August 12, 2005 9:58 AM PDT

Microsoft, Apple in iPod patent tussle

Related Stories

Microsoft--license to deal

November 8, 2004

Microsoft to continue Mac support

April 10, 2002

Microsoft to invest $150 million in Apple

August 6, 1997
While Microsoft has struggled to challenge the iPod in the market, the software giant's lawyers have managed to slow Apple Computer's attempt to patent its digital music technology.

In a ruling issued last month, a patent examiner rejected Apple's attempt to patent some of the user interface concepts behind the popular digital music player, noting that Microsoft developer John Platt filed for similar claims five months before Apple did.

A Microsoft executive noted on Friday that the company is always open to licensing its technology.

"In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products," David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said in a statement. "Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple."

But in an interview, Kaefer agreed that it may be a bit premature to speculate that Apple will have to send Microsoft a check for each iPod.

Although the decision is considered "final" in patent office terminology, Apple will have the opportunity to try and redefine the scope of its patent so it does not overlap with Microsoft's patent application.

It is also unclear what, if any role, a 1997 agreement between Apple and Microsoft will have. Although the five-year deal has expired, it is theoretically possible that the claims raised in the patent applications might somehow be covered.

Also, Kaefer notes that the two companies are both developing technology in the same areas and both know their way around the patent office.

"We're innovating around sort of parallel paths," Kaefer said. "At least from our perspective, we are both in it together."

Kaefer said he could not say whether Apple and Microsoft are in talks over a broader cross-licensing arrangement. Microsoft has said it is seeking to strike such deals with a broad range of large technology companies.

In a statement, Apple noted that the company "has received many patents for inventions related to iPod, and has many more patents pending."

"The U.S. patent process is often a lengthy one, involving much back and forth with the U.S. patent office," Apple said. "Apple will continue to pursue this patent application, as well as the many others covering iPod innovations."

Apple also stated that it "invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the examiner was filed."

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.

Attorney Mark Goldstein of the SoCal IP Law Group said that some sort of a licensing deal between the two tech giants might make sense.

"Microsoft and Apple could soon cross paths in court if they don't cross license," he said in an e-mail interview. "As the competition between Apple and Microsoft heats up with Apple's switch to Intel processors, the possibility of suit, rather than a cross license, increases."

Apple's patent office setback was first noted earlier this week by Mac enthusiast site Apple Insider.

156 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Oh, but Microsoft never innovates!
Now let's sit back and watch all the predictable Apple and Anti-MS fanboys come out of the woodwork to try and spin this one like a gyroscope.
Posted by (127 comments )
Reply Link Flag
spin?
What's there to spin? This is pretty clearly a case of "someone has a
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.
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
Why did they not bring it to market???
If Microsoft was such a grand innovator, why was this wonderful technology not brought to market by Microsoft? Where is Microsoft's "iPod killer" that they claim to be releasing every month???

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??
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Link Flag
No need
Just pretend it doesn't exist and you're still innovative: "Apple will continue to pursue this patent application, as well as the many others covering iPod >innovations<."

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.
Posted by Jan Modaal (40 comments )
Link Flag
Apple Zealots, always good for a gag
Of course. Humiliated Apple zealots will flock from the woodworks to defend a shell of a company (Apple) that continues to see falling market share (now only 3% worldwide) and continues to fade further into irrelevance. What else do Apple zealots have? Hopefully they still have their health because they certainly don't have a useful computer by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't Cry.
Posted by Maxwell Studly (97 comments )
Link Flag
preditable
name something & then name something else.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
Couldnt have said it better myelf.
The Mac fanboys are like fleas on a rabid dog around here. Time to find the bug spray.
Posted by wazzledoozle (288 comments )
Link Flag
Anti-MS
I do consider myself anti-MS, at least to some point. This is just an attempt to thwart Apple's success with iTunes and the iPod. Since MS can't compete with Apple, they use whatever other tactic they can to thwart them, in this case a patent. I don't I have to mention MS's bully business tactics, because all of us anti-MS people all know that (apparently some people don't).

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.
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Link Flag
A qoute from the story
"Apple also stated that it "invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the examiner was filed."

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).
Posted by System Tyrant (1453 comments )
Link Flag
Oh, but Microsoft never innovates!
Now let's sit back and watch all the predictable Apple and Anti-MS fanboys come out of the woodwork to try and spin this one like a gyroscope.
Posted by (127 comments )
Reply Link Flag
spin?
What's there to spin? This is pretty clearly a case of "someone has a
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.
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
Why did they not bring it to market???
If Microsoft was such a grand innovator, why was this wonderful technology not brought to market by Microsoft? Where is Microsoft's "iPod killer" that they claim to be releasing every month???

