Yahoo News: "Pocket PC iPod Imitator Gets Apple's Attention"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/mc/20040309/tc_mc/pocketpcipodimitatorgetsapplesattention' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...applesattention</a><br /><br /></div>"UK developer Starbrite Solutions has a $20 software offering called pBop that may remind you more than a little of Apple's iPod. While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, pBop flattered the iPod too much as far as Apple's legal department was concerned. "Apple felt pPod was being 'passed off' as an Apple iPod," Starbrite spokesman Ryan Kelly told MacCentral. "We were surprised to hear this as we have heard of no one buying a Windows powered Pocket PC application, being confused they are buying a hardware device."<br /><br />While no one would mistake a Pocket PC-based PDA for an iPod, the diminutive device can run a variety of software and store a variety of files, including MP3 audio files. Starbrite developed pBop to give Pocket PC PDA users a "functional, easy to use MP3 player" that Ryan Kelly said is inspired by some of the most popular MP3 players on the market, including the iPod."

[dommasters]

"While no one would mistake a Pocket PC-based PDA for an iPod, the diminutive device can run a variety of software and store a variety of files, including MP3 audio files. Starbrite developed pBop to give Pocket PC PDA users a "functional, easy to use MP3 player" that Ryan Kelly said is inspired by some of the most popular MP3 players on the market, including the iPod."

Apple are completely in the right here. It is a blatant rip off of their device. The intellectual value of the "iPod" is in it's interface and software, not the silicon (though that is nice). If I released a copy of Windows XP for say a Linux machine I would not expect to get away with it. Is anybody really surprised ?

Domster

[Mojo Jojo]

Not suprised at all. In fact the only thing that did suprise me is that the company actually did the program the way they did.

Sure, maybe if they gave it away for free, but to sell another companies intellectual property (in the form of the interface) for profit?

[Jonathan1]

I was wondering when Apple would get around to taking a "personal" interest in this software. The ONLY leg the developer has to stand on would be that this is software based not hardware. Possible loophole? Then again I don't think that's a leg. Maybe a peg leg in gale force winds. :)

[dommasters]

Anyone can code, but only a genius could have designed the iPod.... :0)

[dmy]

It is a blatant rip off of their device. The intellectual value of the "iPod" is in it's interface and software, not the silicon (though that is nice). If I released a copy of Windows XP for say a Linux machine I would not expect to get away with it. Is anybody really surprised ?


Ok, I'll bite.....
So Apple should sue someone for implementing a skin for WinAmp/PocketPlayer/PocketMusic/(insert your favorite here) that looks like the iPOD?

How about a GUI Skin that looks like the OS/X interface on top of Windows/linux/BSD/(insert your favorite here).

Or the XP UI look and feel as a theme on top of a Linux desktop?

You made the distinction between the Software and the Hardware.... and maybe the interface and the software as well. My point is that there is obviously intellectual property in the hardware, and people argue that there is in software, but is it an infringement of that intellectual property to emulate the visual presentation and control? the visual interface? That's a BIG grey area..... and I personally could make arguments either way. The software is (by necessity) different. The hardware is different. the *feel* is different. Not like the Apple Lisa (the original Macintosh) that took it's GUI, Mouse, Icons, much of it's hardware, etc, etc, from the Xerox PARC Alto.

Back to my example of the XP theme on a Linux Desktop..... a theme or skin is a far cry from your example of releasing a version of XP that runs on Linux. The starbrite product is, after all, only a skin over an MP3 player.

Don't know that we've solved anything, but it's a fun debate nonetheless.

D.

[sponge]

Apple HAVE told people to stop distrubuting OSX look-alike skins, thanks to look and feel patents.

[dommasters]

but is it an infringement of that intellectual property to emulate the visual presentation and control? the visual interface?
Yep it is :0) Now here's the difference. An XP skin on Linux just advertises Microsoft's product. They choose not to litigate but they do have that option. In the iPod case the only thing it will do for Apple is lose them sales....

