Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Apple

Apple Wins iTunes Interface Patent 278

Posted by pudge from the get-yer-patents-here-no-reasonable-offer-refused dept.
phalse phace writes "There aren't too many details, but C|Net's news.com.com is reporting that Apple was issued a patent for its iTunes software interface on May 4. If you remember, Apple recently applied for a patent for its iPod interface as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Wins iTunes Interface Patent More

Apple Wins iTunes Interface Patent

Comments Filter:

  • Not sought any patents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kemapa ( 733992 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @11:58AM (#9128450) Journal
    While software patents have become increasingly common in the past few years--leading to long and contentious strings of litigation over seemingly basic computing techniques--not all companies are taking Apple's approach.

    A RealNetworks spokesman said his company had not sought any directly comparable interface patents for its 10-year-old media player software, for example.

    Of course RealNetworks has not sought any interface patents! How could you patent bloat, resource-hogging, and un-usability!?!?

  • Groan... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @11:59AM (#9128451) Homepage Journal

    Not trying to be funny, but has the command line been patented yet? It seems that many companies are trying to get a piece of a very limited "interface pie". You never know, one day some scummy group may claim that DOS, xterm, command.com, a unix console and my old Wyse 60 terminal infringe on their IP.

    • Re:Groan... (Score:3, Funny)

      by RayTardo ( 779153 )
      You can't retroactively assign patents. Otherwise I could patent the wheel and be richer than Bill Gates...
    • You're telling me. If Apple wanted to really annoy someone, they could say that since listboxes are a pivotal part of their interface, any use of listboxes must be licensed by Apple...
    • I don't think they would get very far since command lines are used so much by so many people. If you do have a legitimate claim to IP, you must make an honest effort to protect it or you lose it. For instance, you can't develop a data structure, patent it, let everyone use it as if you had not IP rights - then after a lot of people use and depend on it, start enforcing your rights. The judge should throw you out for that. You have to show that you at least tried to enforce your IP rights from the beginni
      • *glances for a second at SCO vs. IBM*

      • Re:Groan... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ThogScully ( 589935 ) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:07PM (#9128604) Homepage
        Someone more lawyerly will likely correct me, but you're thinking of trademarks from my understanding. Trademarks must be protected or else they're lost. Patents however, especially as of late, you'd think were designed specifically for the rather underhanded practice you just described. Consider GIF, as the most common example.
        -N
        • Perhaps you are right and I am confusing trademark with IP. But I don't think you can successfully apply for and use a patent after the cat's out of the bag. For instance, I think the situation is different if someone tries to collect on a patent filed ten years ago, versus someone trying to patent something today that has been in use for ten years (as in the situation the original poster noted). Still, I could be wrong, and I wouldn't bet my life that what I just said is write - recolection is a fickle

          • Re:Groan... (Score:3, Informative)

            by EricWright ( 16803 )
            A patent is supposedly issued to someone claiming an invention, creation, or, in some limited cases, discovery (in biological circles, but this requires discovery of a means to duplicate the mutation/cross-breeding/etc). Prior art is supposed to invalidate the claim, even overturning previously issued patents. However, once you have a patent, it's yours for, IIRC, 17 years from date of issuance or 20 years from date of application, whichever expires first (assuming it's not overturned).

            There is no concep

  • Lsongs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:00PM (#9128469)
    Thank god... Maybe Apple now can sue the makers of Lsongs because they completely ripped them off.

    • Lsongs picture link (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:02PM (#9128512)
      Compare this [linspire.com] to Compare this [xvsxp.com]

      • Re:Lsongs picture link (Score:5, Informative)

        by bubba451 ( 779167 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:57PM (#9129427)
        Here's a better comparison [lunaloca.com] (I made the window bigger and put it in Browse mode).

        The only difference, besides Lsongs taking a few beatings from an ugly stick, is that for some reason its controls are on the bottom.

        But everything else, down to the File/Edit/Controls/Visualizer/Advanced menus and the eye icon for Browse is the same.

        Pretty embarrassing.

        • wow...an eye icon for a browse function...that is so...non-trivial and non-obvious....eesh, give me a break. Can I patent using a musical note icon for doing something related to music?
  • Apple appears to have learned from its mistake in relying on copyright law and is now turning to patent law to protect its user interfaces.

