yah, thats it! I used to use it as well back in the day, and it had a audio in feature that was fun to play with. so if itunes is based off of soundjam, and this suit against seems "mis-placed" granted soundjam is no more.
Since Apple now has lot's of cash in the Bank, isn't it strange how everybody and their brother wants some of it. I wonder what the next case will be? The lesson here is, never tell anyone how much your worth.
This is total BS. Apple gets sued for this and Apple gets sued for that! I bets its actually Apple who came up with the idea and now PC lovers are trying to sue them for something that Apple created just becuase they're Jealous that their PCs aren't as cool as Macs. (Sorry I'm a little parinoid right now)
just becuase your company is going out of business doesn't mean that you have to sue someone to make money and get popularity.
Considering that Contois stole the rewind, play, fast forward and stop button logos in the way they are placed and shaped, I hope Sony sues the fsck out of them!
"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes."
doesn't that sound like every music application out there? I don't see any of these claims to alter in different music apps. And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? or is this another attempt by apple-haters to get apples $$ and public views
"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes."
doesn't that sound like every music application out there? I don't see any of these claims to alter in different music apps. And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? or is this another attempt by apple-haters to get apples $$ and public views
Sounds like it will only advertise Apple and the iPod more.
This is bogus. As far as I am concerned a software patent should fall into the category of "Use it or loose it." 10 years? You have got to be kidding me. How long have they been living under a rock?
[B[And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? [/B]
Do these patents only exist as drawings on a piece of paper or were there actually working prototypes that did all these things? I am all for allowing patents which actually describe new processes or techniques; but drawings and a "this is what it's supposed to do when it's actually made" should not be enough to have them granted. there should always be a working prototype submitted with the application.
I'm no expert by far, and patent law has always caused me to walk away shaking my head. Yet, I'll share my 2 cents as I've come to understand patent law. The likely reason this patent was granted is that the patent office is fairly lenient when it come to granting patents. Patents really aren't worth anything until they have been tested in court. Patents are written as broad as possilble and granted. IF you disagree you take it to court and fight your case stating prior art etc. Lawyers in the room please enlighten us if I'm wrong.
If you can write creatively, you could probably get a wheel patent
Are you referring to my intellectual property, "device and method utilizing geometric shape to minimize traction for transportation purposes"? If so, please stop lest I sic the bloodsucke^Wlawyers on you.
In any case I have a trademark pending on "wheel" so if you were talking about something else, pick another word.
The suit, filed on June 13th in Vermont District Court, alleges that Apple's iTunes software design infringes on Contois' six-year old design patent (US Patent No. 5,864,868) entitled "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices."
What the hell kind of a name is CCSaUIfMPD? Man, that will catch on real quick.
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
According to the suit, persons who were at the time employed by ... or later became employed by Apple ... were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software. The suit charges Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for its iTunes software.
James goes to NAMM in 1996 while going to college. Six years later, James is hired by Apple for software development. Three years later, James gets a letter from a man named Contois: "F**K U JAMES!!!1 F**K U & UR APPLL!¡! SSHUV iPUNES ^ UR AS*!¡!11 I'M SUEING HAHAHLOLOL!!!!!!11"
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claims are in direct violation of Contois' patent...
I can think of 19 ways how an eMachines PC resembles Contois's rotten, sweaty, moldy-roast-beef vagina; should I sue Gateway?
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
[B]Contois claims to have notified Apple in writing of its patent in September 2004 but believed that Apple became aware of the patent on its own more than 18 months earlier in January 2003. Since its launch in Jan. 2001, Apple's iTunes software...
So ... it took him 3 years to figure out that Apple copied his software? Boy, Cuntois is sure on the forefront of technology, and he sure keeps up with current events. I like how he believed that Apple became aware of the patent on its own more than 18 months earlier in January 2003, even though iTunes had its launch in Jan. 2001.
Comments
Originally posted by nathan22t
It was Soundjam
yah, thats it! I used to use it as well back in the day, and it had a audio in feature that was fun to play with. so if itunes is based off of soundjam, and this suit against seems "mis-placed" granted soundjam is no more.
Bogus lawsuit #5,000,000,000,000,000
Apple should have their day in court and flick this flea off.
just becuase your company is going out of business doesn't mean that you have to sue someone to make money and get popularity.
Originally posted by w_parietti22
just becuase your company is going out of business doesn't mean that you have to sue someone to make money and get popularity.
But this is a popular way to make money these days. Look at SCO.
doesn't that sound like every music application out there? I don't see any of these claims to alter in different music apps. And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? or is this another attempt by apple-haters to get apples $$ and public views
Originally posted by i-am-an-elf
"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes."
doesn't that sound like every music application out there? I don't see any of these claims to alter in different music apps. And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? or is this another attempt by apple-haters to get apples $$ and public views
Sounds like it will only advertise Apple and the iPod more.
Originally posted by i-am-an-elf
[B[And wtf is up with "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player" how else do you get music on a portable player. am i missing something? [/B]
Mind-control
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh, crap. I'm gonna sue Apple for using the word 'Tunes' in iTunes. I've had it in my boxers 8 years ago!
Happy Happy Tunes!
no, sue them for having an application capable of listening to music. jesus did that years ago.
Originally posted by a_greer
If you can write creatively, you could probably get a wheel patent
Are you referring to my intellectual property, "device and method utilizing geometric shape to minimize traction for transportation purposes"? If so, please stop lest I sic the bloodsucke^Wlawyers on you.
In any case I have a trademark pending on "wheel" so if you were talking about something else, pick another word.
Originally posted by Jared
Sounds like it will only advertise Apple and the iPod more.
I agree. If the patent had more merit I might be worried, but based on the images I'd say Apple is fine. Waste of time to fend it off though.
In comparison, what do people think of Apple's iTunes patents, including the 3-state burn button that irises open when you prepare to burn a CD?
Originally posted by AppleInsider
The suit, filed on June 13th in Vermont District Court, alleges that Apple's iTunes software design infringes on Contois' six-year old design patent (US Patent No. 5,864,868) entitled "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices."
What the hell kind of a name is CCSaUIfMPD? Man, that will catch on real quick.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
According to the suit, persons who were at the time employed by ... or later became employed by Apple ... were present at both trade shows and viewed Contois' software. The suit charges Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for its iTunes software.
James goes to NAMM in 1996 while going to college. Six years later, James is hired by Apple for software development. Three years later, James gets a letter from a man named Contois: "F**K U JAMES!!!1 F**K U & UR APPLL!¡! SSHUV iPUNES ^ UR AS*!¡!11 I'M SUEING HAHAHLOLOL!!!!!!11"
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claims are in direct violation of Contois' patent...
I can think of 19 ways how an eMachines PC resembles Contois's rotten, sweaty, moldy-roast-beef vagina; should I sue Gateway?
Originally posted by AppleInsider
[B]Contois claims to have notified Apple in writing of its patent in September 2004 but believed that Apple became aware of the patent on its own more than 18 months earlier in January 2003. Since its launch in Jan. 2001, Apple's iTunes software...
So ... it took him 3 years to figure out that Apple copied his software? Boy, Cuntois is sure on the forefront of technology, and he sure keeps up with current events. I like how he believed that Apple became aware of the patent on its own more than 18 months earlier in January 2003, even though iTunes had its launch in Jan. 2001.