View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
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 Plat
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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20
-
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
We'll see what happens, but my bet is Apple wins on appeal/in the courts.
-
i don't know -- MS got their patent in first ...
apple slipped up it sounds like and were blindsided by MS .. they could own MS 100's of millions ...."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Microsoft's innovative methods?
Menu software for a portable player?
I don't see anything innovative. -
"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."
That is plain stupid on Apple's part,they deserve to pay royalties.
A $350 million mistake. -
Have you ever tried to use a music player without menu software?Originally Posted by celtic_druid
Without it you cannot view or select tracks, build playlists etc. It's the backbone of intuitive players and quite innovative because without it, you are stuck without a viewable list of songs contained on your player or any attached media expansion cards. Anyone want to go back to the days of cassette walkmans where there is no menu? How about a 4GB MP3 Player without menu software? It's a very innovative idea I know I couldn't live without.
Thanks again to Microsoft for supporting their customers in an innovative way.
Apple seems more concerned about what color the players can be sold in instead of actual innovation that matters or as usual Apple dropped the ball again. Remember apple also sells an iPod sans innovation called the shuffle. -
I'm surprised the patent office hasn't approved Microsoft's application for the on-off switch.
-
Who cares about Apple anymore? They are no longer "Apple" as far as I'm concerned. They lost a lot of loyal fans, when switching to Intel procs. Their computers will soon be just another IBM PC clone running Microsoft O/S. OSX will no longer be supported. Anyone that thinks otherwise is very gullible.
-
Yeah I read the articles, all I'm saying is I think Apple has a leg to stand on, and I doubt they'll end up paying MS any "royalties".Originally Posted by BJ_M
-
Perhaps its just what Apple says that they 'slipped' we'll never know how it really happened ofcourse, however I don't take anyone's words just like that when it comes to the monies
"Crucial piece of software" and they just forgot to patent it? Gimme a break I'd say it was a payback time, and if Jobs approved 'borrowing the code' from Msoft - he certainly did it with smile on his face 
Anyway, it will be like moving money from one pocket to another, everything stays within the family after all. Gates owns 1/3 of Apple stocks (or so Microsoft did just few years ago, I really have no clue how much of Apple they really own now).
dude... I dont give sh*t about Apple, or its 'fanboys' getting pissed because some corporation change chips supplier lol, let'em go back in time and use old 'true' Apple Lisa or first MacIntosh lol... nor I don't give a sh*t about Microsoft (or IBM, Intel, ... and so on & on - just to clarify).Originally Posted by Wile_E
But I *DO* care about what I have to use daily, and computer is actually the most used tool (at least by me), and as you know as well - its not like we have 100s of different OSes or CPUs to choose from. Computer 'free' market is becoming as monopolistic as i.e. oil in the hands of OPEC ********... so let's not exaggerate, if Apple dies completely it will affect all of us. Same goes for Microsoft, Intel, etc etc...
Just as an analogy: anyone remember when some large factory of RAM burned down in Asia few years ago? RAM prices were rocketing sky-high for few months... -
MS USED to own about 10% of apple - they no longer have this stock ... Bill Gates has a small amount .. no more than 5% as he not listed as an owner with more than 5% as required on SEC listings ..
MS DID buy 150 Million$ of special non voting stock a few back - thats a drop in the bucket to what apple is worth today... and i believe that may of been paid back also (stock repurchase) , but im not sure ..
no way does MS or BG own 33% of apple"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
well, thats good to know
At least in this case we have some real competition on a supposedly free market instead of a hidden cartel...
Keep in mind that 10% of Apple's stock owned by MSoft back then still would amount to 10% of Apple's stock value today; that $150M back then would be billions today (again - I have no clue how much Apple is worth, but Im sure their stock value is as inflated as most of the US stocks are)
Anyway, I still don't understand why Gates decided to chip-in and help Apple back then? Remorse for stealing Windows?
-
for the same reason toyota is helping GM now
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Originally Posted by BJ_MI didn't think you could patent software? As it is just text it is covered by copyright law instead.Originally Posted by DereX888... "Crucial piece of software" and they just forgot to patent it? Gimme a break...
I completely agree with some of the other posters, Apple will get out of this. My knowledge of US Patent Law is a bit fuzzy and restricted to the BioPharmaceutical industry but the Priority Date is the date of invention not the date of filing in the US. Most other countries use the date of filing so maybe US law has changed to fall in line with international convention...
- e404pnf -
i dont think so --
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9106.html"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
That's not what I mean, if there was any prior art neither a MicroSoft nor an Apple patent would be valid. What I am suggesting is that Apple could contest Microsofts patent as they have an earlier priority date, which in the US is the date of invention not the date of filing.Originally Posted by BJ_M
As I said earlier my experience is with the Bio Industry, so this isn't totally relevant but the panel on the left side of the first page on THIS DOCUMENT explains what I mean. Sorry, this is probably me not explaining myself very well.
- e404pnf -
I think it's the wheel they patented, not positive though.Originally Posted by e404pnf
-
Apple = stupid
This plan is so bad, it must be one of ours. -
In the US your priority date is the time of invention, not filing...but you've got to prove it. Even if Apple had their players and software on the market first that doesn't necessarily mean they invented the particular software in question first. This may be what the dispute boils down to.
Also the article would be very misleading to anyone who doesn't deal with patents. All the Patent office did was reject the Apple patent because it conflicted with prior art in MS's patent. This doesn't mean that the actual software that Apple uses would infringe on the MS patent, requiring them to pay royalties. Its kinda hard to explain but when you file for a patent you always try to make the language as broad as possible, to cover every possible implementation of your invention, so as to get the most protection. Virtually all patent applications are rejected in their initial form and usually get rejected a second time as well. The patent applicant continues to narrow the scope of the patent until it no longer conflicts with any prior art. So basically, you've got two broad patents that conflict in language...but a narrower form of the Apple patent may pass muster when compared against the MS patent. So Apple can refile based on their provisional patent, get it accepted, and still have priority over the invention contained in their software...and thus not have to pay MS any royalties. Its basically a battle of language.
BTW: MS's actions are not as sinister as they might look. Its not like they tried to slip in and take advantage of an Apple mistake. Software like this doesn't gets developed in a matter of a few months on the hopes that your competitor continues to neglect to file for patent protection. They both would have been developing these technologies independantly and this is just how its playing out.
e404pnf: You can't patent software in the US but your patented invention can be contained in software. For instance you can invent a patentable algorithm to calculate the possibility of striking oil on a given piece of land given certain factors (is an actual VERY valuable patent) but the implementation of the algorithm in your software is not patentable..you've got to rely on copyright law to protect your source code. -
Strange the only Apple people I know in Real Life tend to be very happy about the change if a little worried about how smooth it will go.Originally Posted by Wile_E
Quote
Similar Threads
-
Apple Ipod 4th generation
By Pumkinhead in forum User guidesReplies: 1Last Post: 2nd Dec 2010, 03:55 -
Apple Ipod
By Pumkinhead in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 4Last Post: 6th Nov 2010, 05:34 -
I have Apple Ipod and using Itunes.. My songs not in my library WHY??
By marionr26 in forum Portable VideoReplies: 5Last Post: 16th Jan 2010, 11:20 -
3GP iPod/Apple TV/iPhone Converter Revisited: Try it out !
By GMaq in forum Portable VideoReplies: 14Last Post: 3rd Jul 2008, 08:41