Kane Kramer: "world's biggest failure" for losing DAP patents

We thought the matter had been resolved earlier today when our President credited the government with developing the technology that led to the iPod-filled world we live in today, but now another claimant has come forward in an attempt to recoup his "rightful share" of a billion dollar DAP market he may have helped create. British inventor and furniture shop manager Kane Kramer is currently consulting lawyers to see what, if any, recourse he has to enforce patents he filed in 1981 for an iPod-like device but which he subsequently lost control of due to reported boardroom coup. The patents, which describe a  three-and-a-half-minute-capacity digital audio player with a screen and central navigation controls, eventually became part of the public domain after Kramer's company dissolved and he was unable to raise the money required for renewing them across 120 countries. Kramer, who is most definitely aware of the riches he lost out on, says that the runaway success of iPods specifically and DAPs in general surely makes him "the world's biggest failure."

[Ben @ Apr 20th 2006 3:01PM]

seriously, this is getting stupid....

[iDZ @ Apr 20th 2006 3:02PM]

Even if he hadn't lost it, wouldn't his patent filed in '81 have expired by 2001?

[retsel @ Apr 20th 2006 3:24PM]

its hard out here for a pimp...

[Dster @ Apr 20th 2006 3:26PM]

In case you wanted to question this guy's credibility, you might want to hear the last thing he says in the interview on which this is all based:

"In the past 10 days, I have come up with the antidote to everybody pinching copyrighted material off the internet. I can stop it. Only one person knows the technical details. This is not one for me to develop - it's one for a big firm."

I don't trust him - do you?

[vidGuy @ Apr 20th 2006 3:28PM]

I thought patents had to be expressedly clear, and a definite violation had to occur for patent infringment. So the statement of a 3.5 minute player would rule out the iPod, which even in its first interation was obviously much more than that.

Just because you had an idea doesn't mean you deserve any money.

[p-diddy @ Apr 20th 2006 3:45PM]

vidGuy, it depends on what the claims of the patent say. If they are as broad as "A device for playing audio digital files," then the claims would appear to cover the iPod and all DAPs in general. If the claims say "a device for playing a 3 minute audio digital file" then any device that cannot play a 3 minute clip does not infringe (whereas any device that could play it could infringe). It all depens on what the claims (NOT THE REST OF THE SPECIFICATION) say.

As for the expiration of the patent, a patent filed in 1981 like would be expired by now under the current rules unless the Patent Office delayed in examining it, at which point the Patent Office may grant a patent term adjustment, extending the life of the patent. It's their wayu of saying "we were slow, you shouldn't be penalized for us being slow. Your patent term is lengthend by X days."

I say current rules because I think the old rules were "17 years from issue date" so if he got the patent issued in 1991 by submarining it, it could still be enforceable.

All this said, this is all in accordance with US law, not foreign jurisdictions, and I am not an attorney.

-p-

[Brian @ Apr 20th 2006 3:46PM]

I've had countless ideas that get turned into products and then I smack myself. I'm sure everyone does. Apple makes a lot of money partly because they already have a lot of money to make their ideas reality. This guy had no means to make an iPod even if he wanted to. That's life.

[p-diddy @ Apr 20th 2006 3:47PM]

btw the the switchover from old rules to new rules was in 1995.

-p-

[Javaflash @ Apr 20th 2006 3:54PM]

------

(A Good idea) == worthless;

&&

(A REAL good idea) = Many good ideas bind together to compliment, improve, fix, tweak, market, sell...;

// Hence,

(A Good idea + the Right People) == iPod, Google, Windows, Linux, RIM, WiFi, Cellphone, Intel...;

// AND they didn't just waltz to their success without a boatload of companies standing in between.

Return (A Good Idea == "Worthless"); :)

[tony @ Apr 20th 2006 3:54PM]

He and Alexey Pazhitnov could start a club.

