Microsoft Leveraging iPod Patent? 487
willie3204 was one of several readers who noticed this story about Microsoft cashing in on the iPod Patent that they apparently beat Apple to. Since this song looks to be played to the tune of $10/iPod, I imagine someone will be singing the appeal song.
Legally speaking, a stroke of genius by MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple won't pay a dime to MS over this patent. (Score:5, Insightful)
When did this happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sky News... (Score:5, Insightful)
[0] I mean Coca-Cola, obviously.
Re:Facts are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
patent reform (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents were designed to protect actual products, not simply stick flags in the ground and say "mine."
Microsoft, Apple- who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
A Dangerous Game (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet this action absolutely disgusts me.
Microsoft seriously risks turning off, and scaring away, the people who have the influence and persuasive power and technical know-how to maintain Microsoft's position. Hearing some scumbag talking about "licensing their innovation", when he's really talking about a deplorable abuse of the patent system, really makes one ponder what's the next (we already got hints from the sad reality that Microsoft considered buying Claria). Previously it was Microsoft the Evil to the conspiracy theorists and the people with an axe to grind. The title is becoming more real to the mainstream.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple won't pay a dime to MS over this patent. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not the strategy. MS wants to tie [insert competitor here] into a lengthy expensive legal fight.
Re:What's that sound? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:MS could also refuse to license (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers only work when everyone agrees to abide by the lawers and judges. People generally only agree to this because some "soldiers" somewhere are willing to enforce what the lawyers and judges say. I only care about lawyers and judges because of the guys with guns behind them.
People in the US in particular seem to forget that the only real way to enforce anything is with force.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:5, Insightful)
First to _invent_, not to implement. If Microsoft can produce documentation that they thought of this idea well in advance of Apple's iPod release, they can still retain the patent.
-Erwos
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple's application, filed a year after the iPod was introduced, was rejected July 13. The documents do not identify the iPod by name, a common omission in such petitions. It describes a "portable, pocket-sized multimedia asset player" capable of managing MP3 music files including "a song title, a song artist, a song album, a song length."
Regardless of whether Apple released the iPod before the patent (which they did), Apple failed to secure a patent before Microsoft did. November-ish 2002 would have been too late. Since Apple doesn't own the patent, they still have to pay licensing fees.
Our legal/IP system at work.
Re:I'm confused.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean really, with this logic, I could send dated, notarized legal correspondence with some plans on how the UI for a teleportation device would work, then not only wait until someone puts a product to market, but until it actually becomes widespread and profitable, before filing a patent for the technology, so long as the company that makes said teleporter forgets to file a patent.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, no. They released the iPod in November, 2001. Although they were late applying for their patent, and therefore can no longer receive a patent on their technology, the fact that they have a product that was on the market before Microsoft even filed for their patent would automatically invalidate Microsoft's patent. Wouldn't it? We call it prior art, don't we?
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not the USPTO's job to invalidate patents, generally; it is the courts.
The only problem might be in Microsoft's claimed date of invention.
I believe MS claims they invented one aspect of the ipod's interface before Apple released the iPod. Then it will come down to a very messy lawsuit revealing internal company documents to try and show which company developed that aspect of the interface first.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, what this more likely means is that anyone can produce products with an ipod-like interface.
Then the next logical steps... (Score:5, Insightful)
MusicMatch? (Score:2, Insightful)
MusicMatch has been doing this forever with their customizable radio stations. That is guaranteed to be prior art.
Re:Facts are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to slashdot, the FAQ for which clearly states that the editors make no effort to check the veracity of articles that they post, and that has been fooled on a number of occasions in the past.
Re:MS could also refuse to license (Score:3, Insightful)
Your use of the horse and water analogy is not appropriate here because of a misunderstanding of the capabilities of force. Force cannot be reliably used to cause someone to do something. Force can only reliably be used to prevent someone from doing something (and by 'something' I mean something over which the subject has direct physical control). All uses of force to cause an action may or may not fail, but if an action is attempted it is always possible with sufficent force to stop that action. If I punch you in the gut and say "punch me!", you may or may not punch me. I could attach your arm to a machine that punches me I suppose, but then that's not you doing the punching. However, if you punch me, I can always (assuming I'm strong enough and fast enough, or I shoot you, or put a wall between us, etc.) forcibly prevent your fist from causing me harm. I hope this makes the distinction clear.
As far as justice goes, I can't comment on what you mean there without an understanding of what you mean by "just" and "unjust". The evaluation of the merit of the force the US has used is not the intent of my post; I just meant to present the observation that from a pure physical standpoint, force is the only way to ensure certain actions are stopped.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't it be though? All these companies want to get this patent crap going in Europe and they still haven't "fixed" ours. The Patent Office MUST do a better job in not making it the job of the courts to fix their bad patents. It costs a lot of money for companies to secure what they innovated. Patents are becoming more of a hinderance to innovation and the consumer than a way for innovators to get a period of profit.
