Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:06 am

So how many people believe this guy actually has a valid claim raise your comment? I vote NO FRICKEN WAY!

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:34 am

They wait until now to make a claim, or have they been living in a cave the last few years? They should have defended their patent when the iPods first came on the scene, providing they actually have a violation. I am not necessarily defending Apple, it just seems suspicious that now that the iPod is a success claims start appearing.

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:45 am

Just one comment about the article saying "In a counter claim, Apple stated that the Contois patent is invalid ... "

Most likely, that is not the whole content of their counter claims. Usually a company would cite any reason imaginable, no matter how unlikely it might be, why they are not in violation of that patent. The usual defenses against a patent claim are that the patent is invalid, that it doesn't cover anything that Apple does, that it should be barred because the inventor waited too long. I would bet that Apple gave these three reasons plus half a dozen others.

It is important to list everything, no matter how unlikely, because once the defenses and counterclaims are filed, Apple cannot add to them. That makes it very very unlikely that the "invalid patent" is the only defense that Apple gave - it would mean they would lose the case if the patent was valid, but not related to iTunes.

Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:22 pm

The patent in contention is 5,864,868. I looked it over and it is really designed to protect an idea around a music selection interface that controls a computer directed player piano, not an interface that helps you buy music over the web, and download it into your portable jukebox to play backЙ

Got to the USPTO sight and search the number - Meier in the news article got it right - every single element of a claim has to match - Claim 1 has 5 elements (a-e) that all have to match and they do not. Elements a-d match the iTunes music store process, however, the last element e) does not match:

Тd) selecting an item in the songs data field in response to step c), and

e) playing the selected song item from step d) on the computer responsive music device.У

First of all in iTunes you donХt select the song and then play it. You select the music and then purchase it and download it. If you read the patent, it goes on to discuss a player piano that you control with a computer, which must be what they mean is kind of a Т computer responsive music deviceУ If they were referring to a self contained jukebox device like an ipod which plays back downloaded music, they would have said so. Instead they just refer to something directly controlled by a computer that plays music like a player piano.

There are similarities, but by making their claim require 5 parts, they were mincing their words to provide uniqueness, and they will have a hard time showing an infringement in my opinionЙ