    Because even Apple knows where the real bozos work: in the patent office.

  • Good for them... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by seanmcelroy ( 207852 )
    Maybe in their eyes, it'll keep history from repeating, when a lot of the early Apple UI elements were ripped off right and left.

  • Are the defensive patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:03PM (#9128539) Journal
    Any chance Apple is just building a defensive portfolio to keep the trolls at arm's length?

    Who knows what kind of patents on music software are already out there... patent trolls line up to sue companies like Apple, and the latter can hardly be blamed for trying to insulate itself from such attacks.

    Of course, if it were Microsoft, I'd be all outraged and stuff.
    • That doesn't help the small producers much, though. Making an expensive stable of patents a prereq for software development isn't exactly going to promote "Science and the Useful Arts." Not that the Court seems to care about that anymore.

    • Re:Are the defensive patents? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MaineCoon ( 12585 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:34PM (#9129039) Homepage
      It also makes sense given Apple's design philosophies - ease of use and style/form. It's all about their appearance - it's a very specific, unique style, that they want associated with their OS and software. People who make OS X-like themes for Windows and Linux want to scream bloody murder when they get Cease and Desist letters, trying to claim fair use. However, by making the theme and >distributing it, they're actively (although perhaps not intentionally) attempting to use Apple's designs and themes to subvert Apple's marketshare.

      As an example - if someone made a car that looked very much like a Jaguar, but cost a third as much and had more commodity parts under the hood, and started selling it as the Panther. That's very obviously wrong, and even those theme-makers will probably agree.

      What's the difference? One's a physical form of style, the other is a digital visual form of style. Nothing wrong with owning/restricting the use of a computerized form of artistic visual style. Even the GPL is a license that restricts the use of the licensed digital content.

      • Re:Are the defensive patents? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheAntiCrust ( 620345 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @01:06PM (#9129541)
        As an example - if someone made a car that looked very much like a Jaguar, but cost a third as much and had more commodity parts under the hood, and started selling it as the Panther. That's very obviously wrong, and even those theme-makers will probably agree.
        I disagree. Since it has lesser parts in it, the consumer is getting what they pay for. If all they want is a car that looks nice, then why should they have to go spend all that money on the Jaguar when all they want is a nice looking A to B car?

        • Gestalt (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Ilan Volow ( 539597 )
          Since it has lesser parts in it

          A good designer knows that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

          Patents are necessary because, barring any political or economic issues, they keep the bad designers (or unix geeks) who don't understand this essential concept and who only think in terms of parts from hurting the general public.
    • You might be right in this specific case, since Apple has to worry about Microsoft and Sony muscling in on their turf, but defensive patents just aren't as useful as they once were. Increasingly, patent action is being initiated by litigation firms that do nothing but buy up IP and litigate it. Since they have no actual business activities to threaten they are immune from patent countersuits. (Cue mouldy old joke about patenting patent extortion.)

    • Re:Are the defensive patents? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by levik ( 52444 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @02:05PM (#9130406) Homepage
      Any chance Apple is just building a defensive portfolio to keep the trolls at arm's length?

      Quit kidding yourself. Apple *IS* a patent troll - they use any legal means they can think of to preserve market share. Whether or not this is a fair practice is debatable, but it isn't any different from Amazon slamming BN with 1-Click.

      Of course, if it were Microsoft, I'd be all outraged and stuff.

      If I were you, I would be outraged reguardless. By getting one of the first interface patents, Apple has just made it easier for all sorts of frivolous patent awards to happen. Patents as originally concieved were intended to protect concrete mechanisms and technologies, not ideas, algorithm and UI concepts.

      This one is a case in point of the trend of patenting things that were not meant to be patented. How can this do anything but lower the standard of software we use every day?

  • hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mkavanagh2 ( 776662 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:03PM (#9128544)
    How will this affect rhythmbox? For those who don't know, it's a free iTunes-alike for GNOME. I like it since mp3blaster is buggy without anyone trying to fix the bugs, xmms seems to have stopped innovating and everything else...well, sucks :)

    • Re:hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      XMMS has stopped innovating? When did it start? It's a nice player, but it's always been a WinAMP clone.

