Submitted by Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple’s application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod’s contents. The basis for the denial: a similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher’s patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.
If the second patent was filed after the iPod was introduced, doesn’t that make the iPod prior art for that patent?
Sigh. The USPTO needs to have a purge. Clearly, its infested with stupid…
If the second patent was filed after the iPod was introduced, doesn’t that make the iPod prior art for that patent?
Yes! Thus, each of these patent claims are invalidated!
Sigh. The USPTO needs to have a purge. Clearly, its infested with stupid…
Stupid … or too stupid to be dumb? Eh???? Eh? Eh? Eh?
You wish. I really wonder how long big software companies will take to realise this is really wasting their time and money and will lobby to get the system severly restricted in the future. I am afraid it will take very long indeed.
This is why Software Patents must not prevail: where the hell is hierarchical menus an inovation?
Besides, if this was supposed to be an inovation, then Apple should be its owner, since it was the first to invent, although not the first to subscribe the patent. Oh well…
I agree this is pretty silly. Microsoft could have apple by the balls. What if they demand royalties for all the iPods sold to date? My advice…sell your apple stock now.
>Microsoft could have apple by the balls<
They do.
Ditto that…. and with a very tight grip. MS can chose to twist and wring anytime they want. Apple is along for the ride at MS’s whim.
Why doesn’t the iPod have it? Stephen Jobs is screwing us again.
you don’t need to do that to attract readers. catchy titles are one thing… suggesting the MS owns ipod is a little overboard.
I agree with rayiner, USPTO needs to purge and retrain or something. sometimes i swear they have a bunch of monkeys with “approved” stamps doing 80% of the work.
What about “owns” as in “ownage”….
Ah, Microsoft pwns iPod!
Microsoft owns a patent to a feature in the Ipod, not the Ipod itself. That title should really be changed.
“Microsoft owns a patent to a feature in the Ipod, not the Ipod itself. That title should really be changed.”
Mircrosoft doesn’t even own a patent on that feature of the iPod, they have applied for a patent on the iPod which has not been approved yet. Apple’s patent was denied on the grounds Microsoft’s simular patent was filed prior to Apples, however neither patents have been approved. So yes the title should be changed as it is very innacurate.
MS and Apple were all about getting Software Patents. Now it has finally come back to bit one of the them in the A$$. How funny is that Steve Jobs might have to pay Bill Gates royalties for something Apple invented. Just because someone at MS was smart enough to realize that it had not been patented yet and beat them to it.
Actually it isn’t going to happen that way at all as stated in the article at the top of http://www.macdailynews.com:
Microsoft’s so-called “patent” is not even a patent. It is a patent application (Number 20030221541, to be exact) which has received numerous “Non-Final Rejections” (NFR) and at least one “Final Rejection” (which obviously isn’t really so final – this is the government we’re talking about here) from the US Patent and Trademark Office and has not received approval. The Register explains that Platt’s patent “received an NFR on 17 November 2002, and a more serious Final Rejection on 14 June 2004. After further documentation was received, and extension granted, the application received another NFR on 11 December last year.”
Plus there is also something called “prior art” which is what apple has, the truth of the matter is that apple invented the ipod, and shipped the product 5 months prior to the microsoft patent application so therefore in a patent appeal an investigation is launched as to who REALLY invented the technology which is, of course, apple as they had the shipping product.
A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher’s patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.
IANAL but that’s “prior art”, right ? So an Apple should be able to fix everything by appealing the decision to grant Microsoft the patent.
What is interesting is that ms are gently starting to pressure (FUD) Apple. It shows they’re getting jittery, which can be a good thing or very bad indeed depending on how Apple play their hand the next couple of years.
This is two days in a row that osn has posted “click me” titles. “Macs are too expensive” and “Microsoft owns iPod”. I’m taking this site off my daily routine, this is just horrible. Both articles involve apple as well, the easiest way to get clicks.
This is like 5-day-old news and has already been smacked down by many due to prior art. Get something original OSN!
Steal what someone else has done and patent it.
…and then sue the inventor for violating YOUR “patentend” technology. Aah!! the American Way!
And was discredited a whole week ago by the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/
In short, in the US system, the rights go to the first to invent, not the first to file, and there is significant prior art out there in the form of all the iPods sold before the patent application was made.