[dmy]

Apple HAVE told people to stop distrubuting OSX look-alike skins, thanks to look and feel patents.

Er.....

You patent methods and process,
you copyright expressions of methods and processes.

So again, challenging Apple on this front may work, it may not... but it's more of a money issue. Whether it's really right or not starts crossing into patent reform, and I'm not sure we want to go down that path.

D.

[dommasters]

You patent methods and process,
you copyright expressions of methods and processes.
D.
"Patent", "Copyright" etc. The fact is these implementations of ideas are protected. Why would you want to attempt to fight Apple to steal the product of their inspired efforts ? As for being about money ... last time I looked Apple were a business. I know very few people willing to work as hard as the R&D dept at Apple AND do it for free ;0)
Diddle

[dmy]

but is it an infringement of that intellectual property to emulate the visual presentation and control? the visual interface?
Yep it is :0) Now here's the difference. An XP skin on Linux just advertises Microsoft's product. They choose not to litigate but they do have that option. In the iPod case the only thing it will do for Apple is lose them sales....

It *MAY BE* infringement.... you can't say for sure.... and here's why:

Intellectual property and Trade Secrets can only be protected under disclosure agreements, and are in fact a matter of contract law. Once intellectual property and trade secrets are exposed to the public, disclosure contracts are rendered moot. (Note.... *SOURCE CODE* can still be considered Trade Secret and Intellectual property because the source is not disclosed publicly, the Binary is).

So the only way to protect a visual interface is via Copyright or Patent law, as the instant a product is released it's no longer a secret. So now you're down to the difference between a "method" and an "expression". You can argue that an interface can be either.... but it has to be one or the other and protected as such, "Both" weakens the case for either.

In this case, I'd say that a copyright would protect better than a patent, as it's a visual representation and copyrights are expressly meant for that. But a Patent could be as protective or more so depending on how it's written.

In the iPod case the only thing it will do for Apple is lose them sales....

But..... couldn't you make that same argument for *any* digital music player, PPC based or not? Isn't that the point?? For me the thing that loses a sale for Apple is that the iPOD doesn't play OGG format, and is a single purpose device where I have another device that will do just as good a job.

D.

[dommasters]

But..... couldn't you make that same argument for *any* digital music player, PPC based or not? Isn't that the point?? For me the thing that loses a sale for Apple is that the iPOD doesn't play OGG format, and is a single purpose device where I have another device that will do just as good a job.

D.

Nope it isn't. The iPod has a certain look and feel. A Ford does the same job as a Porsche but you won't find Ford copying the look and feel. Like I said the iPod is protected, regardless of implementation of protection. Why would people bother investing millions of dollars on UI R&D if their work could just be copied ? They wouldn't.

[don dre]

I don't know a whole lot about this (you are probably already thinking well shut up then) but it seems that Apple shouldn't really be able to sue over this. it's nto a rip off of the hardware. most people are not going to buy a pocketpc instead of an ipod because they cen get teh interface from a ppc. it's the package. the slim, slexy mp3 player taht has bradn recognition b/c of its tight interface, product design, adn durability. a ppc works for many people but it is not what the user of the ipod wants. the ipod is a product which is comprised of pieces. i would imagine that a patent or some such would protect the product but not necessarily its components. and that this is both unwarranted and unnecessarily aggressive. so much for anti-establishment.

[dmy]

"Patent", "Copyright" etc. The fact is these implementations of ideas are protected. Why would you want to attempt to fight Apple to steal the product of their inspired efforts? As for being about money ... last time I looked Apple were a business. I know very few people willing to work as hard as the R&D dept at Apple AND do it for free ;0)
Diddle

Only protected if someone at Apple filed a Copyright or Patent on the visual portion of the user interface (and I'm absolutely sure they did).