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??
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Link Flag
No need
Just pretend it doesn't exist and you're still innovative: "Apple will continue to pursue this patent application, as well as the many others covering iPod >innovations<."

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.
Posted by Jan Modaal (40 comments )
Link Flag
Apple Zealots, always good for a gag
Of course. Humiliated Apple zealots will flock from the woodworks to defend a shell of a company (Apple) that continues to see falling market share (now only 3% worldwide) and continues to fade further into irrelevance. What else do Apple zealots have? Hopefully they still have their health because they certainly don't have a useful computer by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't Cry.
Posted by Maxwell Studly (97 comments )
Link Flag
preditable
name something & then name something else.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
Couldnt have said it better myelf.
The Mac fanboys are like fleas on a rabid dog around here. Time to find the bug spray.
Posted by wazzledoozle (288 comments )
Link Flag
Anti-MS
I do consider myself anti-MS, at least to some point. This is just an attempt to thwart Apple's success with iTunes and the iPod. Since MS can't compete with Apple, they use whatever other tactic they can to thwart them, in this case a patent. I don't I have to mention MS's bully business tactics, because all of us anti-MS people all know that (apparently some people don't).

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.
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Link Flag
A qoute from the story
"Apple also stated that it "invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the examiner was filed."

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).
Posted by System Tyrant (1453 comments )
Link Flag
Zealot summary...
1) Apple creates iPod interface.
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.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple Zealots... cry babies lost in fantasy
This fantasy might be true if anyone was dumb enough to think huge multi-billion dollar companies release new products w/o getting patents on them first.

Also, the market dictates the leader. If Apple had better products they'd be ahead.

Don't Cry.
Posted by Maxwell Studly (97 comments )
Link Flag
Zealot summary...
1) Apple creates iPod interface.
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.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple Zealots... cry babies lost in fantasy
This fantasy might be true if anyone was dumb enough to think huge multi-billion dollar companies release new products w/o getting patents on them first.

Also, the market dictates the leader. If Apple had better products they'd be ahead.

Don't Cry.
Posted by Maxwell Studly (97 comments )
Link Flag
M$ zealots coming out of the woodworks
LOL

iPod came out 2001

patent filed by "innovative" MS 2002
Posted by BobBobBobBobBobBobBob (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
M$ zealots coming out of the woodworks
LOL

iPod came out 2001

patent filed by "innovative" MS 2002
Posted by BobBobBobBobBobBobBob (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple iPod vs Microsoft
Once again Microsoft hogs the market. The only ones who say Apple sucks are those of you who are under 30 and have never used a Mac. I use Microsoft daily, sell it, troublshoot, but use a Mac at home. Here's a question-what came first the apple or Bill Gates?? MacIntosh, where Gates worked!!
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Better sniff the mayo
You've ingested something that renders your judgement suspect. Where did you ever get the idea that Bill Gates worked on the Mac for Apple? Talk about off-base by a mile...
Posted by 202578300049013666264380294439 (137 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry wrong.
Gates never worked for Apple.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
Apple iPod vs Microsoft
Once again Microsoft hogs the market. The only ones who say Apple sucks are those of you who are under 30 and have never used a Mac. I use Microsoft daily, sell it, troublshoot, but use a Mac at home. Here's a question-what came first the apple or Bill Gates?? MacIntosh, where Gates worked!!
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Better sniff the mayo
You've ingested something that renders your judgement suspect. Where did you ever get the idea that Bill Gates worked on the Mac for Apple? Talk about off-base by a mile...
Posted by 202578300049013666264380294439 (137 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry wrong.
Gates never worked for Apple.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
I don't get it
Apple came out with the first iPod in October of
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?
Posted by (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are not alone.
The patent filed by Microsoft was at least five months after the
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.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
Re: I don't get it
Patents are described in broad terms, but their effect is usually very tightly focused and limited.
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.
Posted by Jan Modaal (40 comments )
Link Flag
Yes.
Absolutely. Apple holds plenty of patents also. I'm surs MS
doesn't want to get into a pissing contest. Seems like
desperation.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
I don't get it
Apple came out with the first iPod in October of
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?
Posted by (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are not alone.
The patent filed by Microsoft was at least five months after the
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.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
Re: I don't get it
Patents are described in broad terms, but their effect is usually very tightly focused and limited.
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.
Posted by Jan Modaal (40 comments )
Link Flag
Yes.
Absolutely. Apple holds plenty of patents also. I'm surs MS
doesn't want to get into a pissing contest. Seems like
desperation.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Link Flag
All i have to say is wow!
How greedy does Microsoft have to be in order to patent
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.
Posted by Blue2222 (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
All i have to say is wow!
How greedy does Microsoft have to be in order to patent
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.
Posted by Blue2222 (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Products in Production Not Can't Be Patented?
About 1975, while working in engineering at Control Data in MPLS, we tried to apply for a patent on a process. The corporate lawyers said once a product is in production (or the product is sold?), it can not be patented. This would indicate that Apple can not get a patent on features after they are in production.
Posted by Jay_in_FL (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
1 year from the date of public disclosure.
You are allowed to submit a paper within the first year from the
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.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
Products in Production Not Can't Be Patented?
About 1975, while working in engineering at Control Data in MPLS, we tried to apply for a patent on a process. The corporate lawyers said once a product is in production (or the product is sold?), it can not be patented. This would indicate that Apple can not get a patent on features after they are in production.
Posted by Jay_in_FL (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
1 year from the date of public disclosure.
You are allowed to submit a paper within the first year from the
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.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
facts
BS just bounces around that little head of yours & comes out.
Take another happy dot & put the hand lotion away.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
facts
BS just bounces around that little head of yours & comes out.
Take another happy dot & put the hand lotion away.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's who invents first, not who patents first
By US patent law, the winner is the one who invents first, rather than the one who patents first.

