believe shouldn't be granted.
Originally posted by Booga
No, they're not, period. (Look, we can debate all day! "I know you're not but what am I?")
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution. They just need to have their bar for "obvious" set higher, is all. It would also be nice to have a trademark-like "if you don't enforce them you lose them" policy to get rid of those "sleeper" patents.
I'm with you, there needs to be some protection but anyone can have a good idea and sitting on it waiting for someone else to do the hard work & implement it (or failing to implement it successfuly yourself-ouch!) isn't to the benefit of all. Especially as the patent was filed when the iPod must have been in the later stages of design i.e. Apple hardly poached an existing design.
Hopefully this means Apple will realise they're a bit prone in their dependency on the US market and will get those TV shows (or other local TV shows) out to other iTMSs ASAP to help boost overseas iPod sales.
McDave
Originally posted by McDave
Hopefully this means Apple will realise they're a bit prone in their dependency on the US market and will get those TV shows (or other local TV shows) out to other iTMSs ASAP to help boost overseas iPod sales.
McDave [/B]
Do I read this as a hint as to where they should be going?
Actually, this isn't up to Apple. I'm sure they'd love to get them to you, but the licensing issues are just tremendous. That's why it took so long to get the iTunes store out and about for just music.