• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Apple Admits It Didn't Invent the iPod

Status
Not open for further replies.

CadCrazy

in search of myself


Almost 30 years after this object was conceived by Kane Kramer, 52, Apple admitted it was not the real inventor of the iPod. Apple was forced to produce evidence in a lawsuit over iPod-related patents and, so, it fetched that drawing below with the included specs to defend itself, the DailyMail is reporting. Kramer, however, hasn't been paid a dime.

Mr. Kramer, of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, is the father of three. He recently had to sell his home and move his family to rented accommodation, following the failure of his struggling furniture business, the same report reveals. Documents filed by Apple in a court case now show the computer giant acknowledges him as the father of the iPod.


Two years ago, Mr. Kramer told the DailyMail how he had invented and built the device in 1979. The invention was called “the IXI” and could store only 3.5 minutes of music on a built-in chip. However, Mr. Kramer believed that its capacity would improve. The sketches showed a credit-card-sized player with a rectangular screen and buttons for menu access in the middle, which are almost identical to those found on Apple's iPod nanos.

Sadly, in 1988, after taking out a worldwide patent and setting up a company to develop the idea, Mr. Kramer was unable to raise the £60,000 needed to renew patents across 120 countries. Thus, the technology became public property.


As some may know, last September, Apple was taken to court by a company called Burst, over media player patents, which, apparently, the iPod infringed on. Apple used Mr. Kramer’s patents and drawings to defend itself in the legal dispute with Burst. Apple flew Mr. Kramer to Cupertino, California to provide the evidence necessary for its defense during the trial. Burst claimed it held patents to some of the technology used in the iPod and, based on that, demanded a considerable cut from Apple’s £89billion profits, thanks to the iPod alone.

Mr. Kramer said, “I was up a ladder painting when I got the call from a lady with an American accent from Apple saying she was the head of legal affairs and that they wanted to acknowledge the work that I had done.”

“I must admit that at first I thought it was a wind-up by friends,” Kramer added. “But we spoke for some time, with me still up this ladder slightly bewildered by it all, and she said Apple would like me to come to California to talk to them. Then I had to make a deposition in front of a court stenographer and videographer at a lawyers’ office. The questioning by the Burst legal counsel there was tough, ten hours of it. But I was happy to do it.” Kramer concluded by saying.

Source
 

pillainp

Broken In
:!::confused: Are they actually implying that Apple stole someone else's idea (Gasp!!)
Could it actually be that Apple has once again creatively repackaged someone else's design???
 

IronManForever

IronMan; Ready to Roll...
^^ In our world; stealing ideas, as you frame it, is not uncommon. Id term it as getting inspired and learning, not stealing. And its not only apple, its something done by many many. These things are always there, and aside legal complications/formalities; they are best ignored. :!:
 

Deof Movestofca

Right off the assembly line
The Obvious Question...

So why isn't Mr. Kramer entitled to some of the profits of the iPhone, as Apple freely admits that they stole his ideas (not to mention "patents and drawings")? One would think they would at least throw him a bone for his troubles, especially since it appears he could use some money.
 

pillainp

Broken In
What right does this Kramer guy have to expect that Apple will give him anything? He should be honoured that his ideas were creatively repackaged by God's own company.





______________________________________________________________________
Anything is only ever wrong if Microsoft does it.
 

tarey_g

Hanging, since 2004..
Apple used that guy to get out of legal battle. His patent for that type of device has already expired, afaik.
 

IronManForever

IronMan; Ready to Roll...
Guys, but then again I dont think he made an MP3/WMA/AAC/WAV player. The format may have been a homebrew one; or a damn lossy voice recording of the tapes & cassetes in a homebrew format. I mean even if it was a good bitrate song; the memory should have been 2MB which I think was too high w/o a harddrive in 1979.
..
..
Okay I got the wikipedia link for Mr. Kramer and His Work. Good read.
 

ax3

Cool as a CUCUMBAR ! ! !
its business opportunities ...... 1 who graps 1st is the winner .......
 

IronManForever

IronMan; Ready to Roll...
^^^ Plus, apple never stole anything. :!: Thats utter ignorance. 3-4 other manufacturers made digital audio players before apple.
And nothing was illegal as such, becuase Mr. Kramers patent had expired as he had failed to pay the amount required to renew the patent(due to problems with his associates afaik). Thus the patent went open. :neutral:
Thus, guys, dont get the wrong idea, its just that apple didnt invent the concept, which people new much earlier than ipod was rolled out. :!: :neutral:
 
lolz....patent expirez
Don't laugh at the guy :mad:

I can really understand how someone would feel when an idea of his goes unutilised and he ends up having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to legally own it, only to discover that years later, his idea is utilised by some company to earn billions.

Thats a really sad story :(
 

Faun

Wahahaha~!
Staff member
you know what praka said was true, patents are not perpetual and there shouldnn't be a thing called patent.

It hampers the development and circumscribes the evolution.

There is more likely to have similar mindset between more than one people in this world. What if someone comes up same thing but unknown to him, won't he feel bad that he cant make any use of it cuz its already been patented. THIS SUCKS !!!
 

iMav

The Devil's Advocate
you know what praka said was true, patents are not perpetual and there shouldnn't be a thing called patent.

It hampers the development and circumscribes the evolution.

There is more likely to have similar mindset between more than one people in this world. What if someone comes up same thing but unknown to him, won't he feel bad that he cant make any use of it cuz its already been patented. THIS SUCKS !!!
How many such cases do you think are there? There is a reason why when you buy a house there are legalities to it that essentially are proof that you own it. Off course there are people who can circumvent the procedure but does that mean that we should scrap the whole system?

Patents/Copyrights are meant to protect the one who "invented" it. It is under the presumption that the one who invented something will patent to make sure that no one copies what he made.

Why is plagiarism what it is? If your logic is to be followed we should do away with copyrights and everyone should be allowed to rip stuff from anywhere and "claim" it as his own, post it where he wants without giving any credit to anyone.

If people mis-use the system doesn't necessarily mean that the system is flawed. It basically means that the implementation needs to be improved.

I don't know about you but I certainly don't want stuff that I make/create/write to be copied and someone staking claim to it.
 
@ iMav: My point exactly.

But there is a negative side of the coin as well. While I LOATH people stealing ideas from others, I also LOATH hard work being discredited because someone already did it before. Here, the similarity in work is purely a matter of coincidence and its not reason enough to be banned. But, a sad limitation of human intelligence and legal system is the fact that we can't distinguish between coincidence and delibrate imitation, and so patents just NEED to live on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom