If I remember correctly Apple purchased SoundJam from Cassedy & Green. It became the basis for iTunes. SoundJam allowed transferring music from a computer to a player in the MP3 format. It also did the conversion from WAV/AIFF to MP3. What Apple added to the mix was the store and the DRM protection. And a much better player, the iPod. The Creative patent was for the menu system for controlling a player.
Wait, wait! Let's dress this patent up a bit. Let's say it's for an online clothing store...
"By means of a graphical menu which responds to mouse clicks, it will be possible to narrow clothing choices by categories such as, but not limited to, size, color, gender, style, etc."
Because damn, while this might seem obvious, we didn't always have this, did we? So we've got to reward the shear genius of coming up with such things with patent protection.
Actually, that's not as strange as it seems. Who is to say that something would have been invented if it WASN'T invented? The Supreme Court is going to be deciding on a very big patent caselaw problem this year, or early next. It's up there now.
If no one has thought of a way to do something, and someone comes around and figures it out, why isn't that worthy of a patent?
Given that Time Warner and Silicon Graphics experimented with video/music on demand in Florida in the mid 90's (5 years before this patent) and assuming that they had competent IP lawyers, why isn't this patent invalid due to prior art?
I wondered the same thing. Wouldn't you love to see a transcript of the closed-door meetings between Contois' & Apple's attorneys? What kind of wrangling did they do in there? And if this patent is really worth billions, did Apple provide fair compensation?
I wondered the same thing. Wouldn't you love to see a transcript of the closed-door meetings between Contois' & Apple's attorneys? What kind of wrangling did they do in there? And if this patent is really worth billions, did Apple provide fair compensation?
If Apple has agreed to compensate Contois with a licensing fee per each download, it's huge. Besides, whatever they are paying him, it's well worth it considering Microsoft or any other company controlling this patent could do major damage to patent infringers. There may also be sublicensing agreements in place that would apply to YouTube/Google... we'll see how this plays out with iTV.
"My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament."
Given that Time Warner and Silicon Graphics experimented with video/music on demand in Florida in the mid 90's (5 years before this patent) and assuming that they had competent IP lawyers, why isn't this patent invalid due to prior art?
There's a misunderstanding about this.
Prior art doesn't automatically invalidate a new patent.
It is considered to be vadid to incorporate two or more prior methods, inventions, or patents in a new one, as long as the new one uses them in a way not seen, or expected, before.
Comments
Wait, wait! Let's dress this patent up a bit. Let's say it's for an online clothing store...
"By means of a graphical menu which responds to mouse clicks, it will be possible to narrow clothing choices by categories such as, but not limited to, size, color, gender, style, etc."
Because damn, while this might seem obvious, we didn't always have this, did we? So we've got to reward the shear genius of coming up with such things with patent protection.
Actually, that's not as strange as it seems. Who is to say that something would have been invented if it WASN'T invented? The Supreme Court is going to be deciding on a very big patent caselaw problem this year, or early next. It's up there now.
If no one has thought of a way to do something, and someone comes around and figures it out, why isn't that worthy of a patent?
Actually, that's not as strange as it seems.
You probably would defend a patent on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, wouldn't you?
You probably would defend a patent on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, wouldn't you?
No. I try to be realistic.
You probably would defend a patent on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, wouldn't you?
What are you talking about? Smucker's TOTALLY invented that.
No. I try to be realistic.
I've been looking for evidence of that.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain that no one cares. Nice blogspam.
How's that for your first post! That wasn't very nice.
I wondered the same thing. Wouldn't you love to see a transcript of the closed-door meetings between Contois' & Apple's attorneys? What kind of wrangling did they do in there? And if this patent is really worth billions, did Apple provide fair compensation?
If Apple has agreed to compensate Contois with a licensing fee per each download, it's huge. Besides, whatever they are paying him, it's well worth it considering Microsoft or any other company controlling this patent could do major damage to patent infringers. There may also be sublicensing agreements in place that would apply to YouTube/Google... we'll see how this plays out with iTV.
I've been looking for evidence of that.
Look past your nose.
Given that Time Warner and Silicon Graphics experimented with video/music on demand in Florida in the mid 90's (5 years before this patent) and assuming that they had competent IP lawyers, why isn't this patent invalid due to prior art?
There's a misunderstanding about this.
Prior art doesn't automatically invalidate a new patent.
It is considered to be vadid to incorporate two or more prior methods, inventions, or patents in a new one, as long as the new one uses them in a way not seen, or expected, before.
So, the xbox with it's downloadable movies, etc. now is P0wNeD by Apple.
So are the movie and TV houses who want to have their own download services.
OOH!
Well considering that Microsoft owns the controling shares of Apple I don't think xbox got p0wned at all...
Well considering that Microsoft owns the controling shares of Apple I don't think xbox got p0wned at all...
Are you high?
Well considering that Microsoft owns the controling shares of Apple I don't think xbox got p0wned at all...
What are you talking about?
MS does own a lot of Apple shares, but not the controlling amount.
I thought MS had sold all of those shares years ago.
I thought MS had sold all of those shares years ago.
They did. And MS only owned about $150 million worth, hardly "controlling shares".
They did. And MS only owned about $150 million worth, hardly "controlling shares".
That's right, after the five year contract was up. And they made a hell of a profit when they did sell.