Why would I want to fight??? *I* wouldn't, as it would cost too much money. Nor am I advocating anyone do so..... Nor am I defending Starbright..... I have no use for it any more than I have a use for an iPOD..... I'm just enjoying the mental exercise and debate :wink:

BUT..... you make your point..... Why would anyone attempt to borrow/steal/improve upon/etc... anyone's inspired efforts?? Money. And no, Apple isn't the only one's that are in it for money..... Look at the fact that Apple was not the leader of portable digital audio, but were building on the ideas of others.... as they were with the Macintosh, as Windows was, as the Personal Computer was. As was Henry Ford's automobile.

D.

[dmy]

I don't know a whole lot about this (you are probably already thinking well shut up then)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. (To clarify..... absolutely do not "shut up then")

but it seems that Apple shouldn't really be able to sue over this. it's nto a rip off of the hardware. most people are not going to buy a pocketpc instead of an ipod because they cen get teh interface from a ppc. it's the package. the slim, slexy mp3 player taht has bradn recognition b/c of its tight interface, product design, adn durability. a ppc works for many people but it is not what the user of the ipod wants. the ipod is a product which is comprised of pieces. i would imagine that a patent or some such would protect the product but not necessarily its components. and that this is both unwarranted and unnecessarily aggressive. so much for anti-establishment.

Well stated.

D.

[dommasters]

Hardware costs nothing. Almost. The price of silicon is as good as free. Go take a shovel to any beach to get near on limitless supplies of it. It is the silicon design that costs money. Apple did not design the silicon. They designed the look and feel. If the Apple design has no "value" then why be bothered that somebody is not allowed to copy it ? If it does have value then it's obvious why it is protected. Would you fight aggressively to keep your job ? Apple's actions are no different.

[dommasters]

"Patent", "Copyright" etc. The fact is these implementations of ideas are protected. Why would you want to attempt to fight Apple to steal the product of their inspired efforts? As for being about money ... last time I looked Apple were a business. I know very few people willing to work as hard as the R&D dept at Apple AND do it for free ;0)
Diddle

Only protected if someone at Apple filed a Copyright or Patent on the visual portion of the user interface (and I'm absolutely sure they did).

Why would I want to fight??? *I* wouldn't, as it would cost too much money. Nor am I advocating anyone do so..... Nor am I defending Starbright..... I have no use for it any more than I have a use for an iPOD..... I'm just enjoying the mental exercise and debate :wink:

BUT..... you make your point..... Why would anyone attempt to borrow/steal/improve upon/etc... anyone's inspired efforts?? Money. And no, Apple isn't the only one's that are in it for money..... Look at the fact that Apple was not the leader of portable digital audio, but were building on the ideas of others.... as they were with the Macintosh, as Windows was, as the Personal Computer was. As was Henry Ford's automobile.

D.

LOL :) Me too. Love debates like this ! Agreed "building upon ideas" is allowed, tolerated and positively encouraged .... but this is a copy :) And .... yes they did protect it ;)

[dmy]

Hardware costs nothing. Almost. The price of silicon is as good as free. Go take a shovel to any beach to get near on limitless supplies of it. It is the silicon design that costs money. Apple did not design the silicon. They designed the look and feel. If the Apple design has no "value" then why be bothered that somebody is not allowed to copy it ? If it does have value then it's obvious why it is protected. Would you fight aggressively to keep your job ? Apple's actions are no different.

I didn't say that the interface design has no value. In fact I'd argue just as easily that it does. But the Starbright software does not fully implement the look and feel ofthe interface..... at best only a good part of it.

I'm just asking.... if you or anyone else released a skin for your favorite Digital Music Player on the PPC, would you argue as vehemently if Apple decided to sue.

D.

[dommasters]

Thing is .... what are Apple best known for ? Mac, iPod ? Lisa ? What do they all have in common ? Their approach to UI. If I released a skin I am sure it would be total utter crap :) In any case a skin just falls into place on top of an existing UI in most cases. If I used copyrighted artwork to create the skin then I might expect a call from a lawyer or two. Apple may seem harsh to some (not me) but their whole business is based upon touch and feel and interaction. The fact that the pPod or whatever failed to copy everything is testament to Apple's ingenuity .... the pPod was maybe just after a fast buck and early release date :)
And there's another matter ... the name. pPod ? Do these guys have any knowledge atall about the laws in place to protect works ?
Funny but I'm tempted by an iPod LOL.

