Comments on: Microsoft, Apple in iPod patent tussle
Music player may be winning in the market, but Microsoft beats its rival in the patent office.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Google wants to build 'white spaces' database
January 4, 2010 5:54 PM PST
- Flixster buys Rotten Tomatoes from News Corp.
January 4, 2010 4:38 PM PST
- Can full-body airport scanners harm you?
January 4, 2010 4:28 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
faster patent attorney." MSFT has never "innovated." There's a
reason that there aren't that many MSFT groupies. They've never
presented something to their user community which was truly
compelling or even marginally interesting in any way. I'm sure
Apple couldn't care less about this. They'll just make something
that's even that much better, patent prior to release, and then
all the Windows cronies can go cry in their sleep.
This just makes Microsoft look like a weak sissy especially after criticizing other companies who took them to court. What happened to their argument that companies should fight their battles in the marketplace rather than in the courtrooms??
They'll just continue to submit the patent again and again, changing a few words here and there, until their copycat becomes 'innovative' enough to pass.
It seems the patent office has it all backwards and instead of looking at the actual claim judges the 'innovative' ways different companies can describe what is essentially the same thing.
Don't Cry.
Note: I don't use Apple, MacOS and I don't own an iPod. I do use iTunes (in Windows). I don't think Linux is real competition for Windows either (though SuSE is coming close). Most of the programs I use run in Windows. It is the MS business model I criticize the most, though some of their products could use some update work.
Kaefer said that although Microsoft's patent application does predate Apple's, what could ultimately end up being most relevant is which company first jotted down the basic idea behind the patents."
Sound to me like Apple probably has the prior art side going for them. I figure at the very least Microsofts patent will be invalidated.
If it's true then Microsoft "innovation" is just another copy of someone elses. Personally I don't have a problem with companies copying other companies. It's how we've got this far. And to be fair you can still be innovative even if you copy something else.
Now my question to the Microsoft guys. If Linux users are fanatics and Apple users are zealots then what does that make Microsoft users (by user I mean the extreme fanatics)? I'm guessing mindless worshipers at the alter of Microsoft.
My guess is that the real techs out their probably have a linux box and an apple box and a windows box at home. Because for them it's really about the technology and not about the name. It's about learning something new and/or a better way to do it. Or about finding the best possible solution to a problem. Maybe I'm just to much of an optimist, but it's all about finding the potential and understanding the flaws of technology. Of course it's irritating when those flaws are well know and the company just ignores them (Microsoft isn't the only one who does this either).
faster patent attorney." MSFT has never "innovated." There's a
reason that there aren't that many MSFT groupies. They've never
presented something to their user community which was truly
compelling or even marginally interesting in any way. I'm sure
Apple couldn't care less about this. They'll just make something
that's even that much better, patent prior to release, and then
all the Windows cronies can go cry in their sleep.
This just makes Microsoft look like a weak sissy especially after criticizing other companies who took them to court. What happened to their argument that companies should fight their battles in the marketplace rather than in the courtrooms??
They'll just continue to submit the patent again and again, changing a few words here and there, until their copycat becomes 'innovative' enough to pass.
It seems the patent office has it all backwards and instead of looking at the actual claim judges the 'innovative' ways different companies can describe what is essentially the same thing.
Don't Cry.
Note: I don't use Apple, MacOS and I don't own an iPod. I do use iTunes (in Windows). I don't think Linux is real competition for Windows either (though SuSE is coming close). Most of the programs I use run in Windows. It is the MS business model I criticize the most, though some of their products could use some update work.
Kaefer said that although Microsoft's patent application does predate Apple's, what could ultimately end up being most relevant is which company first jotted down the basic idea behind the patents."
Sound to me like Apple probably has the prior art side going for them. I figure at the very least Microsofts patent will be invalidated.
If it's true then Microsoft "innovation" is just another copy of someone elses. Personally I don't have a problem with companies copying other companies. It's how we've got this far. And to be fair you can still be innovative even if you copy something else.
