It’s Apple vs. Microsoft over iPod Patent - The Larger Context
(Page 4 of 4 )
There’s a lot more going on here than a “simple” patent filing. Microsoft would love to beat the iPod in the marketplace. It is seriously working with hardware developers on what it hopes will be “iPod killers.” To many users, an application IS its user interface, in effect. If Microsoft can keep this patent, they can put MP3 players on the market that feature the same, now-familiar interface.
That’s the first thing Apple might have going against it. The second thing is that the company is already facing two patent infringement lawsuits related to the iPod. The first one, which had not yet been filed as of March 2005, is from Pat-rights. It concerns Pat-rights US patent number 6,665,797, covering the provision of “identity information of the rightful user thereof for accessing a network central computer to obtain service(s) or software product(s) or alike.” Pat-rights claims that Apple’s Fairplay digital rights management system conflicts with this patent. It wants a percentage of the profits from Apple’s iTunes and iPod sales. The second suit, filed in a US federal court, concerns Advanced Audio Devices patent number 6,587,403, for “a musical jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein.”
There is cause for hope. For one thing, Microsoft might be more interested in a cross-licensing agreement than a lawsuit. According to Rob Merges, a UC-Berkeley law professor specializing in patent issues, “If Microsoft plays hardball with this one, Apple may play hardball with the next one, and that’s not a good thing” for the software giant. Besides, there may be grounds for a cross-licensing agreement. Back in 1997, Apple and Microsoft entered into a wide-ranging agreement that involved Microsoft’s investing $150 million in Apple and settling a number of patent infringement related issues. Additionally, it covered many other areas too numerous to mention here, such as technology sharing. It is worth noting, however, that the agreement expired in August 2002 – fully three months after Microsoft filed its patent. In other words, the agreement might have covered the patent in question.
While Microsoft gained some bragging rights from this issue by seemingly stealing a march on Apple, Tim Bajarin, principal analyst for Creative Strategies, sees the matter clearly. “If someone were taking bets,” he said, “I would wager that Apple never pays Microsoft a cent.”
| DISCLAIMER: The content provided in this article is not warranted or guaranteed by Developer Shed, Inc. The content provided is intended for entertainment and/or educational purposes in order to introduce to the reader key ideas, concepts, and/or product reviews. As such it is incumbent upon the reader to employ real-world tactics for security and implementation of best practices. We are not liable for any negative consequences that may result from implementing any information covered in our articles or tutorials. If this is a hardware review, it is not recommended to open and/or modify your hardware. |
/ 8 
