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.'"
Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Last August? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also sad that corporations would rather imitate rather than innovate. Hard to say which is worse, really.
Wha...? (Score:4, Insightful)
And if this patent was granted last August, why wait until now to sue?
Seems to me that creative is just ticked they got trounced in a market they originally had been doing well in.
Re:Last August? (Score:2, Insightful)
But really, I must agree with another poster (AC or no) [slashdot.org]: "...it's becoming a predictable reality that corporations prefer to litigate rather than innovate."
I want the patent clusterfuck to get worse (Score:3, Insightful)
I firmly believe the only way for us to be free of the insanities of the patent system
is going to be for things to get so unbearable for the big players
start clamoring for reform.
Re:I want the patent clusterfuck to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More important question (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty safe to say it was filed less than 17 years ago.
Re:I want the patent clusterfuck to get worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Last August? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, Apple even stole the name "Nano" from Creative. They launched the Zen Nano 5-6 months before Apple even had a press release introducing their forthcoming Nano.
Given slashdot's general Apple lovefest, though, I doubt many will call this what it is: Microsoftian behavior.
Innovate or get the hell out of the way, but don't steal so damn blatantly.
Re:The Actual Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
* substitute 'classes' for 'tracks'
* substitute 'methods' for 'names'
* substitute 'computer' for 'music playback device'
And suddenly you have the classic Smalltalk object browser. This patent will be whacked in court, just like the uncrustables patent was denied by the USPTO. The USPTO said that uncrustables were basically big breakfast ravioli. Unfortunately, the examiner wasn't well-versed enough in the computer field (ie: he probably doesn't even know how to spell Smalltalk), so granted this one.
Applying the same old cookie cutter to a new kind of dough isn't a valid patent, even if the examiner thinks it is.
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
No no, of course not. But we all shake our pitchforks when the debate about Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Xerox comes up.
Re:The Actual Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, this is an obvious menu system based on obvious metadata. The problem here is it should never have been granted a patent in the first place. The patent office has become mired in money making scams in recent decades and the whole system has fallen into disrepute. It serves nobody well.
Oops, sorry, there is one group of people that do well, the lawyers. Strange that.
Face it. We need a year zero in IP, a fundamental reexamination of why we give any protection at all, and how much is the right amount. We need to accept that all IP to this date is on very shaky ground and that the simplest approach is to wipe the slate clean. Above all, we need to make it a criminal offence for a company to attempt to buy laws. How many of our problems can be traced back to corporate/politician corruption? Maybe the best solution is to extract a written guarantee from anyone standing in the midterms that they will ensure IP laws are scaled back? Make it an issue.
A jihad against lawyers wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Litigation on the other hand is just a way to squash competition without benefiting anyone but the litigant. It's a crap business tactic and a sign of a company who fears they can't add to the mix.
And FYI I'm no Apple fanboy... I think iTunes DRM sucks and they should drop it entirely or at the very least open it up so it's a standard.
Cheers.
Ooh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the SCO scheme (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't beat them sue them (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Mixed emotions abound (Score:4, Insightful)
It takes such a long time because they have to be reviewed by patent examiners, compared to prior art to make sure they're not infringing, which includes referring to patents not in the patent referral list (you'll see in a lot of patents that the inventor compares and contrasts his application with previous patents, to clarify the differences). It usually has to be sent back and corrected, sits in a waiting queue whenever it's in the patent office's hands, suffer any delays the submitter wants or has; the list goes on. It's a tedious process that I think we saw an article about last week, since the workload of patent reviewers is simply too high; it all contributes to major delays. Compare with older patents - the few around 4M I checked took between a year and two years.
Re:Wha...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't the iPod come out before the Zen player?
OK, picture this: I have an idea for a music player and submit a patent application. A larger company launches a product based on a similar idea 4 months later. My company takes 6 months to get the product ready and launch. Maybe the large company filed their own patent just after mine but it's still in the patent application process waiting to be assessed like mine.
why wait until now to sue?
Who said they waited ? Sometimes these things take a long time: patent granted, gather evidence, decide whether you can find enough money to go to court and if you're going to risk losing, find a suitable lawyer who knows something about the technology, put together your arguments, etc.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
In 1988 [wikipedia.org], since you ask.
So, we know from that lawsuit that Apple believes that an interface can be legally owned, and that litigation is an appropriate way to resolve a situation where a more successful competitor is using a similar interface to your own.
How does the saying go again? "Live by the sword..."
Creative=Screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget about the fact that the iPod's interface has remained constant (and nothing like the patent in question) since inception.
Just sit and laugh at the marketing retardation that is Creative. Right now they manufacture and sell TWENTY-FOUR mp3 player models. Each model has multiple sizes as well. Haven't they heard of brand dilution?
It's a business's duty to thrive by any means necessary, but i think they may have bit off more than they can chew with the Apple fight and with their overcrowded mp3 lineup.
Sorry for the spelling and grammar, been at work for 21 hours. Only 13 more to go :)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Creative is an evil company (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see your idea of justice is based on...how a company "acts".
You know what? Apple did a better job of making stuff people want. Creative, for all their supposed groundbreaking innovation, didn't have the magic combination of marketing savvy, features, and product design that made the iPod popular.
The iPod wasn't a runaway hit because Apple stole Creative's heirarchically-organized system for obvious navigation or whatever - it's because Apple took all the pieces - jukebox software,
Apple helped create the market - it's not clear that the 80% of the
Creative should be thankful Apple has grown the market for
Re:sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
Alot of people (including me) think that Creative's complaint is without merit, but we feel that Apple deserves.... a certain lack of sympathy for playing hardball in the intellectual property games themselves.
Re:sweet (Score:1, Insightful)
Em, no. Apple did a better marketing job. The people don't want DRM, they don't want iTunes upgrades removing features. They do want to pay an extra 25% just to have the white headphones and look trendy.
The iPod was not sold on it's technical merits.
it's not clear that the 80% of the .mp3 player market buying iPods would have bought any other kind of music player.
IMHO, most would not have have. They would have never heard of the new portable devices had Apple not marketed them. These people are not reading slashdot or engadget.
Re:sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
If the roles had been reversed Steve Jobs would have just been _so_ thankful that Creative "grown the market for
He might even loan them his reality distortion field device.
The patent case may be without merit, but we certainly don't have to feel sorry for Apple, or even be particularly mad a Creative.
Re:sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't know being trendy obviated any and all design or technical advantages the iPod has. Wow. Become cool and suddenly you're not allowed to be smart anymore. It's like reverse high school, which is where ideas like this belong.
Don't forget that before the iPod completely stole the market, reviewers lauded it for the ClickWheel, the simple interface, good jukebox software, and consistent product family design.
The iPod was not sold on it's technical merits.
Because people don't buy iPods based on the spec sheet. That's my point. iPods feel good; if you've used one iPod, another will feel and look almost the same. This consistency has allowed Apple to increase the rate of repeat sales and take advantage of trendiness - but it's ridiculous to discount the iPod's other advantages and write the success of Apple's products off as a 2-year-long mega-fad driven by clever marketing alone.
It's also worth mentioning again that iPods, for all their generational differences and features all look similar, in contrast to Creative's industrial designs, which might each be from a different manufacturer for all anyone can tell.
People buy iPods because Apple does a better job of designing and marketing them. The hardware is also pretty nice and has been lauded for it's sound quality, but as I said above, very few people buy consumer electronics of any kind based on the spec sheet. Understanding that is one reason Apple come to dominate this sector.
Patents don't scale. (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent system will eventually make progress impossible and be removed, but it is going to impede progress for years and years before that happens.
Re:sweet (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple does not set the price, and doesn't get the money.
Apple has bargained hard to get the price at 99cents. The labels wanted (and still want) a higher price, specifically, they want a variable price model which charges a lot more for new/popular tracks.
When you buy a track off iTunes, most of the money, around 65%, goes to the labels. About another 23% goes to the credit card company, and Apple keeps the rest, which is a tiny amount.
So you see, you're not being screwed by Apple, but by the labels and the credit card companies.
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not so sure of the validity of this statement. People innovate, research and develop all the time. There's freeware & open source software, Creative Commons, Grateful Dead, Fish & many other bands that allow(ed) you to record their music and trade it freely. The fact that some people may not innovate does not mean that many others won't.
it is very zen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ZEN iPOD (Score:2, Insightful)
To assert, however, that buying a Zen means you don't have to put up with "DRM issues" is just plain silly. As long as you rip from CDs (or get illegal downloads) *nobody* has to deal with DRM on any player. If you really think that using an iPod requires you to use DRM, then you are not anywhere near as familiar with iPod and iTunes as you claim.
As for my own opinion, I don't see that drag and drop via the desktop is any great advantage. Plug in an iPod and iTunes opens automatically. The iPod syncs. Done. If you prefer to drag and drop, then dragging and dropping from an iTunes library to the iPod is no different inside iTunes, except that you have the addition of easy filtering of the music library by keywords. I manage my iPod shuffle through drag and drop. Big deal.