[EiderDuck @ Apr 20th 2006 3:59PM]

Kramer's final sentence reminds me of "I have a truly marvelous proof of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain."

[Javaflash @ Apr 20th 2006 4:03PM]

"MOST" lawyers ...

... either want everything or they wants everything but.

// PARAPHRASE

... either blames everyone or blames everyone but.

[Asian Voice @ Apr 20th 2006 4:09PM]

Here in Asia, Copyrights do not apply.

[vidGuy @ Apr 20th 2006 4:15PM]

Copyrights and patents are two widely different things.

[Javaflash @ Apr 20th 2006 4:28PM]

Asian Voice,

That's not good either. It's better to have rigid copyright enforcement in place to establish at least legal frameworks or shall we say, "a concept (understanding)" of property rights, a visible foreseeable reward for following that "concept." Otherwise, no one will care to innovate. Any new ventures = mass redistribution which leads to zero incentive.

Westerners built those "concepts" centuries ago. They seem transparent, but without them, our growth will collapse. Hence, in your case, if copyrights can't take shape, certain industry won't even start.

P.S. Sorry about my grammars... fast edit on brief post. Cheers!

[tpp @ Apr 20th 2006 5:20PM]

His loss, everyone else's gain. I'm glad he screwed up.

[Jeff @ Apr 20th 2006 6:42PM]

I think patenting an idea with producing an actual working model of that idea is just stupid and should be illegal. Unless this guy was actually making the DAP devices at the time he filed the patent he should have no right to complain.

I mean, I have an idea for a wormhole device that will instantly transport me to anywhere in the world. I should patent it so no one can ever make this tech without paying me money for dreaming it up. WHAT CRAP. Patents and intellectual property rights are BULL $#!@.

[Tom @ Apr 20th 2006 7:11PM]

Remember what people thought about the iPod when it came out? It's not as if anyone thinks that Apple invented the digital music player:

The Mirror

October 25, 2001, Thursday

HEADLINE: KELLY'S I: IPOD HITS THE WRONG NOTE

BODY:
BURSTING with excitement, Apple boss Steve Jobs finally unveiled the firm's massively hyped iPod digital music player to a slightly bemused audience.

Bemused because the Apple PR machine has spent weeks priming everyone for something "ground-breaking". Instead, out came this hard drive MP3 player. Very nice, but not all that different to other hard drive MP3 machines on the market.

Yes, the pounds 330 iPod looks good and yes, it's a great accessory for Mac owners. But it's hardly revolutionary.

A five-gig hard drive capable of storing 1,000 tracks and a 10-hour battery life are impressive, but nothing we haven't seen before.

What is cool is the Firewire connection that downloads an entire CD in around 10 seconds. But Macs have had Firewire for more than a year, so it's hardly the breakthrough we were expecting.

Fans on Mac discussion sites were notably crestfallen. "What does iPod mean? I Pretend it's an Original Device," said one.

So all in all it's very small, very cool, but pricey. Just like Apple's last "breakthrough" device, the G4 Cube. And that was binned earlier this year after disastrous sales.

LOAD-DATE: October 25, 2001

[AlanP @ Apr 20th 2006 7:43PM]

The world biggest "failure" is that guy who invented the Karaoke machine. Karaoke is way bigger than DAPs, he has lost tens of billions, shame really cos i saw an interivew with him and hes a really nice guy, not bitter or anything.

[Tobor @ Apr 20th 2006 7:48PM]

"He and Alexey Pazhitnov could start a club."

Yeah....except Alexey Pajitnov created Tetris, and recieved no money for it because he was a member of a communist society, while the other guy bumped his head on the toilet and wrote down the plans for a flux capacitor on some toilet paper....wait, wrong guy.

What did this clown design again? Oh right nothing. Next.

[ramos @ Apr 20th 2006 8:26PM]

Sorry but this loser didn't invent the ipod. He just contributed to the development of mp3 players. Ipod is gresat because of the design and software which this arse didn
'T have any clue on.