[dmy]

LOL :) Me too. Love debates like this ! Agreed "building upon ideas" is allowed, tolerated and positively encouraged .... but this is a copy :) And .... yes they did protect it ;)

Ok, whether or not that I agree that Starbright intentionally copied the look and feel (by the way, I do believe that was the intent here), the look is copied, the feel is, at best only partially copied. We've agreed that the functionality is not copied.

BUT and this is a big one.... by your arguments this is *very* similar to the arguments made in another, seperate thread here on PPCT involving screen protectors. In that thread, this community bashed the patent holder for implying infringement where there was probably very little basis.... but every bit as much basis as here, where here the community seems to be on the opposite side of the argument.

Also a thread on the ruling of the definition of the word "card" devolved into a patent argument (where that was no part of the ruling) and the community again came down against the patent holder... and again, we're talking about a visual representation of another idea as implemented on a PPC.

I just find the similarity and dichotomy in the three arguments an interesting study in social behavior.

D.

[Janak Parekh]

BUT and this is a big one.... by your arguments this is *very* similar to the arguments made in another, seperate thread here on PPCT involving screen protectors. In that thread, this community bashed the patent holder for implying infringement where there was probably very little basis.... but every bit as much basis as here, where here the community seems to be on the opposite side of the argument.
I don't think so. Screen protectors, or the idea of applying a piece of plastic to cover something sensitive, is relatively obvious and has been done on a wide variety of devices for many years. Simple example: shipped laptops often have a piece of plastic covering the screen. It's also possible that prior art exists, as screen protectors have existed for a long time.

The scroll wheel and Apple's menu interface, on the other hand, is less "obvious" and more original.

--janak

[ctmagnus]

And there's another matter ... the name. pPod ? Do these guys have any knowledge atall about the laws in place to protect works ?

iPaq &lt;--> iPod have been playing nicely for years. I see no threat to Apple because someone names their product pPod.

[arnage2]

total bull! Apple wants to make more money off of a product that isnt theirs running off of a system that isnt theirs.

Hey msft, 2 can play at this game. Find every theme for os10 that looks remotley like a windows xp theme, and sue their ass!

Also, how does a $600 pocket pc with no hard drive and $20 worth of software affect the ipod in sales? The portable media center will do much more damage.

[dommasters]

Yep it's a very subtle thing and there is no black and white. I think you sum it up when you say the intention was to copy. The intention was therefore, by deduction, to steal. I never saw the creen protector thread but .... it would have to be pretty special to be patentable LOL. Where can I see the debate ?
Dom

[dommasters]

And there's another matter ... the name. pPod ? Do these guys have any knowledge atall about the laws in place to protect works ?

iPaq &lt;--> iPod have been playing nicely for years. I see no threat to Apple because someone names their product pPod.

The iPaq and iPod look nothing like eachother and have totally different UI's and features ;0)

[dommasters]

total bull! Apple wants to make more money off of a product that isnt theirs running off of a system that isnt theirs.

Hey msft, 2 can play at this game. Find every theme for os10 that looks remotley like a windows xp theme, and sue their ass!

Also, how does a $600 pocket pc with no hard drive and $20 worth of software affect the ipod in sales? The portable media center will do much more damage.

That is stating the obvious. If the product was theirs then they wouldn't be going for blood. You will not find a theme from Apple that rips off MS as MS get an awful lot of their "clues" from Apple. Personally I have a PC and wouldn't touch a Mac but it's a fact that MS borrow the ideas ;)

Finally a $600 device etc effects sales because if you want an iPod then the only way you can have one is ... if you get one :)

[dmy]

Thing is .... what are Apple best known for ? Mac, iPod ? Lisa ? What do they all have in common ? Their approach to UI.

