Apple's iPod Interface Patent in Jeopardy

Gadget Guy writes "Apple has been denied on their quest to patent the iPod software interface. According to AppleInsider - 'Standing in Apple's way appears to be a prior filing by inventor John Platt, who submitted a patent application for a similar software design for a portable device in May of 2002 - just five months before Robbin submitted his claims on behalf of Apple.'" The Register also helps to shed a little additional light on the subject.

Good

[Vandil X]

Apple or not, maybe this will expose the stupidity behind the generic techno patent craze that's been going on the past 4-5 years.

Full-disclosure: I own an iPod, a PowerMac G5, and a 17" PowerBook. I love OS X. I occasionally drink the special Kool-Aid while sitting in range of the reality distortion field.

Intellectual Property

[imstanny]

Intellectual property is something I have pondered on for a long time and have not come to a definitive conclusion. This case specifically brings up a very interesting paradigm:

Two people with their own intellectual prowess create the same idea. Yet, the person that manages to get to the patent office first gets the patent. Which means that, in this case, ownership has nothing to do with the original creation of intellectual property.

Prior Art (surely in the Top 10 /. subject lines?)

[BarryNorton]

Never mind prior art claims between these patents, it's only the inclusion of the words 'portable media player', or similar, that stops the whole stack from being toppled by very clear prior art... This system is clearly ridiculous.

Patents good now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the impression from the "tone" of the headline and summary that patents are good as long as Apple owns them. Reality check here.

2 points

[cascino]

2 important things to note:
1. John Platt is officially "Manager of the Knowledge Tools Group at Microsoft Research." Which would be very bad for Apple, except that...
2. This isn't a final rejection, and certainly isn't as serious as the AppleInsider article makes it sound. Read the article on the Register for more info (I know this is /., but it's worth a shot). Basically Apple has a lot of patents on the iPod, such that even if Mr. Platt's patent were to stand the test of time (it has several rejections against it as well), the iPod's most important features would be safe from litigation.

The mouse that clicked

[lepus97230]

Wait a minute... you can get a patent on "clicking the left button of a mouse to order goods and services from a web site" when there's clearly a decade of prior art, but the iPod interface isn't good enough?

Re:Obviousness

[pauljlucas]

t would be nice if two people patenting the same thing at roughly the same time could be used as a test to indicate that neither patent is valid and both are obvious.

Just because 2 people out of 6 billion think of something doesn't make it obvious.

Inovative?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Register article ...

"describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface."

Didn't I do this when using the 'Paddle' on my Atari 2600 two decades ago? Doesn't seem so inventive.

Re:Intellectual Property

[Ruie]

My take on this is that there are two kinds of intellectual property:

• intellectual property - i.e. control of what others can do with their own intellect
• intellectual property - i.e. having derived from and/or requiring usage of intellect

We are in a time when the second becomes more and more important, while the laws sadly focus on the first.

my comparison

[domipheus]

I agree fully here, it just seems stupid in my view.

I seem to keep comparing this to a thing like Walls patenting the IDEA of ice cream, and Hagen das then going and making lovely ice cream, much better than Wall's. In my view, hagen das have the better product, they should not be penalised. It is consumers which decide who gets rich, not bloody patents - which seems to be the craze now.

An odd view, but somone must agree with me!

They are trying to patent a tuner knob?

[Confessed Geek]

From the Register Article:
"describes rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface" I think the car radio on my Dads 1950 Ford did that. I rotate the knob and it moves the channel indicator in a linear fashion across the "user interface" showing which radio frequency I'm tuning to.

Oh wait, if you put "e", "i", before it or "computer/Network/Internet" after it - something invented 50+ years ago it is suddenly NEW! Welcome to the new iMillenium!

Re:Nothing will happen

[pete6677]

This is pretty much how the legal system works in all aspects, not just patent law. If you really really want something and continue to find ways to ram it through the courts, you'll eventually succeed. It's just a matter of how much time you have and how much you can afford to spend on lawyers.

tempest in a teapot

[mstone]

The article from the Reg shows that this is probably a non-issue. AppleInsider makes all sorts of grand claims in its own article, but doesn't supply the facts to back them up.