Now my question to the Microsoft guys. If Linux users are fanatics and Apple users are zealots then what does that make Microsoft users (by user I mean the extreme fanatics)? I'm guessing mindless worshipers at the alter of Microsoft.
My guess is that the real techs out their probably have a linux box and an apple box and a windows box at home. Because for them it's really about the technology and not about the name. It's about learning something new and/or a better way to do it. Or about finding the best possible solution to a problem. Maybe I'm just to much of an optimist, but it's all about finding the potential and understanding the flaws of technology. Of course it's irritating when those flaws are well know and the company just ignores them (Microsoft isn't the only one who does this either).
2) Microsoft: "Cool interface. Let's patent that".
3) Apple: "Oops, we better patent that."
4) Patent Office: "Sorry. Microsoft beat you."
In a nutshell...
Apple has better products and engineering. Microsoft has better lawyers.
Also, the market dictates the leader. If Apple had better products they'd be ahead.
Don't Cry.
2) Microsoft: "Cool interface. Let's patent that".
3) Apple: "Oops, we better patent that."
4) Patent Office: "Sorry. Microsoft beat you."
In a nutshell...
Apple has better products and engineering. Microsoft has better lawyers.
Also, the market dictates the leader. If Apple had better products they'd be ahead.
Don't Cry.
iPod came out 2001
patent filed by "innovative" MS 2002
iPod came out 2001
patent filed by "innovative" MS 2002
2001. This Microsoft patent was awarded long
after that. So I don't see how this Microsoft
patent could require that Apple pays a
licensing fee to sell a product that they have
been making years before the Microsoft patent
went into effect.
In other words, if company 'A' makes a product
but doesn't patent its design, can a company
'B' come along, file a patent on the design
being used by company 'A', and then demand
licensing fees from company A? That's
ridiculous! I can't believe that that's true. What
am I missing here?
debut of iPod. By the patent law, the inventor has one year
period to file for a patent after its public disclosure. In this case,
Apple's filing is within the one year period.
If the MS patent is any pertinent and if they decide to fight it out,
the court could simply throw out MS patent as there was a prior
art that was already in existence. Given the inventor's filing was
within a year's time of public disclosure, the patent might be
awarded to Apple. (This is the best case scenario.) But, I do not
see this as a clear win for MS.
So it's entirely possible that company A produces something and company B patents part of it that's similar but different enough to have A's product not qualify as prior art.
It's also entirely possible that company A later files a patent that's too broad and therefor covers part of company's B patent and gets rejected.
What will happen in this case is that Apple will revise their patent by limiting its scope to not interfere with Microsoftt's and resubmit. It might go through several more denials and resubmissions but they'll get their patent in the end. It just won't be as broad as they initally wanted it to be.
doesn't want to get into a pissing contest. Seems like
desperation.
2001. This Microsoft patent was awarded long
after that. So I don't see how this Microsoft
patent could require that Apple pays a
licensing fee to sell a product that they have
been making years before the Microsoft patent
went into effect.
In other words, if company 'A' makes a product
but doesn't patent its design, can a company
'B' come along, file a patent on the design
being used by company 'A', and then demand
licensing fees from company A? That's
ridiculous! I can't believe that that's true. What
am I missing here?
debut of iPod. By the patent law, the inventor has one year
period to file for a patent after its public disclosure. In this case,
Apple's filing is within the one year period.
If the MS patent is any pertinent and if they decide to fight it out,
the court could simply throw out MS patent as there was a prior
art that was already in existence. Given the inventor's filing was
within a year's time of public disclosure, the patent might be
awarded to Apple. (This is the best case scenario.) But, I do not
see this as a clear win for MS.
So it's entirely possible that company A produces something and company B patents part of it that's similar but different enough to have A's product not qualify as prior art.
It's also entirely possible that company A later files a patent that's too broad and therefor covers part of company's B patent and gets rejected.