But.... uh.... the Mac (Lisa) interface is a DIRECT infringement of the UI developed by Xerox PARC for the Alto and demonstrated to Steve Jobs in 1979. The Alto stemmed from work in bit-mapped displays and iconography from PARC, the mouse and desktop metaphor from SRI, and the pop-up, pull-down, and hierarchical menu designs from both SRI and PARC. In fact, everything we now know as standard for a Personal Computer was what the Alto was all about. PARC just didn't know what they had and didn't protect it.

If I released a skin I am sure it would be total utter crap :) In any case a skin just falls into place on top of an existing UI in most cases. If I used copyrighted artwork to create the skin then I might expect a call from a lawyer or two.

Uh, if this is the case, why are Apple persuing skins of OS/x for other operating systems? (your comment from a previous message) (Rhetorical question).

Apple may seem harsh to some (not me) but their whole business is based upon touch and feel and interaction. The fact that the pPod or whatever failed to copy everything is testament to Apple's ingenuity .... the pPod was maybe just after a fast buck and early release date :)
Ahhh.... and now we have a real discussion on merits. and we agree :D

And there's another matter ... the name. pPod ? Do these guys have any knowledge atall about the laws in place to protect works ?

Hmmmmmm "pPod", "iPod", "iPAQ". Ok.... so I stretch this one. :?

Funny but I'm tempted by an iPod LOL.
If it works...... Just Do It.

Ut oh.... now Nike will be breathing down my neck. 8O

D.

[dommasters]

pPod would not be a rip off if it were say a shoot 'em up. But pPod + identical look and feel + same market etc = lawsuit
I could release a word processor called iWrd tomorrow and I needn't fear the guys at Apple.
Apple "improved" vastly upon the Xerox stuff as did MS. Using past ideas to create something new is possible as we both agree. Feel sorry for Xerox on that one. They messed up big time.
Apple have the option of litigating against any copying of their artwork.
I don't know how to multi-quote yet ;)

[dmy]

The scroll wheel and Apple's menu interface, on the other hand, is less "obvious" and more original.
--janak

Ahh.... more people into the fray.... this is getting time consuming if fun.

Scroll wheel and menu interface:
Er.... other digital media players have similar methods of navigation.... and how about the scroll wheel on the first CE devices that were often used for similar nagivagtion of menus.... not to mention Jog dials to navigate other media streams on other devices.

D.

[dmy]

Yep it's a very subtle thing and there is no black and white. I think you sum it up when you say the intention was to copy. The intention was therefore, by deduction, to steal. I never saw the creen protector thread but .... it would have to be pretty special to be patentable LOL. Where can I see the debate ?
Dom

Not much of a debate per-se, but it was In this thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=218739#218739)

More closely related was this thread on the definition of the word "card" (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25061)

D.

[Janak Parekh]

Scroll wheel and menu interface:
Er.... other digital media players have similar methods of navigation....
Conceptually, maybe. Implementationwise, not really. Try using iPod's touch-sensitive scroll wheel and you'll see what I mean. I have had a Pocket PC with a jog wheel and a Sony laptop with a (360 degree) jog dial, and neither are remotely as useful, especially acceleration and precisionwise.

--janak

[dmy]

Apple "improved" vastly upon the Xerox stuff as did MS.

Well.... MS took a while between ripping off IBM's Taskview and getting up to the level of a Mac, but frankly if you look at a Lisa Side-by-side with the Alto you'd be amazed at how much alike they are..... not just on-screen, but the footprint and shape of the hardware too. The first Mac got away from the Alto (and Lisa) more by changing the monochrome screen to black-on-white instead of white-on-black.

