Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple to pay MS $10 per iPod?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Apple to pay MS $10 per iPod?



    APPLE'S IPOD PATENT GAFFE
    Computer firm Apple may have to pay Microsoft £6 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.
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

  • #2


    That's just mean.
    urgh.NSFW

    Comment


    • #3
      This space is empty... or is it?

      Comment


      • #4
        Apple won't pay anything, the customers will.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that if you can prove that you were using something before someone else patented it, then that persons patent is null and void (of course, you couldn't then patent it)

          the idea of the patent is encourage innovation

          so punishing someone for not patenting makes sense (in that others can use their innovation without paying for it), but to have someone else patent the innovation, and to have to pay to use your own innovation, that is just wrong

          JM
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment


          • #6
            We need to have a Ned posting here - it's his area of specialty.
            The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith D., marine veteran. A dictator will starve to the last civilian - self-quoted
            And on the eigth day, God realized it was Monday, and created caffeine. And behold, it was very good. - self-quoted
            Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
            Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry… I wish it were otherwise.

            Comment


            • #7
              That's what usually happens with everything. But it will make their product less competitive.
              urgh.NSFW

              Comment


              • #8
                [q=Miller]the idea of the patent is encourage innovation
                [/q]

                Ohh, that hope was dropped eons ago.
                Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
                Then why call him God? - Epicurus

                Comment


                • #9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jon Miller
                    I think that if you can prove that you were using something before someone else patented it, then that persons patent is null and void (of course, you couldn't then patent it)
                    To qualify as "prior art" you have to prove that you were using it before it was invented, not before it was patented. (Or you have to prove that you were using it more than one year before the patent was filed, though that one probably wouldn't apply here given the dates mentioned.)
                    <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Winston
                      Apple won't pay anything, the customers will.
                      If this applies retroactively, Apple will definately pay something... to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars

                      And adding $10 to the price of every Ipod certainly won't help sales.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think that this will apply retroactively. It's just too cruel.
                        urgh.NSFW

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why wouldn't it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Az
                            I don't think that this will apply retroactively. It's just too cruel.
                            If the patent holds up, it sure as hell should.

                            MS could also sue them for using it beforehand unlicensed.
                            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How exactly do you "patent" a generic piece of hardware that decodes some musical file formats and plays them ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X