Chevalier - 15 August 2005 01:07 PM

Further details re the iPod story(?) I’ve gleaned from folks that know more about this than I do:

The iPod patent rejection was a run of the mill NFR (non final rejection) which basically means they told Apple to go back for a rewrite.

Microsoft had received a final rejection on the patent in question and filed for (and received) an extension.

US Patent law states that patents filed after a product is released for sale are not applicable. Even if Microsoft wins the patent, since Apple has prior art, Microsoft is not entitled to royalties. Furthermore, Apple has only 12 months from the release of their product for sale to file patents on its design. Other countries apparently give precedence to patent filing date, the US in contrast gives precedence to product availability (whichever comes first, really).

I hope this one gets beaten to death soon (almost there). From what I can gather, the patents are similar, not the same (obviously). And that ‘prior art’ exists in the case of Microsoft’s patent of something that seems to be similar to the iPod interface (as Apple has already pointed out.

Chevalier - 15 August 2005 01:07 PM

US Patent law states that patents filed after a product is released for sale are not applicable.

That would only be the case when Company “A” releases a product for sale and then, months later, Company “B” tries to obtain a patent on some of the product’s features or components. That’s not the case with Company “A” which can file a patent on its own product, whether not yet released, or already for sale.

The Hype Media see it as an issue of strategic importance. The more ‘technical’ media seems to see it as a non-issue.

Chevalier - 15 August 2005 11:27 PM

I think really self propogating virii are less of an issue than malware that takes social engineering to install. I think we will see some of that, because people will, for some time to come, be the weakest link in the computer security chain. I don’t think Apple is quite secure enough to prevent such a thing, but I suspect we’re off to a good start.

Bingo!

BTW, We have plenty of phishing going on in the Macintosh environment already. In fact, phishing is pretty easy to make cross platform.

So now Apple is getting sued by Creative technology (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/technology/01apple.html) for using their Zen patent in the iPod navigation system.  And Microsoft is applying for a patent on the iPod interface concepts? 

What is going on here?

douga6 - 05 September 2005 08:40 PM

So now Apple is getting sued by Creative technology (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/technology/01apple.html) for using their Zen patent in the iPod navigation system.  And Microsoft is applying for a patent on the iPod interface concepts? 

What is going on here?

Business as usual.

First, Apple isn’t getting sued by Creative. Creative was awarded a patent for a navigation system for MP3 players, so, naturally, they’ll want to apply that to Apple and the iPod. Chances are good that plenty of ‘prior art’ exists in that domain and Creative knows they’ll have a big fight on their hands.

Second, Apple isn’t getting sued by Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn’t have a patent on the iPod interface (only to the ‘similar’ navigation features, which are considered very general). Microsoft’s ‘patent’ is similar with even more obvious prior art issues.

Business as usual.

This kind of thing goes on behind (and in front) the scenes all the time and only a few ever reach court. Often, USPTO takes back a patent if it’s obvious that there was ‘prior art’ (previously existing, or intuitive use of technology) involved.