    • Re:hmm. (Score:2)

      by N1KO ( 13435 )
      mpd looks interesting, I'm waiting for shoutcast support to start using it.

      Xmms isn't changing, but that doesn't mean it's dead. It's got the most features of any player and is easy to use from the command line with programs like xmmsctrl. I've even integrated it a bit with my window manager with xmmsctrl and xmms-shell. There are even Perl and Ruby modules for controlling it.

      Hopefully music players will move towards separating the interface into a separate program like mpd does.
    • rhythmbox [rhythmbox.org] obviously uses theme-able GTK2 widgets instead of static OSX brushed metal widgets. I don't think there's anything to worry about.

  • Almost (Score:4, Interesting)

    by w.p.richardson ( 218394 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:05PM (#9128574) Homepage
    as bad as one-click.

    Which, oh by the way, Apple actually paid to use...

    • "Which, oh by the way, Apple actually paid to use..."

      Hmm... Imagine that... someone paid to use something that someone else patented first.

      Here's a revelation for you: A corporation will compare the cost of licensing something versus the cost of doing something similar and possibly facing litigation.

      if A < B, they will choose A every time.

  • Ignorance about UIs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faust2097 ( 137829 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:06PM (#9128583)
    Designing a novel, useful, original UI is as difficult as any other aspect of product development in the business world. If I can patent the design of a remote control [which wouldn't send the /. crew up in arms] why is it such a logical stretch to patent the interface for a software product that has the same type of functionality? In the case of the iPod the interface is both hardware and software. Doesn't Apple deserve the benefit of developing it just like a carmaker would for a braking system or a drug company for a new medicine?

    UI design is [b]hard[/b] and good solutions require careful development.
    • yeah, but is it patentable? copyrights should cover this, no? After all, it's just artwork rendered to a display. An example from a different industry... aren't the exterior designs of cars copyrighted? Why is this any different from a GUI?

      Apple can suck my apples.

      • Re:Ignorance about UIs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by faust2097 ( 137829 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:18PM (#9128813)
        The interface is not the graphics, it's the underlying structure of the way the user interacts with the software. The graphics make a difference but UI design is the act of problem solving and creating solutions for how users interact with the information. There's plenty of unusable software out there with shiny buttons and nice icons.

        In the case of iTunes the solution was the multi-paned interface in which an information hierarchy is established from general to specific through the browse parts of the window [moving from general > specific with 'results' filtered at the bottom.
        • How is that patentable? Looks to me a rather common solution to the "drill-down" usability problem.

          Proletariat of the world, unite to kill USPTO

          • Re:Ignorance about UIs (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ozric99 ( 162412 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:44PM (#9129213) Journal
            Exactly. Similar to how Winamp arranges its playlists.
            See here [zen.co.uk] for a grab I just made of winamp's library.
            I click on an artist and get a list of that artist's albums in another pane. Click on one of those albums and get a list of tracks on that album in another pane.

            Now, did this design come out before iTunes? I don't have time to go check on the release dates, but like you said, this is a pretty fundamental UI solution.

            • You click on a package and see its classes in the next pane. Click on a class and see its members in the next pane. Click on the member and see its definition in the detail pane.

              Rinse. Repeat. Patent. Profit!

            • Unless I'm much mistaken, Winamp 2.9 first introduced the media library in March 2003; did Winamp 3.0 have the media library? iTunes had this interface in 1.0 in April of 2001.

              Is it obvious? It is now. It may even have been obvious in 2003, when WinAmp introduced it... but was it because Apple introduced it in 2001?

              How obvious is the Windows, Mouse, Pointer interface? Yet isn't it because Apple made it so in 1984 that Windows seems a no brainer?
        • then that unusable software could be patented as well. why not? it does something when you push this or slide that.

          nothing on the UI for iTunes looks revolutionary.

      • Re:Ignorance about UIs (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jkabbe ( 631234 )
        If the "interface" is simply how it looks then it will be covered by either:
        1) a design patent
        2) a trademark

        But, if the interface involves more than anything just visual properties it will be covered by a utility patent.

