[MW Forums]

Apple Computer and Microsoft Corp. last week found themselves at the heart of a patent dispute that could have far reaching effects for Apple’s iPod business. Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months before Apple’s claim. more

[elroy]

Contrary to the story (although it may be corrected by the time you read this) the patent has NOT been issued to Microsoft. Read the piece on this guy's blog:
http://wizbangblog.c...ives/006750.php
This took me 10 seconds to verify: the USPTO site allows searching for issued patents by patent number. (It does show up in a "published applications" search.)
So how come we who don't get paid for this can easily dig up this critical fact, while the "professional" media have utterly failed to do so?

[Alarik]

I have to go to a meeting. I will be brief. All over the Mac web and elsewhere people have been reporting this story as MS seizing hold of the iPod patent.
No one, including MacWorld, seems to have read the patents.
They don't overlap. Two different but related beasts.
Elroy, I'm only responding to you since I can't post myself (just joined, just to write this). You are correct of course.
It just amazes me how wrong everyone is and how they echo each other. It's a joke to think that what we're seeing here is journalism. I've never seen such a disservice done by "journalists" to themselves.
If anyone had read Orlowski (sp?), of The Register (it's English: "Biting the hand that feeds IT") they would have known . . . he read the patents and is knowledgeable and, for all his biting humor, accurate and when he reports his opinion you know it's an opinion.
Everyone should be embarrassed and admit their error and promise to do better.
Byeeee.

[iollmann]

Ambiguous:
"However, as an example, he said that if a company invented a technology and put it away for a few years and a second company comes along, invents a similar technology and produces a product, they will get the patent."
Who is they?

[mahenry]

i'm a patent examiner.
to elroy:
it has been allowed and it is assigned to microsoft.
i'm not sure if people are thinking it's not assigned to MS because it's not written on the published application, but i can assure you that's irrelevant. they're not printed on publications and even after a patent is published, the assignment data on the patent can't be trusted as IP can change hands quite easily.
to alarik -
the content of the patents isn't entirely important.
basically, the examiner received apple's application and after doing a search came upon this older patent application from MS. in comparing the claims of apple's patent to the entire disclosure of MS's patent application. the examiner decided, then, that the MS disclosure sufficiently read on apple's claims to reject apple's application.
you see, the bulk of the text is in the description of the invention, but the actual patentable material is in the claims. i don't care how different each patent application is, if the scope of the claim language used in apple's application was too broad, then the MS patent application is certainly a viable piece of prior art.

i'm still trying to figure out what the apple patent application serial number is....

[thornrag]

Between the poor editing, buried lead and rambling structure, couldn't someone involved with this story at least have laid out some facts? The cursory primer on these bowels of the patent process is fine, but there aren't even any basic details about the actual dispute.
Here's something to fill the gap:
http://www.theglobea.../BNStory/Front/

[minderbinder]

"it has been allowed and it is assigned to microsoft.
i'm not sure if people are thinking it's not assigned to MS because it's not written on the published application, but i can assure you that's irrelevant.'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this patent has NOT yet been awarded, right? Right now, it is still only an application, not an awarded patent.
The complaints about the article saying the patent was awarded to MS are in reference to the incorrect statement that it's an awarded patent, not debating who it was awarded to.

[kwill]

i'm a mac user.
too bad the examiner didn't stop bobbing his head to iPod tunes long enough to realize that the MS claim was based on prior work.

[lhudd]

There's a difference between "allowed" and "issued." Once allowed, it's out of the patent examiner's hands. The applicant has to respond to the allowance by sending in a fee, formal drawings, etc. Often the payment of the fees is delayed as long as possible so as to allow for the filing of continuation and/or divisional applicaitons. A couple months after the fees are paid, the patent issues. At this point it becomes available on the USPTO searchable database. Patents issue on Tuesdays.

[lhudd]

Having no insight on the content of the specification or the scope of the claims, you have no business ripping on the patent examiner for his review of the MS applicaiton. There are rules the examining corps in the USPTO has to follow and for the most part, they do their job very well. The examiner only has that which is in front of him to work with. Therefore, you should understand that the applicant (Microsoft) has a duty of candor to produce everything they think might affect patentability. If Microsoft failed to disclose the Apple iPod to the Examiner, then they will be in trouble shoudl they ever try and enforce the patent. Since MS is a very large company with adequate funds to hire quality patent attorneys, I'd venture a guess that they fully disclosed the iPod when they filed. Therefore, MS either supported their arguments for patentability with narrow claims directed at another type of invention, or they had affadavits to swear behind Apple's public use.
GIve the Examiners a break. It's a hard job, with heavy work quotas and crappy government pay. The patent office's budget is continually robbed by Congress so retention of examiners is an ongoing struggle. The USPTO generates more than enough in fees to sustain and expand their business operations, but Congress has stolen millions from them in recent years.

[elroy]

In reply to:

---

i'm a patent examiner.
to elroy:
it has been allowed and it is assigned to microsoft.

---

If you're a patent examiner, then you can easily tell us laypersons how that can be proven?
As it stands, the USPTO's online database says you're wrong.

[applefritter]

So why doesn't Apple just create a better interface? Something really Mac, like the OSX Dock, with options on a grid, and rollover magnification of each option.
I'm sure they could integrate that with the present controls.
Also, here's a necessary ipod upgrade: On-the-Go on the fly. Click & hold on present song to add to On-the-Go, with a beep-beep confirmation. No losing your place; you wouldn't even have to look at the screen.

[wnurse]

Elroy, you are not a good listener. He is saying that the USPTO database is not a reliable indicator of whether a patent is issued or not. It cannot prove anyone wrong. It can only show a patent issued, it cannot be used to show a patent is not issued. Understanding language is fundamental to argumentation.
I believe lhudd provides a good reason why the patent might not be in the database.
You asked the correct question in the initial part of your reply and that is
What is a reliable source to determine the issuance of a patent?.

[elroy]

In reply to:

---

Elroy, you are not a good listener. He is saying that the USPTO database is not a reliable indicator of whether a patent is issued or not. It cannot prove anyone wrong. It can only show a patent issued, it cannot be used to show a patent is not issued. Understanding language is fundamental to argumentation.

---

wnurse, tone down the personal insults and consider cutting the caffeine.
He did not say that the USPTO database is not reliable.
And you're right - it shows patents that are issued. The Microsoft patent is not one of them.
Or maybe your language is garbled and I missed your point? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif