Creative Sues Apple 423
E IS mC(Square) writes "Looks like Apple's legal problems are not yet over. ZDNet reports that Creative has sued Apple over their iPod interface. From the article: 'Creative Technology said Monday that it has filed two legal actions against Apple Computer, charging the popular iPod infringes on its patented technology. ... In both cases, Creative says that the iPod and iPod Nano infringe on a patent the company has for the interface in its Zen media player, a patent granted last August.'"
Creative is an evil company (Score:5, Informative)
Creative is used to having a hold on their market and killing off competition (ie, SoundStorm) by buying out companies or technologies they depend on. The result is them making sub-quality products and incremental upgrades that are *just* good enough for people to bother, and selling them for top dollar. And then shafting the customer with bad support on all but their latest product line.
So I can see why they don't know how to play fair and compete. They don't know how to handle Apple any other way.
Browsing data (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover! Filtering data using a column view is also quite old. It has been used in data-warehousing as way of drilling-down [webopedia.com]. In the music player it is nothing more, nothing less: it is drilling-down through your song database. Just ask Bill Inmon or Ralph Kimball
Re:Browsing data (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sweet (Score:1, Informative)
Our legal system rewards those with the deepest pockets.
I hope Apple succeeds for once in defending its intellectual property against those who would profit by mere imitation.
Um, in this case Apple are the imitators and Creative are the "innovators".
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Last August? (Score:5, Informative)
a) there are lots of targets
b) it'll be much more painful to remove/do without the patented tech than just pay-up
See for example the
Forget NeXTStep...empeg car (Score:4, Informative)
What is much more relavent as prior art is the empeg car. That had hierarchical playlist menus in '99, which beats the priority date for this patent by a year.
However, that IP is now held by SigmaTel, and their largest customers are Creative and Apple (no idea which order)
Prior art doesn't have to be held by the defendant in a patent suit...it just has to exist. This patent won't hold, and I'm a little surprised that Creative doesn't know better.
Re:Advertising Thru the Court (Score:1, Informative)
Windows Media Player (WMV):
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/Shaolin_Brain_
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/about_face_320
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/Mega_Ear_640.w
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/battery_640.wm
Quicktime (MOV):
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/Shaolin_Brain_
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/about_face_640
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/Mega_Ear_640.m
http://www.creative.com/tvc/Videos/battery_640.mo
Ugh. Only the battery ad isn't cringeworthy, but it's still lame. For Creative's sake, hopefully their lawyers are better than their marketers.
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:2, Informative)
It says it was invented and patented by two guys in 1999, one year before Carmack reinvented it in 2000 for doom3. Creative got ownership of the patent from the two guys, and used it as trade for EAX support.
Nothing all to dirty here, just business.
I hate Creative (Score:3, Informative)
Luckily Auzentech is growing and their technology is improving greatly. The Auzentech Xplosion 7.1 does Dolby Digital Live and DTS Connect. This card sounds incredibly better than any Creative card I have ever heard.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
They did.
Re:Mixed emotions abound (Score:5, Informative)
Patent No. 6,928,433 [uspto.gov] was filed in January 2001. Before the iPod was unveiled in October.
The site isn't available at the moment (Maximum number of users has been reached.) but it looked like a fairly typical old-method-but-for-new-technology patent. You know the type... "auction bidding... but on the Internet!".
Re:Last August? (Score:5, Informative)
Thankfully, the USPTO is a bit more like the rest of the world so this practice should now have stopped.
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wha...? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/createjuk
The first iPod came out on October 23, 2001.
The Nomad Zen was a late 2002 product:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/nomadzen.
Posters here already have identified the Creative patent as being one they filed on January 5, 2001. That was probably early in the design cycle for the Zen players, but before they actually were released.
I for one am glad to see Creative finally prosecuting Apple for all the technology they stole. Clearly Apple has been taking ideas from the superior Nomad products for quite some time now, and that's the only way they've been able to build the obviously derivative user interface used on the iPod.
(Note to self: turn down sarcasm knob a notch)
Re:Wha...? (Score:5, Informative)
The iPod was slimer, used a li-poly battery (instead of lithium-ion, resulting in many upset users) and the "click-wheel" technology, rather than traditional buttons. Other than that, they were about the same.
And the patent for the "hierarchical" (and lets face it, really really obvious) way of organizing music on a mobile player is what they're settling on. The filing date is much earlier, though it was pushed back and re-examined many times. That whole "Artist->Album->Song" method? Creative "invented" it, and God help you if you try and use it yourself in a mobile player and subsequently gain market share over them. Nevermind that it's the fundamental way that files have been stored and sorted on computers since...well...since we left punch cards behind, slapping "mobile" on the patent makes it new! So does slapping "online" apparently...
They sued now because prior to this, they'd been in negotiations with Apple for an out-of-court settlement for patent infringement. Apple finally flat out refuesd (on the grounds that the patent was "bullshit"), and left Creative little other options for taking their slice of someone else's pie. They'll probably hope that after a bit of bad press and a seemingly losing battle, Apple will decide to settle just to get on with it. Hopefully Apple won't cave, because as much as I hate those stupid white headphones, I hate patent mongering more.
Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously, without the concept of and ability to protect IP, there would be little to no incentive to research and develop and thus it must exist.
I am not convinced, however, that the balance required - to realise maximum public utility - is realised under the current system.
I think that the current patenting system offers to much protection for broad, in many cases inherent, ideas for too long.
I suppose the fault is partially due to the fact that those who grant these patents cannot be an expert in all fields and cannot therefore easily come to fully considered judgements when it comes to awarding rights.
Re:Im gonna get killed for saying this... (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Sorry, but most people that I know (including my own household) always charge from the computer. Why should the rest of us have to pay extra, and Apple have to manufacture more items (at both a financial and an enviromental cost) that will simply take up space both in homes and eventually in landfills, so that a few people can have an extra piece included "for free"?
Re:Pick your poison.... (Score:2, Informative)
Care to elaborate? I mean, I'll give you that iTunes is bloated and slow - but a virus or spyware? You can't make a claim like that without backing it up. So, let me help you out: iTunes has a feature (which you can disable) that provides links to the music store for songs in your library. It also has a mini-store browser (which you can also disable) that presents you with songs similar to those in your library. So - given that you can disable the "spyware" features of iTunes without running AdAware et al, I don't see how iTunes is "alarmingly" poor, or even remotely resembles viruses or spyware.
In the interest of full disclosure - I've been a Mac fan since I was six years old (1989), but I still think the best music player out there is Winamp 5 - no other program has even approached the things you can do with the winamp visualization system (as far as media players go - I'm not talking about performance quality MIDI visualizers).
Re:sweet (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what? The Creative Zen series is now infested with DRM and has lost features as well. I know because I got f%$^ed buying a Zen Sleek. And on the box it says "Win98/ME/2K/XP compatible". Great, I'm running Win2k. Get home and try to install the required interface software (no UMD device here, oh no). The installer comes up with "Incorrect Operating System". I say WTF? Double check the box "Win98/ME/2K/XP compatible". WTF again. Go to the Creative site, download the software from there, same s$%&. Email Creative asking WTF. Get a response 2 days later saying "To properly support PlayForSure the Zen product you purchased is only supported by Media Player 10, which requires Windows XP".
So I go back to the store I bought it and returned it, bought a NON-PlayForS$%t iRiver player instead. The funniest part was that the Zen Sleeks on the shelf when I went back had a sticker over the requirements on the back covering up the O/S section, it now says "Windows XP" only. Asses.
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:5, Informative)
Did you even read it? Sam Dietrich relates describing the technique publicly at a Creative Labs developer conference, after which Creative went and patented it. Fraud and extortion not dirty? Just business?
prior art from 1999 (Score:2, Informative)
New Supreme Court Decision reduces Apple's risk (Score:3, Informative)