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>
Posted by (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If it's that easy...
Then you should've been the lawyer. Is that really how it works?
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
It's who invents first, not who patents first
By US patent law, the winner is the one who invents first, rather than the one who patents first.

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>
Posted by (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If it's that easy...
Then you should've been the lawyer. Is that really how it works?
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
Article Misleading
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.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/" target="_newWindow">http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/</a>
Posted by nmcphers (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now that is good reporting!
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.
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
Article Misleading
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.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/" target="_newWindow">http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/10/microsoft_apple_patent/</a>
Posted by nmcphers (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now that is good reporting!
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.
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
Reply to Andrew Glina
Andrew Glina said
What year was the "Spongy Parts"? The Mac didn't even get pre-
emptive multitasking and protected memory until they borrowed
from BSD to make Mac OS X. Five years after Microsoft did the
job themselves. I used a Mac in 1997 and it was not fluid.
------------------------------------------------------
How does that effect printing? The mac did cooperative
multitasking. So what. Did this keep windows from crashing
less? Was the interface more fluid &#38; less obtrusive than the Mac
OS. Nope. 11 years after the mac OS Windows 95 comes out. So
what. Did MS invent these things (protected memory, etc.).
Nope. NT's foundation was bought from DEC &#38; Windows was a
clown suit wrapped around DOS (which MS also purchased). You
used a Mac for what? Most of your interface elements are lifted
from Apple not from Xerox. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/" target="_newWindow">http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/</a>
revolution/chapter/index.html
Was your Mac experience in a production environment. I've used
both also. How does this address the postscript issue? As usual
MS the me to company. Someone else does the groundwork &#38;
they jump in &#38; take credit.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Factual Reply
My reply was in regard to innovation, not printing. Printing was your reason for innovation, my reason was multitasking. But since printing is affected by multitasking, it applies anyway. Besides, Adobe invented PS so I fail to see your point.

Win95 was far more fluid than the MacOS of the time (System 7?) providing you used Win95 software. If you used mostly Win3.1 software then it was little better at multitasking than Win3.1. You might see this as a fault, but it is a feature. Microsoft could have just released WinNT and said "Buy new software" like Apple does, but they listened to the market and provided a middle ground that became Win95.

NT was not bought from DEC. It is an easy mistake to make. Microsoft did hire a few DEC programmer who used their experience to make an OS that had similar design to their past work, but that is not the same thing. That would be like saying Google is based on Microsoft technology.