        In the case of iTunes, the parts of the layout have actual meaning. And their functionality is related (clicking on an item in one panel changes another panel). Therefore this is more than just the "look" of the item and also includes the "functionality".

        Keep in mind that GUI elements l
      • yeah, but is it patentable? copyrights should cover this, no?

        Look at it this way. The patent will expire in 17 years, but the copyright is forever...

    • Well, I cannot speak for the rest of slashdot, but I for one would be up in arms over a patent on the design of a remote control.

      Of course, if there as something truely novel assocated with it then perhaps a patent would be appropriate, but the vast majority of patents that are actually issued don't have this as far as I can see, even 'traditional' hardware engineering type patents hve been corrupted.

      • Of course, if there as something truely novel assocated with it then perhaps a patent would be appropriate

        It's the job of the USPTO to decide if something is sufficiently novel to deserve patent status. That's the whole point of the thing.

        One of the things about UIs is that the truly great ones seem obvious from the moment you use them. There was a time in [most of ] our lifetimes when there was no such thing as Cut, Copy and Paste on computers. Someone had to actually invent that. Thinking about it now

        • ...definitely qualifies as "sufficiently novel" especially given that every different DVD case I see seems to have 4 different patents regarding its disc retention system and the plastic tabs that hold it closed.

          Exactly. Everyone has to come up with their own mechanism for holding the DVD in, microscopically different from their competitors, and none of them work very well (well, presumably one mechanism does work, but I've never seen it and presumably the patent holder isn't licencing it).

          How hard is

    • Designing a novel, useful, original UI is as difficult as any other aspect of product development in the business world. If I can patent the design of a remote control [which wouldn't send the /. crew up in arms] why is it such a logical stretch to patent the interface for a software product that has the same type of functionality?

      A patent is still a state-granted monopoly in exchange for something to society. What does society get from this? In case of a remote control, you get the schematics of how t

  • Design (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Paladin144 ( 676391 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:07PM (#9128599) Homepage
    Good. iTunes definitely has an innovative design. Although Apple bought the basis for iTunes from another company (Cassady & Greene's SoundJam program, which was great), they really took it to the next level...and then the next level after that. I haven't seen an interface for a music app than can top iTunes for power or ease of use.

  • Here is the patent (Score:5, Informative)

    by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:08PM (#9128621)
    The patent number is 6,731,312 [uspto.gov]. The first claim is
    1. A computer readable medium comprising media player application code which implements the following procedures:

    generating in a user interface an application window having a window frame and a plurality of stiles to define a plurality of panes within said frame;
    displaying in a first one of said panes a user selectable index of a plurality of media files;
    displaying in a second one of said panes first selected information for said media files; and
    displaying in a third one of said panes second selected information for said media files
    wherein said second and third panes are each initialized with a selection to view all of said user selectable index of the plurality of media files in said first pane.

  • New patent (Score:3, Funny)

    by carvalhao ( 774969 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:09PM (#9128646) Journal

    I issue this post as a fair warning. I have a patent request pending on an interface component, called "generic power toggler", which I have ingeniously called "power switch". Anyone found using this innovative and unprecendented interface element will be sued to death

    Thank you for your attention

  • Rhythmbox is looks and feels close to iTune how it is going to effect it. As thay say Rhythmbox is an integrated music management application, originally inspired by Apple's iTunes

  • Software patents = Land grab (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:13PM (#9128709) Journal
    Software patents are fast becoming the 21st century equivalent of a land grab, in which those with the muscle are laying claim to a resource that has up to now been firmly in common ownership.

    There is only one possible outcome, I believe. This is that every corner of IT knowledge finishes as "property", whatever its origins. This would spell the end of independent software development and (rapidly thereafter) the end of innovation. We are clearly within sight of the day when writing _any_ software without legal backing in the form of a dossier of defensive patents becomes a dangerous sport.
    • You'd maybe be right except that the patent system is not a world wide entity, and there are many of places where US or european patents are easily ignored. If litigation and fears of it halt all the innovation in the western world, it'll just be that much easier for other countries to catch up and then surpass.
      • This was going to be the second part of my comment but I truncated it.

        Yes, US patent law does not cover the globe. Large parts of the world operate free from it. But this is not a guarantee of anything.

