Microsoft Strikes iPODs

[Golferdow01]

LINK

http://Computer firm Apple may have...s after a huge licensing lapse.<br /> <br />

Computer firm Apple may have to pay Microsoft $10 for each iPod it sells after a huge licensing lapse.

Lawyers at Bill Gates' firm filed a patent for technology behind the hugely successful digital music player two months before Apple.

The US Patent Office has ruled that Microsoft has the right to charge competitors a licence fee for each iPod sold. Furious, Apple has said it will appeal the decision but at the moment it looks as though the firm will be paying a high price for the success of its product.

The iPod was launched in November 2001 but Apple waited until July 2002 to file for a patent; Microsoft snuck in to license some of the technology the previous May.

David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual property licensing, said it was open to letting other firms patent its innovations.

He said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products.

"Microsoft and Apple have previously licensed their respective patent portfolios to one another and we maintain a good working relationship with Apple."

The dispute comes days after Microsoft declared war on the iPod and pledged to come up with a series of rivals.

So far, 21 million iPods have been sold worldwide, 18 million in the last year alone.

Those shouldn't be links...wierd copying problem. Anyways here goes MS again :(

 

[buckeyefool]

This should be interesting, and with microsoft coming out with their own version in the next few months it will probally start to drive the prices of these types of devices down.

 

[jwinslow]

if there is ever a prime example of everything MS stands for, it is this. Not only is their very existence based on theft, but now they are stealing the credit and money for one of the best devices made in recent years.

I don't understand why there can't be someway of preventing a group from stealing a product when it is quite apparent who pioneered it. This is not a case of many companies striving to make the best mp3 player, MS merely paid for the technology someone else created (unless I'm missing something).

 

[buckeyefool]

if there is ever a prime example of everything MS stands for, it is this. Not only is their very existence based on theft, but now they are stealing the credit and money for one of the best devices made in recent years.

I don't understand why there can't be someway of preventing a group from stealing a product when it is quite apparent who pioneered it. This is not a case of many companies striving to make the best mp3 player, MS merely paid for the technology someone else created (unless I'm missing something).

There is and Apple fucked up by waiting to put a patent on it. I think that microsoft is big and may have some questionable practices, but if as a consumer I get the latest technology for cheaper then thats a good thing

 

[CleveBucks]

That's great. Good for Microsoft. There's a reason they're a successful company. Apple must be a bunch of dumbasses

 

[Golferdow01]

That's great. Good for Microsoft. There's a reason they're a successful company. Apple must be a bunch of dumbasses

Agreed that Apple is a bunch of dumbasses but MS are a bunch of bullies. Competition in a few months would be wonderful because then those iPODs would finally go down in price. But instead of trying to play the capitalist way, microsoft is yet again trying to monopolize the economy by driving Apple out of the mp3 industry like they pretty much have from the computer industry. Make Apple pay YOU for a product they invented and you probably ripped off quick and patented first. You have to draw the line somewhere but due to Apple's sluggish behavior I wouldn't be surprised to see MS come out on top yet again :(

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

if there is ever a prime example of everything MS stands for, it is this. Not only is their very existence based on theft, but now they are stealing the credit and money for one of the best devices made in recent years.

Microsoft rarely develops shit on their own anymore...they license or buy out products and slap their name on it, at a hefty charge to the consumer. In this case, both Apple and Microsoft are at fault...Apple for being stupid enough to not get the patent before they even starting shipping their first iPods, and Microsoft for being the low-down fucks they are by sliding in the back door and getting a patent on something they didn't even invent.

 

[BrutusMaximus]

Microsoft rarely develops shit on their own anymore...they license or buy out products and slap their name on it

Very true, but so does Dell, Gayway, HP, Sony. Guess it's just the way of big business nowadays.

 

[sandgk]

if there is ever a prime example of everything MS stands for, it is this. Not only is their very existence based on theft, but now they are stealing the credit and money for one of the best devices made in recent years.