I used a Mac at University (College for US types) as it was all they had there. I have not used Maxs much since as still cringe at the experience. However if Apple allow dual booting on the finished x86 Macs I might give them a go again.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
Reply to Andrew Glina
Andrew Glina said
What year was the "Spongy Parts"? The Mac didn't even get pre-
emptive multitasking and protected memory until they borrowed
from BSD to make Mac OS X. Five years after Microsoft did the
job themselves. I used a Mac in 1997 and it was not fluid.
------------------------------------------------------
How does that effect printing? The mac did cooperative
multitasking. So what. Did this keep windows from crashing
less? Was the interface more fluid &#38; less obtrusive than the Mac
OS. Nope. 11 years after the mac OS Windows 95 comes out. So
what. Did MS invent these things (protected memory, etc.).
Nope. NT's foundation was bought from DEC &#38; Windows was a
clown suit wrapped around DOS (which MS also purchased). You
used a Mac for what? Most of your interface elements are lifted
from Apple not from Xerox. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/" target="_newWindow">http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/</a>
revolution/chapter/index.html
Was your Mac experience in a production environment. I've used
both also. How does this address the postscript issue? As usual
MS the me to company. Someone else does the groundwork &#38;
they jump in &#38; take credit.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Factual Reply
My reply was in regard to innovation, not printing. Printing was your reason for innovation, my reason was multitasking. But since printing is affected by multitasking, it applies anyway. Besides, Adobe invented PS so I fail to see your point.

Win95 was far more fluid than the MacOS of the time (System 7?) providing you used Win95 software. If you used mostly Win3.1 software then it was little better at multitasking than Win3.1. You might see this as a fault, but it is a feature. Microsoft could have just released WinNT and said "Buy new software" like Apple does, but they listened to the market and provided a middle ground that became Win95.

NT was not bought from DEC. It is an easy mistake to make. Microsoft did hire a few DEC programmer who used their experience to make an OS that had similar design to their past work, but that is not the same thing. That would be like saying Google is based on Microsoft technology.

I used a Mac at University (College for US types) as it was all they had there. I have not used Maxs much since as still cringe at the experience. However if Apple allow dual booting on the finished x86 Macs I might give them a go again.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
MS good
Also proves how good Madonna is along with Britney Spears &#38;
Insync.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
MS good
Also proves how good Madonna is along with Britney Spears &#38;
Insync.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
THere they go again stealing apple's idea's
Personal I believe Bill Gates is a scounderal and will burn in hell when he dies. He has Never ever came up with an idea on his own. He has always fanagelled people out of products and software at decimal fractions of pennies on the dollar of what they are worth. Or outright he he heard of an idea patented it even though he had not earthly idea, how to implemented.

My fervent hope is that one day his corporation will be broken up and sold off in a thousand littel pieces and that laws will passed to prevent someone ever again to wielding that much power.

The only thing Microsoft is doing is stiffling competion. Evidently hi has once again not listened to his legal team. If Apple goes bust as a result of his tatics. Even Bush's government will have no recourse but, break him up like At&#38;T/Baby Bell system of the past.

In the past Patent laws were beficial. But, in today's climit, the way Gates uses it. I think that Pantents should be outlawed. So that any one would have the right to creat something without looking over their shoulder to who's developing the same thing and let the market shake out which is the better implimentation.
Posted by pjonesCET (42 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Using IP Aggressively is not unique to MS
I don't care which platform you support, love, hate, etc. If you think aggressive use of intellectual property rights is unique to MS, you haven't been paying attention to the state of IP in the world today. Similarly, to all the people saying "where's the MS iPod?" -- you have to realize that, as a matter of law, that's fairly irrelevant.

Do you have any idea how many patents companies like IBM, 3M, GE, Amgen and others develop on a near daily basis but never put to use? MS didn't create the patent system -- they, like Apple and others, simply play the legal game to use it to their benefit. In case anyone loses sight of this fact: both companies are businesses looking to make money for their shareholders. Neither is trying to save the world at their own expense.

Let's not be petty and pretend that something noble is being sacrificed here. I the end, one company will do a better job of supporting their claim that they were the first to invent the IP in question (remember, the US uses a "first to invent" system, not "first to file") and that party will win out. You said: "I think patents should be outlawed." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

And lastly, when you go around making claims that Bill Gates has never invented anything (prove it) or that MS is keeping Apple from succeeding, you come off as having no common sense and no ability to look at facts. In reality, MS' real competitive threat doesn't come from Apple, it's Linux, Linux, Linux. And don't forget that Apple decided (on their own -- Bill didn't put a gun to their heads) to first license their OS to Power Computing and others, then stop allowing other companies to make clones when the overall Mac market share was rising quickly at Apple's expense. If Apple cared about market share, they could license their os and get out of the low to mid signle digits they've been in for over a decade, but they don't. Apple cares more about trying to create what they consider to be the perfect machine, so they control the platform with an iron fist. Unfortunately for them, few people agree with their vision, so Windows continues to dominate.

Mister Winky
Posted by Mister Winky (301 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.