        At the best, US/EU businesses will find it increasingly hard to compete and will lobby for patent reform. At worst, US/EU business will become more and more dependent on exploiting a captive market rather than innovating to create new markets.

        The US will try to export its standards and regulations world
        • Then let's play the game their way. Let's grab some patents ourselves; it's time to patent everything we can and donate to the FSF (or some other entity that will safeguard Free Software Patents) under a GPL (general patent license).

          Let's DOS the patent office with requests; it's time to start patenting *every*-fucking-thing, from mail filters to user interfaces. Got a nifty new P2P algorithm? Patent! A new filesystem? Patent! A cool new interface? You know the drill.

          At this point, the only defense

          • Patent everything? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ites ( 600337 )
            One small catch. You need a lot of money.

            Doing all the paperwork yourself (and you must be a patent lawyer), budget $1000 per patent.

            Paying a patent lawyer, for searching and filing, budget $10,000 per patent.

            Defending a patent against violation and/or contestation, budget $100,000 per patent.

            These are minimal figures. You can go much higher.

            Now add the fact that your patent portfolio is like a hand of cards. Even if you invest in (say) 20 excellent patents, you are unable to compete against a compa

  • Patent Usage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:15PM (#9128757)

    The real question is, in my mind, what they do with it. If they just use it as a defensive patent, to protect themselves against, say, Microsoft using a similar patent to shut down their music service, then I don't see the problem. If they start using it to try to kill iTunes-alikes, like juk or rythmbox, THEN its cause for alarm.

    Though that leads to a second question - how specific is it? juk, at least, is significantly different from iTunes in practice, even though it looks similar and has similar functionality.

  • Lotus 123 and interfaces (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:19PM (#9128818) Journal

    I thought that it was decided back in the 1980's wars between Lotus 123 and others that interfaces couldn't be protected? If they could, we'd only have one legal spreadsheet program today because that was their claim, i.e. that they had created the spreadsheet interface concept and owned it.

    • But this isn't an interface patent, really. There is no such thing as an interface patent. This is a look-and-feel patent which just happens to apply to an interface.

      Lotus 1-2-3 had the look and feel of a piece of graph paper, available for many years at any office supply outlet.

      iTunes has the look and feel of, well, iTunes. Other programs that do the same thing (play music on a computer) have other interface layouts. Winamp doesn't look like iTunes. Neither does Windows Media Player. Lsongs, on the other

  • Back to the Future (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:23PM (#9128863) Homepage
    Just a few reminders of what various slashdotters originally though of the iPod before "iPods are the shiznit" became /. canon.

    "iPod is a good product, but nothing to get excited over." - harlows_monkeys

    "It's not cool at all. It's just another Mac attempt to have the coolest looking, hippest sounding gadget on the market. It adds nothing serious to the current options. For instance, no Ogg Vorbis support (and yes, I realize it probably decodes mp3 in hardware, but...) and it doesn't appear to be cross-platform. I guess this falls into the Dilbert principle of "the best target market is stupid rich people." Since they'll fall for anything and have the money to burn on it." - ichimunki

    "...the "rose-colored glasses that you will need for this to seem like a worthwhile product. What a let-down, geez!!" - david614

    "People need to realize that all apple ever really delivers is mediocre equipment that, while it may look really cool, is less technically advanced/powerfull/whatever than competing products that cost 20-25% less." - greysky

    "A waste of time. Probably OEMed by someone else. Agree with the article poster - Lame. Not only is this a lackluster MP3 unit (which by virtue of being firewire will be limited to Apple Mac owners), but it has virtually no UI wizardry that might define it as an Apple product. A total waste of time." - Ars-Fartsica

    "I'd rather pay $100 for a Rio Volt. 700mb of songs per CD with an unlimited number of CD's, provided you change them. Yeah, this should compete favorably with the solid state units, but they've already lost to the CD-MP3 units, IMO." - Fred Ferrigno