This really needs to be fixed.
Re:Has anyone else actually READ the patents? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: lengthy, expensive fight (Score:2, Insightful)
With this maneuver, it seems like they are trying to steal some of Apple's legitimacy as a media innovator. Has anybody ever thought of Microsoft as innovative or visionary? (Besides their own PR guys, I mean). Ultimately, I have to hope that a company that so completely lacks integrity will accrue more and more of the public Bad Will they so richly deserve.
Lately, it seems that the computer software giant has done more trash-talking. In the past month, I've heard of them taking aim at Google, Adobe and now the Apple iPod. But would anybody choose to use Microsoft products if they didn't ultimately feel forced to? It's hard for me to imagine people listening to a MS digital media player in the urban sprawl (no doubt constantly rebooting), while proudly displaying their catchy logo Microsoft MS-POD: We invented these!
Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:2, Insightful)
Energy, Healthcare, Science, Defense, Bankruptcy, Search and Seizure, Privacy.
Privatizing water and air is next. Some much left to do. Evil work never ends.
Backround checks and a license to protest are next. Seems we need to know more about people who complain than we get to know about public servants. Know what I mean?
Re:Apple Revisionsism. (Score:3, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Apple's market share. It has to do with responding to a comment that was utterly ridiciulous. Doesn't it make YOU upset when people do that? Turn on the news - they do it all the time.
There's a difference between reasonable criticism and a rant based on quotes you made up. If you think that's okay, you must enjoy Slashdot quite a bit!
Re:Short answer, yes. Long answer ... (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely, Apple will pull some patent they've been hanging onto that some newish version of Windows violates. Both sides will realize that both patents will probably be overturned at great expense, and a cross licensing agreement will make this all go away. This will happen without the average iPod user ever even hearing about it, much less having it influence their purchasing decision.
Re:MS could also refuse to license (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Dangerous Game (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a monopoly isn't illegal, and in some industries (such as software) is the natural state. I had a problem with some of their activities with partners, but it wasn't the clear villain/victim often portrayed. Of course I'm in the land of Slashdot, where every year is the year that Linux will abolish Microsoft (hell I remember hearing it was the "Year of Linux" about 4 or 5 years ago), to flipping and crying that Microsoft is a monster monopoly.
2. The crushing Netscape to make way for the blight of the net known as IE
I was using IE to create internal webapps half a decade ago that Mozilla is just beginning to be able to partly accomplish. IE was, by a long ways, the leading browser technology for some time. Blight indeed. Netscape, led by Andreeson, was declared as the replacement for Windows, and the fact that Microsoft challenged the threat is hardly surprizing. It's also interesting that Netscape, the company that basically released their browser for free to consumers to undercut commercial offerings (such as SpyGlass), all to entrench themselves to be able to sell to the backoffice, is sainted in this imaginary revised history.
3. Stolen/copied/embraced/bought out technologies from the DOS days to the present
Um, okay. I'm sure the bought out people are just so sad, sitting on their millions, and we should villify Microsoft for that.
Give me a break. Historically Microsoft had some transgressions (kinda expected for a company of that size), but overall they were a fairly responsible, considerate company. Lately, perhaps as the revenue stream gets threatened, that has changed.
GP is not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Justice is merely force that is applied in the right places (ie, the force is justified). The grandparent is not a troll. All law depends on enforcement. A lawyer can make a case and a judge can sentence a criminal to jail, but that's all just empty words unless someone is willing to use force to make the sentence happen.
That's not to say that all force is justice, and I don't believe the grandparent said that either.
Re:Short answer, yes. Long answer ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or...
From the article:
"Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple."
Change the law (Score:3, Insightful)
What Microsoft did is clearly just an opportunistic exploitation of the patent system. They didn't think their idea was worth patenting until someone else made money off a similar idea. The patent system was, in theory, designed to protect inventors from having their ideas stolen. I come up with ideas all of the time that I don't think I have the time or money to capitalize on. Does that make it wrong when someone else comes up with the same idea independently and makes millions of dollars on it?
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a quick preview;
Energy Bill of 2005 -- this wonderful bill gives about $14 billion to oil companies, just so companies like Exxon will continue to give us oil while bringing in $64 Billion in the last quarter alone. The Energy bill was written by energy Lobbyists. The rest goes to Nuclear and a pittance to some alternative technology which is just keeping up with previous government support, just rolled into a nice steaming piece of pork.