Further, the Microsoft patent has been rejected several times over, and is still only under consideration. Meanwhile, there is a multitude of other patents covering various aspects of the iPod user-interface that have been granted.
This whole thing started with an Appleinsider story a week and a half ago that said Apple failed to register a patent for an element of the iPod interface, and has been exaggerated by a series of news-desperate media outlets since. I wouldn’t worry about it (and I certainly wouldn’t sell my stock seeing as it’s still on the up-and-up, though I suspect it’s got a year before the iPod starts becoming old).
This was talked about at Groklaw a couple of days ago:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050814182026814
In that it is mentioned that there’s a proposed law working it’s way through Congress to change the patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file. If that were to happen, Apple would have no recourse in this case…
Yes, you are correct, and it will be first to file, not first to invent. And guess who’s been pushing this change to the way patents are done – Microsoft. Yep. Funny eh? Microsoft can’t innovate and create things, so it waits for others to do so, and then uses it’s substantial financial abilities to destroy the opposition and steal the ideas. Then patent it themselves and use their substantial financial abilities again to shove the patent down everyone else’s throats. Great eh? Take note guys, this legislation has a very good chance of making it thru the US Senate. Things are going to get very nasty, and very soon. If the US government will not correct the USPTO crap (and preferably get rid of software patents altogther, they are simply NOT needed), then other countries simply must start rejecting US style patents/copyrights, the DMCA and start to take economic sanctions against the US until it starts to realise the error of it’s own ways and makes the necessary changes.
You can call me anti-US if you want, I admit that I am, many of the things that the US has pushed have been shoved down other countries throats, and it’s to the detriment of world trade (and of course, fancy this, benefit of the US trade, which is weak once you remove all of these US centric laws etc). I don’t want to see a global economy dictated by one single country – that is not globalisation, that’s economic slavery [to the US].
Dave
“First to invent” have serious problems that “First to file” is intended to solve, and groklaw is just a site for F/OSS trolls to pat themselves on their own backs.
I have not read the patent in question now, but is there anyone out there that can prove that the “inventor” in this case, or those he worked with, knew about the iPod interface?
Even if he knew about the iPod, is there really anything to suggest he got these ideas because he knew about the iPod, or that he thought his own ideas would in any way cover the iPod?
Apple screwed up royally in waiting with their own patent application, and they deserve to be screwed around for that.
Will Apple have to pay license fees to MS for the iPod, if MS gets awarded the patent? Not likely, as MS and Apple likely already have cross licensing deals in order to avoid any patent squabbles.
Yeah, come on. Microsoft don’t own shit. They buy other people’s crap, tortute it and release it as “brand new technology”. They clearly don’t own the iPod so stop lambasting us with totally worthless titles just to get click-income.
These “new editors” are killing OSNews. They don’t have 10% of Eugenia’s talent for the job. I wonder if an online petition would help to show how discontent people is getting with these ridiculous flamebait titles.
Sure, the editors are bad, but isn’t the real focus here on patent law? See the groklaw post by a few posts ago: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050814182026814
As has been noted, Microsoft has merely applied for a patent. If their filing means that Apple can’t have the patent, then Apple’s prior art means Microsoft can’t have the patent. That means no one gets a patent, and Apple’s hierarchical menus concept is public domain!
It would be nice if we could give grades to _all_ the articles posted here, not only the exclusive ones. So we could have a measure of how things are going, and maybe the new editors could fine tune their judgement with the reader’s expectations.
This has been around for about a week now and really everyone interested should browse to the sites that others have posted to get the full story. This posting barely touches on it.
They are ruining the computing world for everyone else with their bullshit practices, driving honest companies out of business all the time. Fuck Microseft, boycott the proprietary Microseft Windows XP piece of shit system!
You should make an honest attempt to listen to the people who post opinions about your editorial techniques.
This headline is flamebait. Nothing more, nothing less. At first glance of the article, it might be a reasonable conclusion to assume that MS has some rights to the iPod. However, this headline takes that assumption up another level.
Good journalism, even if this is really just an aggregation requires thorough research of the topic. This exemplifies what happens when no research is done. Flamebait.
Unfortunately, this behavior is not isolated to this article. The “Macs Are Too Expensive” post (http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11581) and the “Windows Girl Goes Fedora” article (http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11578) are both guilty of terrible reporting.
Please get your act together. I’m sure I’m not the only “regular” who is beginning to look elsewhere for my news fix.