    "I think it'll sell as well as the G4 Cube. Oops. ;-)" - jaoswald

    "And I was all excited they were gooing to release a OS X based wireless web pad. Instead we get yet another portable MP3 player .. "groundbreaking" I think was the term I heard them use to describe this new secret product the other day. How "groundbreaking" can something be when I can walk up the street and buy something with similar (and in some cases, additional/better) features? Sigh. One day Apple will live up to the hype. OS X is cool, and their plastic molding team has skills, but the hardware just sucks." - nebby

    "I am very sad that Apple seems to be repeating the same mistake they made with the Cube - great, nifty product that anyone would love to own, except that it's burdened by an unbelievably poor price/performance ratio." - jchristopher (Apple shareholder)

    "...this was a VERY poor design decision. This could have been a $150 device if they'd used a regular laptop drive." - jchristopher again
    • Well, go back and see what people said about TiVo back in the day (as in the device or the generic PVR concept). IIRC, the iPod was the first to use a hard drive and people thought they were crazy - it wasn't until widespread use that the whole brilliance behind the concept became apparent.
    • For whatever it's worth, I nominate the parent as the best post (so far) of 2004.

      From Slashdot's 1876 archives:

      "Alexander Graham Bell's fancy new 'telephone' is destined to be remembered as the biggest bust in recent memory. It lacks telegraph support -- what's up with that? And the price! Just goes to show you Bell's customers will pay for whatever pretty-looking crap he puts out. Carrier pigeons do exactly the same thing as this new-fangled telephone for dollars less. Bell's labs can't be long for thi

    • Re:Back to the Future (Score:5, Funny)

      by huchida ( 764848 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @02:05PM (#9130417)
      I'm afraid you're being awfully short-sighted. All of those quotes could still turn out to be correct... Just because the iPod is doing well right now, doesn't mean it won't fail miserably at some point in the future.

      On a related note, Apple is doomed. They signed their own death warrant when they decided to only have one button on the mouse. I don't see the company surviving past 2012, and I'd recommend everyone who owns Powerbooks should smash them against the wall now before they're laughably obsolete.

  • They can have that interface. I dont' like it. It's music playing software. Granted, it has burning capabilities and an interface to the ITMS, but I like my music players sleek and simple.

    Now if AOL/NullSoft patents the WinAmp interface, then I'll be pissed.

  • Interface Patents are The Least of Users' Concerns (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lotsofno ( 733224 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:29PM (#9128952)
    As intuitive as iTunes' interface may or may not be, that helps little for the many people who've found the application to be too slow or CPU intensive on their PCs. I'm sure there are some who can provide their own anectodal evidence pointing to the contrary, but iTunes is still a memory hog for many others.

    Similar programs like Foobar or Winamp 5 barely slow down people's systems, and can even be configured to run MUCH faster [inthegray.com]. Their file sizes are also noticeably smaller. You could argue that iTunes does much more with it's iPod support, but Winamp's connectivity with the iPod is just as seamless [sourceforge.net] and even has features iTunes lacks. Foobar also sports a formidable iPod plug-in.

  • Real Networks patent (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:30PM (#9128968)
    From the article: "A RealNetworks spokesman said his company had not sought any directly comparable interface patents for its 10-year-old media player software, for example"

    Looking at the hideous ad-plastered screen for their Real Player, I'm surprised that Jeff Gordon [pkcomp.com] hasn't sued them instead for patent violation.

  • I find it interesting to note that iTunes under Windows completely ignores the styleguides that Microsoft have.

    Yet, Office for Mac adheres to Apple's styleguides.

    Whether you think the Windows styleguide sucks or not isn't the issue - one is there for a good reason and I don't see why a company should feel the need to ignore it.

    • Re:The UI (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mattintosh ( 758112 )
      iTunes for Mac ignores Apple's HIG*. Apple is an equal-opportunity HIG-ignorer. In fact, Apple has been making it a point to abuse and destroy HIG's everywhere.

      What I don't understand about the Windows HIG is why everything is set up for lefties. With the kind of marketshare Windows has, it should be for righties, not to mention the fact that most lefties prefer MacOS. And stupider still, in light of the "lefties prefer MacOS" thing, MacOS is set up for righties! WTF!

      * HIG stands for Human Interface Guide
    • UI guidelines aren't holy. Apple breaks them all over on OS X, and with every new iteration, changes are made.

      Good? Bad?