The recent Healthcare reform act spends tax money to pay drug companies to give an ~ 17% discount to seniors, depending if they got the correct discount card among 75 options. Before this bill went into action, drug providers raised their rates about 20%--just in time. By the way, they also are having record profits, reporting double digit year over year growth for the most part. All for a mere $450 Billion (projected). Wonder why kids in your neighborhood beg door to door for school books now?
Science. The science advisor now reports to an intern, in case any real science actually came out to refute all the good "there is no global warming" science paid for by Exxon, et al. This administration has been critisized (first in history) by over 2000 scientists (I forget the petition they signed). Of course, if you stop believing in science, theory holds that it will "just go away". We'll see. If the Intelligent Design crap didn't convince you of an anti-science stance...
Defense... did you not notice a few things we have been doing? Our security is FUBAR but at least this is keeping up employment and exports. Once they add it to the balance sheet, the fantasy economic numbers might look even worse or need more fantasy adjustments.
Bankruptcy Reform Act. Written by Credit Card Lobbyists (forgot the name of the guy, but he bragged about writing it whole cloth--I suppose for his resume). The Dems couldn't get a limit of 40% interest for Credit Card issuers. It makes it more difficult and expensive (ironic, no?) to declare bankruptcy. Most bankruptcy is due to health care expenses of people who actually have insurance. Credit Card companies are experiencing record profits.
Search and Seizure--um Patriot Act I & II. Heard of it?
Privacy. Homeland security; Much of what they do is tantamount to domestic spying. Didja know, that Tom Delay used them to find house members to vote for redistricting in Texas? Also good source for direct marketing. Too tired to do more research. Google; Herbert Hoover, big jerk. For fun, look for parallels.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't make me wrong. This is OT but it is important.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:2, Insightful)
Everybody has been saying that the pro-software-patent folks in Europe (MS is the leader of the pack there) killed their bill deliberately to wait until some of the heat died off. Given that, you'd think MS would try to play down their more "evil" patents in the US so as not to scare Europeans any more than necessary.
Re:Business plan for success... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legally speaking, a stroke of genius by MS (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't beat 'em, license 'em.
Re:Question for a patent-knowledgable person (Score:3, Insightful)
How would "first to file" be of any benefit over what we currently have? This would just seem to make it easier for patent speculators to churn out patents without producing, or intent to produce, a damn thing, and then leaching off the sweat of everyone else's brow.
Where's the Infringement? (Score:3, Insightful)
We have all been getting wrapped up in hysteria. The USPTO's examiner rejected Apple's application, supposedly as not patentable over a Microsoft patent application, or so it appears.
I used to be a patent examiner (1999-2000; left in large part due to the fact that I didn't feel the job could be done properly with the resources and time available). I've read, as many of you have, the respective applications, notably the claims. Keep in mind that only claims can be infringed upon. Patents are granted solely on an applications claims, not on any other stuff described in the application. While the full disclosure in application M can be used to reject application A's claims, A only infringes on M if it is claimed by M.
The claims of the M$ application [uspto.gov] (PDF) [pat2pdf.org] are not infringed upon, IMHO, by the Apple application [uspto.gov] (PDF) [pat2pdf.org]. M$ claims a way of generating a playlist, whereas Apple claims a method of interfacing wherein a user directly picks items to be played. Even though M$ claims -- in a dependent claim that their system might be included in a media player, that still does not mean Apple is infringing on the M$ patent, should the M$ patent stand. It only means that Apple cannot patent its device over that which M$ disclosed in its application.
Further, IMHO, independent claim 1 of the Apple application specifically cites selecting items "through a rotational action with respect to said user device" -- something which I cannot find in the M$ application. Therefore, there is no reasonable case for infringement. The only question is whether that 'rotational' step alone makes Apple's app patentable over the M$ app (again, still assuming we don't even bother to knock out the M$ app), or whether Apple will need to narrow its claims a bit first.
I am not worried about the iPod infringing on the M$ app/patent in question. However, iTunes' creation of Smart Playlists appear to be a much closer match to what M$ discloses. That is where Apple should be worried, unless they can show a different, non-infringing algorithm for auto-creating their Smart Playlists.
Re:Legally speaking, a stroke of genius by MS (Score:3, Insightful)
stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
The USPTO doesn't rule about whether companies have the right to charge, beyond allowing a patent.
Also, talking about a "patenting the iPod" does make sense. Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented portable MP3 players or even disk-based MP3 players. The patent in question seems to be about a particular feature of iPods.
Finally, given Apple's and Microsoft's cross-licensing agreements and close business ties, I also find it unlikely that any money is going to flow. Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies anymore, if they have ever been, and Microsoft doesn't want to see Apple disappear.