StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

Praxis wrote:They can't be serious

Computer firm Apple may have to pay Microsoft £6 for each iPod it sells after a huge licensing lapse.

Lets play the pull the numbers out of the hat game! wrote: Everybody is going nuts over a patent decision regarding the iPod interface, but that's not what I'm writing about (so don't ask me for my opinion). Rather, I'm reacting to the claims being made by many people that Apple will have to pay Microsoft $10 for every iPod.

What I want to know is where this amount "$10" came from.

Multiple people are confidently reporting a sawbuck as the amount in question. GeekCoffee attributes it to AppleInsider.com, but a search of AppleInsider turns up no article where they assigned a monetary value to the issue. A site called TrustedReviews repeats the $10 price tag with no source. ("You don't need a source. Just trust us!") MacNewsWorld even puts the amount in its headline, although the article gives no justification for how they arrived at it. Sky News helpfully converts the amount to £6 but again provides no source for this value.

Are people just making up stuff and publishing it as fact? Or is there some root source for this $10 amount that I'm missing and which nobody is bothering to cite? (My suspicion is that one person took a wild guess and everybody else decided to run with it.)