What's actually happening seems to be a fairly normal, even boring, patent registration process for a couple of ideas that look vaguely similar if you want to write a click-whoring article about them. It hardly counts as putting the iPod interface in 'jeopardy'.

Re:Good

[pauljlucas]

... maybe this will expose the stupidity behind the generic techno patent craze that's been going on the past 4-5 years.

So if I develop a hardware stereo (i.e., totally implemented in hardware as opposed to software) with a novel set of knobs and switches, it's OK to patent that, but if I use software to display the interface on a screen instead and use a very novel scroll wheel it's suddenly not OK?

Care to explain that?

By the way, there have been far dumber/worse patent snafus reported here. If they didn't expose said stupidity, what makes you think this rather benign instance will?

Re:Prior Art (surely in the Top 10 /. subject line

[PepeGSay]

Volume knobs anyone? Radio Tuners? Combo Locks? List goes on and on.... Linear progression represented on a wheel.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Intellectual Property

[VikingDBA]

Regardless of who thought of it first or who filed first, if two independant people come up the same idea, assuming neither is aware of the other's work, wouldn't that imply that the invention fails the "not obvious to and expert" test?

Re:Intellectual Property

[Apple Acolyte]

The iPod shipped October 23, 2001. This other patent was filed May 2002.

Should not all fevered speculation over this issue cease due to the salient fact of the parent post, of which many of us were quite aware? The iPod itself, which has remained essentially consistent in interface from day one, serves as prior art. It is not as if anyone can contest the iPod's date of market origin. So where's the beef?

Re:Nothing will happen

[@madeus]

You can't have it both ways.

The Patent Office apparently has it both ways. I think most people here would be happy with them if they just did the job they were tasked with and showed due diligence.

So, it's obvious that the Patent Office is looking at applications and not just stamping them through w/o checking a simple search first..

Just because some patents appear subject to due scrutiny doesn't imply all of them are (or that they are subject to all the appropriate scrutiny).

So we get pissed off when they don't search and we get pissed off when they do?

I think most people here are primarily getting pissed off when they don't uphold their own guidlines (which they do not appear to follow consistently).

If they can't perform the public service that is the reason for their existence, they should be reformed or done away with. They should not be allowed to simply rubber stamp patents when they are supposed to be investigating them properly and for that matter they should not be granting patents for things that are 'patently' trivial or otherwise in conflict with the established regulations.

Other than those who actually object to these patents on principle, I don't think most /. readers would be up in arms about the P.O. actually appropriately enforcing the rules they are supposed to be following.

Re:Good

[NickFortune]

So if I develop a hardware stereo (i.e., totally implemented in hardware as opposed to software) with a novel set of knobs and switches, it's OK to patent that, but if I use software to display the interface on a screen instead and use a very novel scroll wheel it's suddenly not OK?

Well, because your software interface is already protected by copright and you have no inalienable right to any further monopoly on the idea. In any event you don't need the patent to make money from your knobs so there's no need for it and you already have protection to exploit your idea, so that should be sufficent.

That is unless your requirements for sufficency extend to unfairly surpressing competition. Even so, it's far from "OK", IMHO.

Further, unless your hardware interface is staggeringly novel, then there is massive prior art on that too. Come back when you get the bugs out of a telepathic interface or something. And when you do, it'll be the telepathy chip that deserves the patent. The software that draws the pretty pictures on the screen will still not be "OK" for patenting.

By the way, there have been far dumber/worse patent snafus reported here. If they didn't expose said stupidity, what makes you think this rather benign instance will?

Have standards dropped so far at the USPTO that "medium-stupid or better" is all the qualifications an idea needs to be patentable? Just because we have the crimes of Jack the Ripper on record, that doesn't mean we should cease from complaining about cases of homicide; neither do past stupidities excuse this.

Re:Good

[ThosLives]

I might give you a design patent for the particular layout, but what do you mean by 'novel set of knobs and switches'? In my book, if you have any input device that accepts a force or torque, big whoop. The first guy that came up with the variable capacitance input, sure that was patentable in my book. If you invent something that reads brainwaves, or detects your gravitational distortion, you get a patent. But just making another rotating knob or switch, or a piece of software that acts like a rotating knob or switch, is not unobvious in my book and should be denied on those grounds.

I've had this great idea for a way to stifle...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...innovation. The idea is that you give inventors a monopoly over their inventions that lasts longer than the life cycle of the invention. The result is that every company that innovates will eventually have a monopoly on every little thing they invent and eventually we'll reach a point where nobody else can invent anything for fear of infringing on someone else's monopoly. I think I will call this invention "The Patent".

Re:Nothing will happen

[Hognoxious]

You make agood point, but prior art alone should be enough in this frikkin' case: "rotating an input device to navigate in a linear fashion through a user interface". Radios had that, way back when they were called wirelesses.

Re:Nothing will happen

[Tony Hoyle]

Excepted they added "..on a computer controlled device" and neatly sidestepped that one.

So the ipod is a collection of old ideas put together into a new one... why is this news? Just about every invention in history has done that. Doesn't make the ipod any less successful.

Oh wait, this is slashdot... Apple didn't get granted a patent. The sky is falling.

Re:Good

[ThosLives]

The Post-It example is bad for one reason: a bunch of people were trying to get something like this to work but either the glue was too weak to be useful or so strong you couldn't peel the sheets apart. The patent, as far as I know (and definitely what I hope) wasn't for the idea of using some sticky stuff to attach a piece of paper somewhere and have it be easily removable, but in the particular type of adhesive used. This to me is novel and unobvious, because it was not obvious what type of adhesive to use.

That's the trick with using the unobvious clause - every function for which someone tries to invent something to perform is inherently obvious: a device to fly, a device to control engine output (governor), a device to make light, a device to sew instead of doing it by hand, a device to agument human senses, etc. It's the device that is the novelty, not the resulting thing. I even will allow for certain medicines, but not the effect they produce (for instance: patent on chemical XYZ, not patent on 'cure for influenza').

I would wager, phiolosophically, that no human has ever invented anything that was not some kind of extension of what exists in the natural world - the universe itself is prior art in my estimation.

Re:Good

[sheldon]

It's the blatantly obvious things which shouldn't be patented.

If you come up with a new algorithm that sorts video files by programmatically analyzing the video and using a calculated height of the people in the video as your sort variable... you know what? That's pretty cool and pretty complicated. I agree, you ought to be able to get a patent.

But I don't think you ought to be allowed to patent a graphical button which commands the computer to sort in either an ascending or descending fashion.

Similarly speaking, this boneheaded Apple patent. Using a paddle wheel to move up or down a linear list? How exactly does placing these software function any different on a mobile device than on an Atari 2600 game? Seriously, how is it different?

You ought not to be able to patent the bubble sort just because you use it on your video file names, instead of person names. Same principle here.

Re:Good

[drew]

You seem to have a problem with that. Yet if I invent a portable music player that somehow does it all in hardware, you're presumeably OK with that.

I don't know that he ever says he is ok with that. I'm certainly not. I see no reason why any lump of plastic and wires that plays music should be patentable, regardless of whether it's functionality is implemented in hardware or software.

I am not really agains the idea of software patents in theory, but I am very much against them in practice because I can't remember ever hearing of a single software patent that I really think would be non-obvious to an experienced software developer. Of course this also applies to most non-software patents issued these days as well.

And don't even get me started on people trying to patent business practices...

Re:Good

[NickFortune]

Then let's say I'm a programmer and I invent a new algorithm for sorting video files (or whatever). It seems to me that my new algorithm is really no different than a machine and should be patentable.

Well, you can take the pragmatic viewpoint that patents tend to stifle innovation in software, and anti-competitive and demonstrably unnecessary for purposes of turning a profit. On the other hand I've yet to see a decent argument as to why software should be patentable.

So given that swopats have bad effects, and given that we are talking about what should be done - does it not make sense to outlaw them? I think I'd like a better argument than "it works for tractors" before I endorse the notion.