Why does it bother you so much that a couple of articles have amusing headlines???
Heck it could say “Apple Sucks Y’All” for all I care just smile and move on….
Or, if you feel strongly enough about it why not do something and submit an article that you _think_ is OK.
Ok, this obviously needs more explaining that I thought.
It bother me (and some others) because these board are commonly overrun with idiotic posts by os fanatics that feed off of these types of headlines. This is essentially adding more fuel to the fire.
Part 2 – The headlines aren’t so much amusing are they are misleading/ignorant/wrong. The headline for this “news” is equivalent to having a headline that reads “Toyota Headed for 1E100 MPG” when in reality they have made minimal improvements with hybrid technology.
Why don’t I submit an article? What kind of response is that? Like 99.9% of the people here, I come to READ the news. If I ever did write an article and they butchered my headline you can bet your last dollar that I would be good and unhappy though.
So, I guess in your opinion, I should be happy that the boards will be overrun with fanboy nonsense and actually write every article that appears on OSNews. Good plan!
The “new editors” should at least preserve Eugenia’s policy of not changing the original article title, except rare occasions. And certainly never dumbing down the title, which happened a few times here in the last days.
I don’t find titles like this amusing – I find them irritating. Titles should give readers some clue as to what the article is actually about, not fool us into reading articles in which we have no interest whatsiever. I suggest that humorous titles should be reserved for articles with a the Pumkin icon.
As for the idea that those of us who don’t like an article’s style should write one of our own, I think that is beside the point, and mildly insulting. Writers and readers visit OS News for different reasons. Many of us come here just to read, and let’s be honest: without readers, OS News would be dead. Rather than attack readers for not being writers, I think a more beneficial response would be to accept feedback from your readership, learn what makes a good headline, and find out how to meet the needs of your readership more effectively. Otherwise, your readers will just go elsewhere.
“Why does it bother you so much that a couple of articles have amusing headlines???
Heck it could say “Apple Sucks Y’All” for all I care just smile and move on….
Or, if you feel strongly enough about it why not do something and submit an article that you _think_ is OK.”
Ah, well it looks like you’re the dipshit who submitted this article. Well, of course you would defend its title because you’re biased, aren’t you.
“Why does it bother you so much that a couple of articles have amusing headlines???
Heck it could say “Apple Sucks Y’All” for all I care just smile and move on….
Or, if you feel strongly enough about it why not do something and submit an article that you _think_ is OK.”
Ah, well it looks like you’re the dipshit who submitted this article. Well, of course you would defend its title because you’re biased, aren’t you.
wtf!! You only just noticed!! LOL
Why do you think I said ” that you _think_”….
I second that
Microsoft is very smart. In all likely hood, Microsoft patent will eventually be rejected due to prior art. So if this is the case and Microsoft knew this, what exactly was the purpose of Microsoft filing for this patent? I’ll tell you. The iPod interface is extremely intuitive and a lot of companies would love to clone it. If Microsoft had not filed the patent before Apple, Apple would own the patent on this interface and noone would be able to use the interface. However, because Microsoft did apply for the patent, now noone will be able to patent the idea because of prior art via the iPod. Apple knows this and this is what really has Apple execs fuming.
And here’s the illogic of it all – Apple invented the iPod, and the software that ships with it. As owner, one would think, that they logically should have the right to patent it, no? I mean, that’s what patents are meant to be for, no? Patents are supposedly there to benefit the inventor. Did Microsoft invent it? No. Did Apple invent it? Yes. It seems pretty easy to me. Who file for patent first should not matter, since the original owner, Apple, has prior art. The correct way for the USPTO to have handled this would have been to reject the Microsoft patent final – no more “can we please try agains” from Microsoft. And then grant Apple’s patent, not because it was the first to be lodged, but because they invented it, and have prior art that supercedes anything else [in relation to this iPod software menu heirachy application]. How simple is that? Why, can’t the USPTO work in such logical ways?
It shows me that either the USPTO is open to bribery, or corruption (my personal take is both), and it needs a complete and utter overhaul.
Dave
It shows me that either the USPTO is open to bribery, or corruption (my personal take is both), and it needs a complete and utter overhaul.
What really needs to happen is that the USPTO opens the patents process to include peer-reviewed comments on patent applications that go direct to the examiner, and that people start eyeballing applications as they come in to stop illogical and unworthy patents from being allowed. (Ie, people all write in, say the patent is nonsense due to prior art, examiner takes this into account, then drops it).