(BTW: Apple tried to sue MS for infringement when MS added overlapping windows to the Windows environment... and lost because of the Alto.
MS tried to sue Apple when Apple added pre-emptive multitasking to the Mac, but lost.... again to prior art that was the Alto
Apple threatened to sue MS again when Windows became an OS rather than just a GUI on top of the OS... but backed down again because of.... you guessed it, the Alto. ))

But this is a solid digression and we should get back on point :splat:

D.

[dommasters]

LOL. I'm outta here. Wish I'd only left the one comment now LOL.

[dommasters]

PS Just started to read the screen protector thread. Making me laugh.

[dmy]

Conceptually, maybe. Implementationwise, not really. Try using iPod's touch-sensitive scroll wheel and you'll see what I mean. I have had a Pocket PC with a jog wheel and a Sony laptop with a (360 degree) jog dial, and neither are remotely as useful, especially acceleration and precisionwise.
--janak

’Ah!’ said Benjy. ‘Aha, now that does sound promising!’ He rolled the phrase around a little. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘that's excellent!

But isn't that really what we're talking about???? The CONCEPT?? After all, Starbright copied the CONCEPT, not the IMPLEMENTATION.

D.

[dmy]

LOL. I'm outta here. Wish I'd only left the one comment now LOL.


Heh.... I was thinking the same thing when I realized how much I should be WORKING as opposed to DEBATING and which I was enjoying more!!!

D.

I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves.

[Janak Parekh]

But isn't that really what we're talking about???? The CONCEPT?? After all, Starbright copied the CONCEPT, not the IMPLEMENTATION.
Actually, I would argue they copied the software "implementation" -- design, should you prefer. The menus, the scroll wheel metaphor, etc.

--janak

[dmy]

Actually, I would argue they copied the software "implementation" -- design, should you prefer. The menus, the scroll wheel metaphor, etc.

--janak

Well... you might be able to say that they emulated the implementation (hardware and software implementation that is), but as it's different hardware and firmware underlying each, they could not have copied it in the precise definition of the word.

But I'm being a bit pedantic..... on the other hand, when you're discussing infringement cases you need to be pedantic, regardless of whether you're talking Copyright (protects the implementation) or Patent (protects the concept) infringement.

I still fail to be convinced that this bears little difference from a Skin on some Digital Media player. (not that a skin infringes any less or more)
D.

[dommasters]

I still fail to be convinced that this bears little difference from a Skin on some Digital Media player. (not that a skin infringes any less or more)
D.
OK I wanted out but you cannot be serious DMY ? It is so much more than a skin. And in case skins can infringe also. The thing is it's morally wrong. Even if they hadn't taken steps to protect their works I'd still be annoyed at somebody ripping off their efforts.
Hmmm .... still toying with the thought of visiting Ebay to buy one :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

I'm just enjoying the mental exercise and debate :wink:

Is this the right Forum for an Argunent........? :wink:

I thought that Apple would stamp on this app pretty fast. :?

[dmy]

OK I wanted out but you cannot be serious DMY ? It is so much more than a skin. And in case skins can infringe also. The thing is it's morally wrong. Even if they hadn't taken steps to protect their works I'd still be annoyed at somebody ripping off their efforts.
Hmmm .... still toying with the thought of visiting Ebay to buy one :)

How is it so much different from This for WMP (http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?library=9&SkinID=56)
or
This one for WHAMB (an OS9 music player of all things) (http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/archives/000735.html)

Ut oh... an iTUNES rip off for PocketTunes on your Palm device (http://www.pocket-tunes.com/skins/players/iTunes4_v3.shtml)

Oh no!! A WMP skin for PocketTunes!!! on a PALM for goodness sake! (http://www.pocket-tunes.com/skins/players/skin0038.shtml)

A pretty darn good one for Winamp... of course it's got extra features that the iPOD doesn't (http://www.winamp.com/skins/details.php?id=135320) Oh, and this one will run over a couple of the PPC music players out there.

and the list goes on, and on.......

To quote "Romp" over on GeekZone about the pPOD:
So, its an iPod skinned MP3 player. Its not really an iPod emulator as you can't make iTunes think its an iPod or anything.

