analog

I know, puns are the greatest.

If you want to skip the article, here's the breakdown:

- Due to a patent snafu, Apple dropped the ball and didn't get a patent on a part of the internal software on the iPods before Microsoft got theirs in. Apple's patent is being denied because it's so close to the existing Microsoft one.

- Apple may have to pay up to $10 per machine ever made (in the past, currently, and future) in licensing for the use of the Microsoft-patented software each machine contains.

- Taking into account the number of iPods Apple has already sold, and projects to sell in the next year, that would possibly make Apple have to pay Microsoft on 35 million machines as of next year, which would be $350 million.

That might pinch a little.

Anyway, here's the article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...icle305638.ece

-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Apple Computer may be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft for every iPod it sells after it emerged that Bill Gates's software giant beat Steve Jobs' firm in the race to file a crucial patent on technology used in the popular portable music players. The total bill could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although Apple introduced the iPod in November 2001, it did not file a provisional patent application until July 2002, and a full application was filed only in October that year.

In the meantime, Microsoft submitted an application in May 2002 to patent some key elements of music players, including song menu software.

Apple and Microsoft were two of several companies that developed portable players, but the iPod, with its sleek design and user-friendly controls, has dominated the market.

IPods make up three of every four portable music players bought in the US and account for almost one-third of Apple's sales. Piper Jaffray, a US analyst, believes Apple will sell 25 million iPods this year, bringing the total sold in the four years since its launch to 35 million.

In July, the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Apple's application, saying some ideas were similar to an earlier application filed by a Microsoft employee, John Platt.

The dispute, which emerged this week on the closely watched website, Appleinsider.com, could lead to Apple having to pay a licence fee for the technology of up to $10 a machine.

David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing and business development, said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products."

Apple has signalled it will resist the move. A spokeswoman said Apple would continue to try to get its patent recognised. The company could take the case to the patent office's appeals board. "Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application was filed," it said in a statement.

The battle comes as Microsoft is squaring up against another competitor, Google. Microsoft last month launched a lawsuit against the search-engine giant, accusing it of poaching a top executive to head a new research laboratory in China. The Redmond, Washington-based company also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee.

Mondak

A patent really doesn't mean anything unless it is defensible. Just because MS got theirs in first, it really doesn't mean that they can defend it or enforce it. The fact that the patent office rejected Apple's only means that they already had the Microsoft one on file.

Now lets say that Steve Jobs had a bar napkin that he had notorized in 1980 with a picture of an IPOD song menu, that would invalidate the MS patent and allow apple to apply for their own. The Patent office doesn't really get involved with that sort of thing. They just file them and let the patent courts figure out the rest.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Blackthorn

Why does this remind me of when Michael Jackson bought all of the Beatles' songs?

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

martinguerre

isn't it possible to defeat a patent if you can show you already made a product like it first?

to get a patent, M$ would have to show they had a unique product. The pre-existing apple software would be evidence to the contrary...

no?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ronin Tetsuro

I'm not an Apple fan, but they aren't afraid to work outside the pale in teh industry, and it's provided users some very interesting options that WORK WELL with the intended hardware, something I wish I could say more often as a PC user.

Is this smart business by M$? Sure. Is it ethical or enforcable? Not really, and I actually hope not. Non-competitive computing market make consumers sad pandas.

__________________
The best stories are the ones I can never tell.

hulk

Apple has ultimate ninja mega-lawyers. Ever since MS jipped them in the 80's, they haven't let much slip since then. I don't think there's much chance of Apple coughing up.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Jesus Pimp

I don't see the big deal. Microsoft has been in bed with Apple for a while. The Xbox 360 is going to have iPod connectivity features. Although they're competitng companies they're also helping each other make money.

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

Redlemon

This is another case of rushing to report before understanding the facts of the case. According to Engadget, "iPods were shipping before Platt’s patent was even filed". Much weirdness lies ahead.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

d*d

Apple have all the proof needed due to the fact that they had a working model on sale before microsoft patented their own version, I can't see Apple ever needing to pay

Xazy

The people here who will really win, will be the lawyers for Microsoft & Apple.

Stompy

This is why patents are BS.

The entire system needs an overhaul. MS shouldn't be allowed to patent anything anymore since they're abusing the system.

Common sense should prevail here, not the law. Apple was obviously first in creating the system, so in reality they don't owe MS anything.

Anyone ever hear about Carmack's Reverse in Doom 3? It's a technique used in rendering that Carmack discovered ON HIS OWN, but because some douchebags at Creative happened to patent it, he owed them. I mean really, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

The patent system is a joke.

__________________
I love lamp.

Himbo

These types of things are always so confusing. Same with the case with Coca Cola that I've read about.

They tried to screw over this designer a while back. He came up with a campaign to put a classic car on all coke bottles. It would be the new "Classic Coke" campaign. Well Coke saw it and said they weren't interested. The designer finds out 6 months later that they are going ahead with it, but not giving him a cut or anything. So he runs to the patent office with all his work to file patents of all his designs on coke bottles and the campaign.

Little did he know that what the Patent Office actually did was give him the patent to the contour bottle that made Coke famous. Now they are fighting it out saying who owns the patent. Coke was allegedly done some underhanded things to try and win this case.

http://www.rense.com/general6/skolcoke.htm

Himbo

clavus

Well, I'm delighted. DELIGHTED, I say.

Few things irritate me as much as people who can't handle deadlines. They always have enough time to do it "later" but never enough time to get it done on time. Well, HARDY HAR HAR! Somebody in that hated tribe just bit the big one. Somewhere in Apple's legal department there is a guy (or gal) who has learned that deadlines DO apply to them. When they were told to file a patent, they should have goddamned filed a patent. DUMBASS!

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

djflish

Yeah, lies being the operative word.

__________________
Europes two great narcotics, Alcohol and Christianity.
I know which one I prefer.

Redlemon

?

I don't get your point.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Cynthetiq

a patent doesn't mean someone has to have a product, it's just an idea that they have and register it. There's lots of patents out there for ideas that haven't been made yet, such as nuclear powered cars (some Manhattan project person owns that patent instead of the governement) etc.

MS is supposedly registering 3,000 patents per year, up from 2,000.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

World's King

At the end of the day... Jobs and Gates have way more money than we do. You think 350 million makes a fuck of a difference to either one of them?

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

cowlick

I don't get this whole media hullabulla. Now maybe it's cause I own a lot of software patents and have been denied for even more.

The real deal at this point is:
Apple is not involved in this story
Microsoft is not involved in this story
This story is about the patent office right now.

Apple didn't get 1-up'd by Microsoft. Microsoft didn't tell Apple, "We own a patten for IP used in iPod, you owe us money." The patent office told Apple, "Sorry this new pattent you are filing for is too similar to one MS filed." Doesn't mean a damn thing really.

__________________
"It's a long story," says I, and let him up.

FatFreeGoodness

martinguerres point is not that Microsoft has to have a product to get the patent. The point is that Microsoft’s patent is invalid if they have patented something that someone else is already making. This is generally (but not always) considered proof that the idea is not new to the one filing the patent, even if they did develop it independently.

Example: If I suddenly come up with a great idea for a lawn mower using fishing line instead of steel blades, this is not patentable because the weed eater is already being made, whether or not it's already patented.

Similarly, if Apple was already marketing the iPod, Microsoft is going to have a hard time defending a new patent claiming some part of it is their new idea.

Zeraph

Silly stuff, will be nice if we ever get this system fixed properly.