Apple sued over iTunes interface

We've seen a lot of oddball patent battles in recent years, mostly of the "business method" variety (remember when Amazon patented one-click ordering and sued Barnes & Noble to stop them from using it?) and here's another one to add to the list: Vermont-based Contois Music Technology is suing Apple, saying that the iTunes user interface violates a six-year-old patent that the company obtained for a "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices." According to the suit, Apple employees saw Contois' software at trade shows, and copied interface elements, including "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes." Somehow, we seem to remember seeing both software and hardware that could do those things a little more than six years ago (like, say, MusicMatch and WinAmp, circa 1997, and MP3 players from Eiger and Rio, which came out in 1998). But, hey, you can't blame Contois for trying. For all we know, they may be able to get a few hundred mil out of Apple just for bringing this up.

[Steven @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Umm, what about SoundJam (which Apple bought to base iTunes off of)???

People will sue for anything.
They need to go after WMP, WinAmp and others for having the same features.

[Alex @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Lets all just repeat what the article said.

[Dean @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The patent was filed in 1996, and the trade show the software was show at was in 1995. The patent was just finally issued in 1999. HTH

[Oolon Coluphid @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Apple (and any other company being threatened with ridiculous patent infringement suits) needs to tell these morons to go jump in front of a speeding train. Settling with one of these slimeballs will only encourage others to pull the same crap.

[L. M. Lloyd @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

You know, I hate software or process patent suits. However, I think it is quite hilarious seeing the effect they have on the tech journalists. After years of hearing from just about every source how revolutionary iTunes is, and how Apple was the first company to really "get" digital music, I think it is priceless to see how the entire blog world suddenly rises up to point out how absolutely everything in iTunes had been done years before, just to prove prior art, in order to show how their darling Apple is being unfairly sued.

I mean, all this time I had really assumed that people were just ignorant of all the companies that were selling digital music long before Apple, but it turns out that they knew all along, they were just being disingenuous because Apple is the popular kid in the game.

[A_B @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

As Dean at #3 notes, the patent was filed in 1996. That's the priority date. Anything after that date, like Marc's examples in the post are irrelevant.

People might think this patent is stupid, but Contois _has_ a patent and the legal right to enforce it. If one doesn't like it, either show it's invalid or Apple's system doesn't infringe the claims of the patent (or, hell, try for inequitable conduct before the USPTO).

And who is to say that they won't go after other WMP or the other players in the field? There has to be a first suit. Successfully going after the 800 lb gorilla is one strategy to get everybody else to fall in line and to save litigation costs in the long run.

[ragnar @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

And it is specifically the iTunes interface that is (allegedly) infringing on this patent. It doesn't patent all media player interfaces, just a specific design.

[Matt Selnekovic @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

If they were suing MSFT, everyone would be yelling how MSFT deserved it, they stole crap, blah blah blah. Oh, the hypocrisy.

[Jay @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

too bad everyone is a bunch of apple loving zealouts. they can do no wrong. apple suing companies is ok but when they get sued back it's not right, according to some, like #4. so companies are slimeballs for suing over stuff eh. i guess apple is the biggest slimeball of all then.

[Jazzay @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

maybe iTunes 4.9 was the only one that didnt go through the legal stuff to get rights to use the UI

[BoZs13 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Why don't you guys just stfu and wait to see apple's reaction before jumping to conclusions. Apple was the first company to really get the digital music structure right on their software and hardware level. That's why their market share is so high.

[-oJo- @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Hm, wait a second, my 1982 milk crate allowed me to sort my albums by genre and download to a portable music casette player!

[Leth @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Contois, interestingly enough, lost some UI designers, after the 95 show, to Apple. Then the preliminary iTunes designs, originally designed to accompany Rapsody, change dramatically. Hmm...

[Rick @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I said this over at Slashdot already, but there is prior art. Since the late 80's SONY has shipped a network control for all their consumer CD jukeboxes. Already in the early 90's there were various PC control programs that used that to show and short music, includinhg artist info, and looking a lot like these interfaces. I remember some in hypercard and others on PC dos. All clear prior art to 1996. More like '91-92.

[shidoshi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Leth - anywhere out there that has images showing what the original iTunes design was to look like? I'd be really curious to see them.

[Foxified @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

apple's itunes store looks like a bunch of forum portals, maybe that person should sue forum portals also?

another stupid lawsuit, why not just patent 1, 0's ..

Like bill gates

[TZK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Someone should patent giving birth and the 69 position.

I think I will. Mmmk.

[tf @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Leth is full of it.

Apple's pre-200 media player had a simple interface with no library, much like the old Windows Media Player. It was not called or intended to be what iTunes ultimately became.

SoundJam created their app in '99. They had between 2-5 people at their height. Apple bought them in 2000.

[jg @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

the one thing apple does right is interface and they copy that...

[Bear Silber @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Why did Contois wait so long to file a suit?

[Bigfat @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Before iTunes Apple has a very basic MP3 player called "Music Player". Anyone who participated in the OS X Public beta would remember. I personally loved the app, but I guess Apple didn't. Then they purchased the SoundJam team to create iTunes(effectively putting Casedy and Greene out of business). Apple originally wanted the guys over at Panic, who at the time were competing with SoundJam with their Audion software, but Panic(for the better) turned it down. If there was in fact no music app before 1996 that could sort a playlist, Contois has the upper hand. But of course they'll go after the big guys first.

[Ignorologyst @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
LALALALALALALA LALALALALALALALALA LALALALALALA
Ok?

Patents sucks!
Patents rulez!

Everyone agree?

[ElCapitanAmerica @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

On the UI side, they say said that Apple copied their interface when their main UI is basically a "Miller-column browser", invented in the 70s before graphical interfaces (it was text based).

What they're going to claim is that they're the first ones to combine the Miller-column, the track and artist names, etc. That's BS, simple combinations of bits that have been invented before don't justify the patent.

[Adrian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Nothing more than another publicity stunt. Similar to the one in April/May over the Tiger nameplate by TigerDirect. Just publicity. They'll probably drop the lawsuit by next week anyways, no judge in his right mind would allow this to go to court.

[Max @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I'm going to file a patent for a round, rolling metal ring with spokes and a rod at the middle for rapid, low-effort transportation of goods.

Fortune, here I come!

[Awesom-o @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I wish someone would find something to sue Apple about. Jobs is so goddam sue-happy, it'd be great to see him get a taste of his own whiny bitchiness...

[Darren Cornwell @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Stupidity in the extreme, six year ago eh? Lets all join together in our capitalist paradise and sue anyone we think we can squeeze money out of. And while we're at not why not claim for compensation - I did just fall over a misplaced rock!