I don't understand why there can't be someway of preventing a group from stealing a product when it is quite apparent who pioneered it. This is not a case of many companies striving to make the best mp3 player, MS merely paid for the technology someone else created (unless I'm missing something).

There is something missing alright, logic - in the news story itself.

As I understood it, if something was sold in commercial practice before a patent was applied for then you (as the seller / manufacturer) or them (read MS - as the belated "inventor") could not get a patent on the idea. Apple launched in November 2001, then applied for a patent in June 2002 -- that should not work at all. Apple should not even have a patent on anything that has been on sale for a good 7 months. Then there is the phrase - "Microsoft snuck in to license some of the technology the previous May." Which previous May - 2001? And by licensing some of the technology do they mean that Microsoft got a license from Apple or another patent holder on some technology. The only way this makes sense is if the writer meant to say "Microosoft snuck in and got a patent on some of the technology underlying iPODs in May of 2002." Even in that instance MS cannot charge Apple for the technology put independently into practice unless it can
-- Show it was first to invent (not to market)
-- That it's Patent Application /date of invention preceded both Apple's entry to market and Apple's date of invention.

For this to be so MS would have had to get their Patent in place before Apple's launch. In this event Apple had the ability to make themselves aware of competing Patent applications when they entered their own with uspto.gov, they had ample opportunity to contest MS application - -before said patent was issued.

This isn't what the article states of course.

Sum and substance -- The article as written is incomprehensible.

Here is a MUCH clearer description of the problem and particulars, along with remedies still available to Apple

By GREG SANDOVAL, AP Technology Writer Tue Aug 16, 9:04 PM ET



SAN FRANCISCO - Given the intense rivalry between Apple Computer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., this recent revelation had a comedic tinge: Apple took too long to file a patent on part of its blockbuster iPod music players, so Microsoft beat Apple to it.

Bloggers and other tech pundits snickered at the prospect of Steve Jobs having to pay Bill Gates royalties on the beloved iPods, which account for more than one-third of Apple's revenue. One Web columnist even dubbed the patent office the "iPod killer."
But that scenario is unlikely.

To be sure, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office last month did reject a request that Apple filed in October 2002 to patent technologies that support the iPod's rotational wheel interface. The reason for the rejection: Microsoft had apparently outraced Apple to the patent office with a similar request by five months.

Sounds bad, but that setback is hardly a knockout blow.

"It's still very early in the process," said John Ferrell, co-founder of Carr & Ferrell LLP and a leading Silicon Valley patent attorney. "Apple still has a lot of options. This is not like a Supreme Court decision."

Apple could file a declaration stating that it invented the technology before Microsoft filed its patent request — as evidenced by all the iPods already on the market at the time. In such cases, a company can ask the patent office to launch an investigation to determine the inventor.

Apple also could alter its patent claims so they don't overlap with Microsoft's. As a result, a final answer on who owns the patent for iPod's interface may not be answered for at least another six months, Ferrell estimated.

Apple did not explain why the patent applications took so long. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company said in a statement that it "has received many patents for inventions related to iPod, and has many more patents pending."

Microsoft released a statement saying only that it has a long-standing policy of licensing its patents to others.

At stake are the 21 million iPods that Apple has shipped — that amounts to 75 percent of all MP3 players sold in the United States — since launching the device in 2001. Coupled with revenue generated from the iTunes Web music store, iPod sales accounted for 38 percent of Apple's revenue last quarter.

Tim Bajarin, principal analyst for Creative Strategies, pointed out that Apple and Microsoft signed a five-year agreement in 1997 to share technology. When the deal expired in 2002, the music-player patents in question may have been covered, he said.

"If someone were taking bets," he said, "I would wager that Apple never pays Microsoft a cent."

 

[ntd]

You are correct sandgk...prior art will apply here since the application came out AFTER the iPod was even released...the patent office basically rubber stamps anything they come into contact with and they let the courts settle things out.

For proof, take a look at this: a patent for swinging on a swing (a link to the patent office): here