      Apple before OS X was extremely easy and we'll probably never again go to such a place, but I enjoy OS X, iTunes and all iLife apps. Most changes - I feel - are for the better, and some of the things they've done are just so impressive that I don't mind the usual bad call.

      And while some things in iTunes for Windows could have been done more thoughtfully, I think it's by far the easiest

  • USPTO should drop all pretenses of checkng patents (Score:4, Informative)

    by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:36PM (#9129081)
    What become clear to me over the last few years is that the US Patent Office has descended to little more than a registry system, like copyright registration. All a patent really says these days is "I had this idea on this date."

    Personally, I think the USPTO should stop claiming to even attempt to research patents. They should just take your submission, slap a date on it, and stick in their files. The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.
    • The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.

      I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.
      • I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.

        They don't have the last say, but they're currently supposed to do supposed to check out applications, and often reccommend changes. It's definately not a "shall issue" short of thing where I hand you a document and I automatically get a patent.
    • Yeah, because I know *I* have the resources to defend myself in court because my programs have an interface that is similar to some corporation's software?

      That's a damned good idea.
      • Yeah, because I know *I* have the resources to defend myself in court because my programs have an interface that is similar to some corporation's software?
        That's a damned good idea.

        Well, that's something else that obviously needs to change. Right now civil ligitgation is like a no-limit poker game, where once you run out of money for lawyers, you loose by default.
        I think that's something else that definately needs to change, but I still feel that the concept of an organization that can understand the

  • Microsoft to Make Music Service Changes (Score:4, Funny)

    by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:39PM (#9129126) Homepage
    NEWS

    Microsoft used the South by Southwest Music trade show that ran over the weekend to confirm plans to launch a music service later this year. The opportunity was also taken to show record labels the service running behind closed doors.

    No details of pricing were given, but it has been made clear that Microsoft aims to promote the service almost exclusively through the MSN portal. Users will be able to sign up via MSN and then view the catalogue of available songs for purchase and download. The amount of music that will be available is also unknown, but a Microsoft spokeswoman stated the company is "going to be striving for a large catalogue of music."

    Initially, the user interface was to be copied from the popular iTunes software, but since Apple Computer Inc. has been awarded a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for the iTunes interface, Microsoft is shifting gears. When Bill Gate's was asked about the situation he reiterated: "Well, I think it's fun to talk about this because the rate of advance is so incredible, and not just in a numeric sense. The whole way that we interact with systems, the way we write software, the way we administer these systems, the way we collaborate, it will be very, very different."

    Microsoft warned that they may have to move operations of their upcoming music store to an undisclosed country, where patent laws do not exist.

    [/parody]

  • patent vs. copyright vs. cooperation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:42PM (#9129183) Homepage Journal
    Patents protect a functional product, its composition and slight (negligible) differences. Software, instructions that hardware follows, is a debatable "boundary condition" for patentability, because software "simulates" a machine on another, such as a Turing "universal machine" like a Pentium (or PPC). But an API does not even simulate a machine. It is a specification, data about a "machine" (software or hardware) which interoperates with other machines. Data isn't patentable. It's copyrightable. Why do APIs get patents, rather than copyrights? Why would such a patent (or even copyright) prevent any action other than cloning the API? Even a patented Ford dashboard doesn't prevent GM from making a dashboard featuring the same interface devices, like steering wheel, speedometer and tachometer, so long as the actual parts that deliver those features are electro/mechanically different, or licensed. Why does IT suffer from stricter constraints than mechanics, especially when IT is so free from inherent constraints, to deliver better value at lower cost?
  • Given Apple's recent string of threats against their technology, I have to say that things are looking bad for TuneYard [tuneyard.com] because of this.
  • OK, that's a joke, but maybe, just maybe they'll now try and improve on Apple's design, which btw should be every (commercial) designer's goal: improve on popular stuff.

    Increment on existing stuff, make hard things easier and adhere to guidelines if possible. Copying is, well, easy, I guess, and useful sometimes, but what's the incentive for buying Linspire when it's only claim is "we sort of are just like everything else, only uglier and stuff sometimes break, but we're a bit cheaper".

    If Linspire was fre
  • Software patents are OK this week since Apple did it???

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close