What will happen in this case is that Apple will revise their patent by limiting its scope to not interfere with Microsoftt's and resubmit. It might go through several more denials and resubmissions but they'll get their patent in the end. It just won't be as broad as they initally wanted it to be.
doesn't want to get into a pissing contest. Seems like
desperation.
something where it doesn't even create a hardware product that
can utilize this feature to the fullest extent, not including being
the ones to come up with this technology in the first place.
It is always amazing to me to see how a company that is
approximately 100 times the size of Apple, is still performing
shady measures such as this, in order to take away intellectual
property and hamper innovation from rivals. It seems to me that
if Microsoft spends billion of dollars for R&D to develope
intellectual property such as this, then they wouldn't have to
steal intellectual property because they are the ones who created
it in the first place.
This just goes to show you how, even with an enormous
amount of money and a virtual monopoly over an industry, it still
doesn't equate into innovation. These actions by Microsoft truely
show that MS in fact does rely on Apple to create the innovations
before using it's financial power and monopolistic might to wipe
out the competition.
something where it doesn't even create a hardware product that
can utilize this feature to the fullest extent, not including being
the ones to come up with this technology in the first place.
It is always amazing to me to see how a company that is
approximately 100 times the size of Apple, is still performing
shady measures such as this, in order to take away intellectual
property and hamper innovation from rivals. It seems to me that
if Microsoft spends billion of dollars for R&D to develope
intellectual property such as this, then they wouldn't have to
steal intellectual property because they are the ones who created
it in the first place.
This just goes to show you how, even with an enormous
amount of money and a virtual monopoly over an industry, it still
doesn't equate into innovation. These actions by Microsoft truely
show that MS in fact does rely on Apple to create the innovations
before using it's financial power and monopolistic might to wipe
out the competition.
date of public disclosure. Since this is software, Apple need not
have given a public disclosure to the hardware manufacturing
guys (whoever assembled/manufactured the iPod).
So, the public disclosure date is effectively the release date of
the product. They are eligible to file a patent up to an year from
the date of their product release (assuming that the feature that
they are trying to patent was already present in the first release).
If that's not the case, where they are referring to creating
playlists on-the-go, then Apple would have to revise their patent
claims so that it is not interfere with Microsoft's.
I think it is premature to say anything at this point as even the
"details" of what exactly the Microsoft patent covers and what
exactly apple wants to patent is not clear.
date of public disclosure. Since this is software, Apple need not
have given a public disclosure to the hardware manufacturing
guys (whoever assembled/manufactured the iPod).
So, the public disclosure date is effectively the release date of
the product. They are eligible to file a patent up to an year from
the date of their product release (assuming that the feature that
they are trying to patent was already present in the first release).
If that's not the case, where they are referring to creating
playlists on-the-go, then Apple would have to revise their patent
claims so that it is not interfere with Microsoft's.
I think it is premature to say anything at this point as even the
"details" of what exactly the Microsoft patent covers and what
exactly apple wants to patent is not clear.
Take another happy dot & put the hand lotion away.
Take another happy dot & put the hand lotion away.
This means that if Apple can show the court that they were the first to invent, they will win even though MS was first to file the patent. The court will look at engineering notebooks, emails, dated source code, etc. from both companies to determine who invented first.
At this point it's impossible to say which of the two, MS or Apple, will be able to provide the earlier proof of conception. <redford@tvi.com>
This means that if Apple can show the court that they were the first to invent, they will win even though MS was first to file the patent. The court will look at engineering notebooks, emails, dated source code, etc. from both companies to determine who invented first.
At this point it's impossible to say which of the two, MS or Apple, will be able to provide the earlier proof of conception. <redford@tvi.com>
http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/
- Article Misleading
- by nmcphers August 13, 2005 4:49 AM PDT
- Microsoft has not been awarded the patent. In fact, it has been rejected more times than what Apple filed. For more accurate reporting, go to The Register.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Now that is good reporting!
- by Mendz August 13, 2005 8:22 PM PDT
- Very balanced, no bias and more facts. I think is is fair to say that the patent applications in question anyway all have their respective share of a sad patent rejection history.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (156 Comments)http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/