[Mike @ Apr 20th 2006 9:46PM]

What's next? DaVinci's descendants claiming patent rights for the Helicopter?

[J @ Apr 21st 2006 1:01AM]

He's the worlds biggest failure for moaning about patents he lost years ago.

[p-diddy @ Apr 21st 2006 2:24AM]

*sigh*

To give myself a pat on the back, can someone please explain why my post above, probably the most informed intellectual property post today, received no stars? seriously, what gives?

-p-

[Forbury Lion @ Apr 21st 2006 7:39AM]

Hey, I think this British patent may relate to the Chippie, It was a digital music player in the days where CD's were still new. I remember BBC's Going Live gave a prototype away in a competition, probably around 1987. Sadly I didn't win (probably because I didn't enter!).

[Lestrade @ Apr 21st 2006 1:15PM]

It is so sad that we express "failure" as "the inability to make more money that one knows what to do with."

[Reg @ Apr 21st 2006 9:06PM]

It's bad issuing patents for ideas anyone can have. Ideas are often easy, and come in response to a perceived need (necessity is the mother of invention).,

It's the execution which is the hard part. Just coming up with an idea that you have no intention of building shouldn't be patentable (instead, it should be how you build it).

To combat this, I think someone should set up a site with a forum for brainstorming ideas. Just say what ever comes into to your head. Aim to get a a hundred thousand posts a month.

The site administrator could then date stamp and archive the site on a regular basis.

Then in 20 years time, when some PanaMicroSonyNTPBurstLawyersAreJerksSoft company comes along and says, "we have a patent for a pocket size holographic projector that uses the quantum interference effects of lasers to render a 10 foot image in front of the user, so no one can make one of these unless they pay us $$$..."

...someone who wants to start selling one but faces a lawsuit that might bankrupt them can search the site and say, "sorry dudes, there's prior art covering this: a user named HelpMeObiWanKenobi thought of this a long time ago."

Hmm, think I might patent that site idea. (May be someone already has.)

[N. @ Apr 28th 2006 4:30PM]

Check this out... www.kanekramer.com

The site appears to be under construction, but has got some amazing information and what appears to be original documentation. The original drawing from 1979 is clearly what iPod is based on. Apple (from what I've heard) have also been sueing other companies from using the central four way menu control... which this '79 model clearly has, shouldn't this Kane guy be getting a cut of this!?!? (Ramos).

As for this patienting products not ideas (Reg)... This guy apparently built 5 proto-types of these things, which worked (Ramos again)!!!!

Surely he should get some credit/compensation for cretaing MORE than an idea but the actual working model of what we all enjoy today...

I say C'mon the little guy!

[Tony Clayman @ Jun 12th 2006 1:38PM]

Ramos is on to something here. Kane Kramer's patent has long since expired, but his copyright for the design will last for 100 years. The apple ipod is based on his original design (unless it was a million to one coincidence.) Apple sue other mp3 manufacturers who's design comes too close to their own. Go visit www.kanekramer.com and see for yourself

[fred @ Sep 9th 2008 2:46AM]

um many devices like calculators to the tricorders in startrek have the same basic layout. even remote controls for tvs don't have their buttons on the bottom, its basic common sense layout, there is nothing novel in that drawing. i'm sure devices looking similar were in plenty scifi/comic material. its not like you'd put the screen on the back. its a dodgy patent on an overly broad idea, and it lacked the breakthrough in thinking that would have made it a true innovation and practical.

[CJ @ Sep 9th 2008 7:22AM]

I think, financially, that yes, Kane Kramer is a failure.

But as it stands, I think he deserves recognition as at least one of the fathers of modern music players. After all, many great inventors have slipped by, unnoticed, while others benefit greatly from their brilliant ideas.

I think Mr. Kramer hopes to recieve money from this, but I also think that he might not be too worried, IF, and only if, he is officially named as the inventor of the modern MP3 player.