[guptaneil]

I haven't read anything about Apple proactively blocking other companies, but it's believable that post-iPhone Apple is less shy about pushing the competition around a little. I know they did protect their multitouch gesture patents, which is why Android couldn't have pinch to zoom for a while.

Regarding the accuracy of my comment, see http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.htm... for a quick summary of how Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Apple ended up settling for $100 million. This is an actual product company.

The article that you linked to, while interesting, is purely opinion. Its argument hinges on the assumption that exclusivity with AT&T was a bad business deal for Apple, which I would strongly disagree with. I didn't like the lock-in as a consumer, but the deal was excellent for Apple because it gave them control over the carrier in a way other phone manufacturers had only dreamed of until that point.

[kenjackson]

This article seems to say that MS patented this BEFORE Apple did:

"Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months BEFORE Apple’s claim."

Whereas you say Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Obviously MS couldn't patent something used in a product months after release (and if they did it would be overthrown in court).

[guptaneil]

Yes, that was my point. Microsoft patented aspects of the iPod BEFORE Apple did, but AFTER the introduction of the iPod. Should it have been allowed? Probably not. I can't find any articles about the settlement, so Apple may have managed to appeal and get it overthrown eventually. I don't remember. Regardless, the reason patenting the crap out of the iPhone was a big deal was that Apple was basically showing it had learned from past mistakes.

via http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-beats-Ap...

> A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.

[kenjackson]

I think the media didn't understand this based on that article. See: http://girtby.net/archives/2005/08/17/microsoft-patents-ipod...

Apple couldn't file for a patent after it released the iPod. You have to do it before public disclosure. And of course MS couldn't have gotten the patent if Apple had released the iPod.

To bring in the Groklaw quote mentioned:

"The rejected Apple application is not exactly a critical one. It also doesn't appear that the Microsoft patent covers the subject matter of the Apple application, rather it was used as an example to deny the Apple application because it isn't an original idea.

Platt's application covers a way to automatically generate playlists from songs similar to one or more song manually chosen by the user. As an example of usage, Platt described a portable music player that uses a menu hierarchy for navigation. The menus aren't really the invention though.

The Apple application, on the other hand, is all about hierarchical menus. Yes, seriously, that's what they were trying to patent, the idea of using a tree of menus to operate a portable music player. Can you believe it? (I knew you could.) I'd chalk this rejection up to an example of the USPTO doing some good.

The rejected Apple application is 10/282,861 - Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player

The Platt application is 10/158,674 - Auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs"

This makes a LOT more sense. The Apple patent was rejected because it wasn't an invention. And the MS patent went through because it was actually patenting something that wasn't in the iPod.