Remember, the patent system is about releasing your idea/invention to the public domain in order to have a government induced monopoly on it in order so that you can safely produce a product with it without fear of competitors stealing your idea and undercutting you later on.
Somewhere along the line the US government changed that so software/idea patents were allowed, which has significantly degraded the system as a whole. The litigation process is also significantly drawn out, meaning that the onus is on the defendant to prove the patent invalid rather than the patent owner to prove why they should keep it.
All in all, it’s high time the world says no to US patents until they clean up their act. I’d say China and the Asia-Pacific region will probably start doing that first.
Some good points there.
So, clean up patent system. Clean up litigation system. Use a ounce of more common sense when dealing with software + patents (I still like getting rid of them as I think they produce monopolies in all honesty).
As to China/Asia pacific cleaning up on US style patents, who knows. I know Australia won’t, but that’s only because or dishonourable Prime Minister Jonny “boy” Howard is a tosser and so far up Bushie jr.s ass it isn’t funny. I’m quite surprised that Australia hasn’t become the 53rd state of America by now. We might as well be, we do everything else the Americans tell us to.
Dave
Common sense isn’t really required, all that is needed is more public scrutiny and people inquiring into bad patents and calling foul when it’s clear it’s a IP landgrab rather than trying to advance society as a whole. I’d agree to software patents if they lasted 3-5 years, or shorter. Less problems would happen as the person/company patenting anything would not be inclined to use it as a weapon to stymie competitors as they would just wait it out and then use it as they see fit.
With appropriate blocks and analysis of similar prior art (so you can’t expand a patent like Lemelson did post-invention, rorting money off legitimate inventors) it would clean up the field rapidly. I know from a simple read of a patent in a field I’m interested in can quickly show whether it’s legitimate or not. If it’s legitimate, they have protection from when it’s filed. If it’s illegitimate, they have no protection anyhow, so there’s no harm in filing unless you’re trying to do some kind of stealth filing (which seems to be case most of the time in USA).
China has already made several actions that show it’s not interested in supporting USA, in particular their new EVD (and HD EVD) format that has optional DVD support. I’d imagine they have a few new compression formats up their sleeves and it’s a simple matter to shut the doors on DVD and push EVD instead. (And distribute MPEG-2 decoders for DVD compatibility, or use OSS like MPlayer or VideoLAN in disguise).
Australia has been betrayed by its government by accepting less than equitable agreements such as the FTA with USA (good for USA, though). Then it was betrayed again with the whole WMD in Iraq nonsense. As an Australian myself I’m rather worried with how the government is going, I can see Australia degenerating into a fear based country much like USA if things continue on as they are… it was bad enough the last time I visited USA, and I can imagine it getting a lot worse.
Quote: “Australia has been betrayed by its government by accepting less than equitable agreements such as the FTA with USA (good for USA, though). Then it was betrayed again with the whole WMD in Iraq nonsense. As an Australian myself I’m rather worried with how the government is going, I can see Australia degenerating into a fear based country much like USA if things continue on as they are… it was bad enough the last time I visited USA, and I can imagine it getting a lot worse.”
Amen.
Dave
Coming next in US: “Apple owns right-clicking”
Microsoft owns iPod?
Microsoft invented it first
Microsoft has protected their trademarks.
But, have they ever actually sued anybody over patents?
I don’t know.
Of course you neglect to mention that Microsoft’s patent has not been granted either so how could they own it? More importantly, Apple’s prior art (They released a product with the technology before Microsoft submitted their patent.) invalidates Microsoft’s patent. Try reading a book instead of smoking the pages.
“These “new editors” are killing OSNews. They don’t have 10% of Eugenia’s talent for the job. I wonder if an online petition would help to show how discontent people is getting with these ridiculous flamebait titles”
Agreed. This is totally ridiculous. It makes me angry when I fall for such a misleading title only to find that the article holds no merit and is evidence that whoever posted the article with that title is an overly greedy click-hungy moron.
“These “new editors” are killing OSNews. They don’t have 10% of Eugenia’s talent for the job. I wonder if an online petition would help to show how discontent people is getting with these ridiculous flamebait titles”
What would you expect from an editor who apparently spend more time reading /. than working on their own site? This has become a much lower quality /. clone.
