Apple settles iTunes software interface lawsuit
Apple Computer has settled a lawsuit filed by a Vermont-based business owner who claimed the iPod maker stole his software interface design and used it to create iTunes.
The terms of the deal, which were reached following a 15-hour negotiating session, were not disclosed, according to the Burlington Free Press.
As first reported by AppleInsider, Contois Music Technology in June of 2005 asked a Federal Court to stop Apple from distributing its iTunes jukebox software and requested that it be awarded damages over an alleged patent violation.
Specifically, the suit alleged that Apple's iTunes software interface design infringed on Contois' six-year old design patent (US Patent No. 5,864,868) entitled "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices."
In the 10-page suit, lawyers for Contois said that David Contois, the owner, conceived of and developed a computer interface for playing music on an internal or external computer-responsive music device, which he then exhibited at the 1995 COMDEX trade show and the 1996 NAMM music industry trade show.
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 charged that Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for iTunes.
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claimed were in direct violation of Contois' patent. Those areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, 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.
"We're glad to get back to teaching music and selling musical instruments," Dan Contois, a brother of David Contois, told the Burlington Free Press. "The terms are confidential. We can't discuss them."
The terms of the deal, which were reached following a 15-hour negotiating session, were not disclosed, according to the Burlington Free Press.
As first reported by AppleInsider, Contois Music Technology in June of 2005 asked a Federal Court to stop Apple from distributing its iTunes jukebox software and requested that it be awarded damages over an alleged patent violation.
Specifically, the suit alleged that Apple's iTunes software interface design infringed on Contois' six-year old design patent (US Patent No. 5,864,868) entitled "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices."
In the 10-page suit, lawyers for Contois said that David Contois, the owner, conceived of and developed a computer interface for playing music on an internal or external computer-responsive music device, which he then exhibited at the 1995 COMDEX trade show and the 1996 NAMM music industry trade show.
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 charged that Apple later "copied" the invention and used the design ideas in the interface for iTunes.
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claimed were in direct violation of Contois' patent. Those areas included iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, 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.
"We're glad to get back to teaching music and selling musical instruments," Dan Contois, a brother of David Contois, told the Burlington Free Press. "The terms are confidential. We can't discuss them."
Comments
also, this is such an obvious design that many people could have thought of aspects of it without having the knowhow or funds to create it.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/c]
Yes, drag and drop from software to music device. Patented. WTF It's like a spreadsheet. Sort by column. But sort by column in a music software and it's Patented. WTF
search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
That is an invention worth patenting.
The idea is that when a stupid patent is granted, it can be challenged on the basis of prior art.
Took me about 3 good looks to realize the guy's last name wasn't Controls.
I'm not understanding their strategy at this time... Better get The Wu on the phone.
Why is Apple settling these massive (and perhaps semi-massive) lawsuits now? Are they planning to write off these and include them with the restated earnings stemming from their accounting error?
I'm not understanding their strategy at this time... Better get The Wu on the phone.
Step to the Wu, Wu-Tang Analysts.
I wonder what the settlement terms were? It couldn't have been substantial for such ridiculous claims, and in only 15 hours.
...and unlike the Creative settlement, which they seemed to want to have trumpeted from the heavens on down, this one was confidential. Maybe Apple just wanted to scare him.
it seems like anyone can patent shit these days. this system is absolutely flawed.
Yes. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty Judge Burger points out that:
"The Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter 'include anything under the sun that is made by man.' S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H. R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952).
Patentable subject matter=anything under the sun that is made by man.
Of course, there are novelty, utility, an nonobviousness limitations to this, but patentability is generally broad. http://www.totallyabsurd.com/absurd.htm
BTW, the Patent Reform Act of 2006 will significantly change the patent law system if adopted.
Why is Apple settling these massive (and perhaps semi-massive) lawsuits now? Are they planning to write off these and include them with the restated earnings stemming from their accounting error?
I'm not understanding their strategy at this time... Better get The Wu on the phone.
LOL this wu thing has gotten out of hand.
what the wu
I'm as pro-apple as the next guy here, but I think they have a legitimate claim here.
It is very possible that the developers of SoundJam(which later became iTunes) saw Contois software and implemented a similar design.
I'm opposed to software patents, but until they are abolished Apple needs to deal with them.
I think it is very good that Apple is settling these lawsuits prior to the introduction of their next-gen iPod. It is not good if a cloud of uncertainty hangs over the iPod franchise.