[dommasters]

If you can't see the difference then I'm too tired to point it out LOL.
Good night and God bless.
Dom
(Midnight here)

[dmy]

If you can't see the difference then I'm too tired to point it out LOL.
Good night and God bless.
Dom
(Midnight here)

Good night and sleep well friend.
D.

[Janak Parekh]

Well... you might be able to say that they emulated the implementation (hardware and software implementation that is), but as it's different hardware and firmware underlying each, they could not have copied it in the precise definition of the word.
The interface is most definitely copyable.

I still fail to be convinced that this bears little difference from a Skin on some Digital Media player. (not that a skin infringes any less or more)
Out of curiosity, have you used an iPod? :) There are unique elements to the UI that no skin will copy. I'm not necessarily saying that patenting such things is a great idea, but of all the cases I've seen I think Apple would have a pretty good one here.

--janak

[ctmagnus]

The site's back up!

Complete with

WARNING - Please be aware that this Windows powered Pocket PC software application has NO connection with and is not supported by Apple Computer Inc. If you wish to purchase the Apple Computer Inc "iPod" device please visit their website at www.apple.com

[clbsvi]

This whole scene is a tempest in a teapot - or is that, tempest in a pPod.
My opinion: Apple's iPod is a great little EXPENSIVE TOY for those of us who cannot get our PPC's to play music, eg. with Windows Media Player or some such. As far as the pPod being a dastardly knockoff of the iPod, how come nobody bitched this loudly when AMD reverse engineered Intel's Pentium processors. Methinks Apple's major concern is that pPod might underprice their OVERPRICED iPod, just like AMD did to Intel, and that they might lose a few $$$ thereby. Poor babies. BTW, doesn't Dell and Creative Labs, among others, have iPod-like music players ?? Knockoffs ??

Go ahead; Flame me: See if I care. Awwwwwwwww !![/img]

[Janak Parekh]

how come nobody bitched this loudly when AMD reverse engineered Intel's Pentium processors.
Invalid analogy; AMD has a cross-licensing agreement with Intel.

Poor babies. BTW, doesn't Dell and Creative Labs, among others, have iPod-like music players ?? Knockoffs ??
Seriously -- the next time you're in a store, play with the iPod's UI. You might not like it -- and you might find it not worth the money. But the UI is definitely unique among music players and, quite frankly, I believe Apple has a case. The Dell and Creative Labs units are substantially different.

--janak

[dmanvan12]

Apple, what a joke! how would a small bit of software affect its iPod sales? it is a bit heavy handed to say that it is a direct copy. unless they are going to COPY this companies idea of a software music interface and offer it to windows users having somthing that is the same as their iPod???
Interesting....

[Janak Parekh]

Apple, what a joke! how would a small bit of software affect its iPod sales?
Apple's been very, very sensitive about its UI over the years, and they've aggressively protected it. Anyone remember the lawsuit with MS (or was it against DRI's GEM, or both... can't remember) that was essentially resolved by renaming Trash to Recycle Bin? That's the reason we've used that moniker since Win95. ;) You might not like it, but most big companies do this.

unless they are going to COPY this companies idea of a software music interface and offer it to windows users having somthing that is the same as their iPod???
I doubt it -- iTunes is about as close as Apple will get on a PC, UIwise.

--janak

[dommasters]

Apple, what a joke! how would a small bit of software affect its iPod sales?
Easily. If you don't defend your rights when violation is brought to your attention then those rights lapse ....

[dommasters]

The software has been terminated. RIP. Maybe they can think of something "Original" next time.

[ChristopherTD]

Maybe that was why they only offered a 3-day trial instead of the more common 14 or 30 days. They expected that they would only have 1 or 2 weeks before they had to stop selling it!

[ppodder]

Does anyone know if I can get the source code for this thing? I would love to develop it myself!

If anybody can get me this source code, I will give you a million dollars... well probably not. :?

Anyone? :?