/. sucks heavily in its own right, but attempting to copy something with a high suckage factor never gets a pleasant result.
The USPTO is not in charge of market inspection.
That is reasonable.
So it approves patent to who is the first to apply.
That is also reasonable if it has no money support.
But that means a company can make big money just by inspecting all other companies’ invent, and hire some patent application experts, no requirement collection and analysis, no research, no design, no development, no testing, no marketing, no service, no maintenance.
Wonderful world!
Only printers, only papers, and money counter, that is it!
So USPTO will keep its decision even it get to know the paten holder does not worth the prize?
That is not reasonable.
Good idea? Who think it is? –>the man who has the ballot.
patents should be there to protect an idea between concept and finished product. not to create a monopoly after the finished product is out. for that they have copyright, but that only apply to creative works. but last time i checked, software in the us was protected by both patent and copyright. what a mess…
1. I’m going to stop reading OSNews, I’m removing it from my bookmarks. OSN is clearly becoming low-qual flamebait.
2. This is to Europeans: You are weak pathetic slaves. You see how US-style economy and laws will result in an US-style economic downfall and lawlessness? I can’t believe Europeans are willing to lay down in fear, especially a country like POLAND with an independant IT industry is willing to GIVE IT UP TO THE US AND M$. Do you want to lose any independance in the digital world and be at the whims of microsoft, then JOIN THE EU and be a US slave!
“1. I’m going to stop reading OSNews, I’m removing it from my bookmarks. OSN is clearly becoming low-qual flamebait.
2. This is to Europeans: You are weak pathetic slaves.”
1. Care-factor: 0
2. Pot…meet kettle.
That title meant to say, “Ipod is Microsoft’s Beehatch”.
… anymore? The iPod is still the iPod whether is from X or Z. Of course it’s more like iPot from Apple than from MS.
It seems to me recently that the title of many articles generates more comments than the news the articles they are reporting on. The majority of comments are largely negative, this article being a case in point.
Perhaps the OSNews editors should hear the writing on the wall, and drop the “We’re the editors, so whatever we say is right” attitude, and start thinking about the reason there are so many disgruntled readers.
… there are so many disgruntled readers.
Ah yes, but how many of those so-called “disgruntled readers” are actually microsoft marketing sock puppets?
The only people who would have a problem with that article heading is microsoft marketing, because it puts microsoft in a bad light. To them the fact that microsoft is filing for large numbers of bogus patents to manipulate the market is neither here nor there.
Sorry to break it to you but market manipulation is news worthy, and this spin on the patent wars is entirely appropriate. Particularly because this site has accurately reported what happened.
What an illogical patent, “method of using hierarchical menus to navigate”.
Christ what next, people patenting the use of pipes to carry water, then demand all those who use pipes, to pay a royalty?
Please, Apple will either do one of two things; either fight it, or simply replace it with plan (b) – every company who makes a product has several varients, with two normally sitting at the end, with the eventual successor basically pulled from a hat.
You’ll simply see Apple release a firmware update for all its iPods, creating a new navigation menu – heck, why not use a mixture of icon and menus? patent it, and thus, worked around the problem.
First-to-file rules are insanely stupid. Suppose I’m inventing a high-tech buttercup-filling machine and I don’t bother filing for a patent.
Some schmuck finds this out 15 years after I’ve been using my machine and he files. Now I get to pay HIM royalties on MY invention?
We are seeing the breakdown of a legal system. It is being pushed and pulled for the benefit of a very few instead of being applicable to the whole population.
And America is not doing well socio-economically [or, you may think it’s ok to have one of the most expensive medical services system in the world that leaves out some 45 million citizens].
This kind of legislature is an enormous detriment to innovation and it totally plays into the hands of companies that have the deepest pockets.
Stupid laws undermine society.
I really hope microsoft win.
thake tath jobs!!! you and your stupid intel switch!!
I know nothing about patents, but Apple had the thing on streets some time before MS applied for the patent, so, shouldn’t that be considered prior art?
André
If you know the background of this researcher you know the guy did the work while employed by the company Apple uses to manufacture the iPod.
How this becomes Microsoft’s IP is really reaching.
Sure, the editors are bad, but isn’t the real focus here on patent law?
It’s harder to concentrate on the articles (or on discussing the articles) when the inaccurate headlines are fanning the flames in the forum.
I don’t like the new style, either. The new editors ened to grow up. 🙁