Apple Settles Creative Lawsuit for $100 Million 316
E IS mC(Square) writes "CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music player patents for $100 million, the companies announced Wednesday.
The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players.
The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001.
Apple can get back some of the $100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
What amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
Downside? (Score:0, Insightful)
Non-obvious to someone skilled in the art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you ever wondered what is wrong with patents (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this?"
Occam's razor, my friend. Which is more likely to you:
Whenever the subject comes up, various Slashdotters come up with lots of (sometimes laughable) claims of prior art. If only the patent were as simple as Slashdotters made it out to be.
Well.... there's gotta be a reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
1) that something *SO* obvious was granted a patent, or
2) that it was probably cheaper for Apple to pay $100 million rather than to try to prove it was that obvious in court.
Fuck the USPTO (Score:1, Insightful)
If the lawyers start sending you letter just ignore them.
If by some crazy twist of fate you do actually get hauled up in court simply state you thought the whole thing was a joke your dumbass roommate from college was pulling, because how could something so fucking obvious that "I" managed to think it up could possibly be patented? Really, you're having a laugh aren't you?
By the way, should you be sending some *real* criminals to prison Your Honour?
Tell you what, you can have *all* of the proceeds from the sale of my GPL software, OK?
Seriously though, maybe we just need mass civil disobedience when it comes to patents - or maybe I'm just being naive
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Writing software for a Mac and/or Linux is a very different proposition from fabricating hardware for a niche music player.
As expensive as software development is, it doesn't really compare with tooling a factory for making hardware that works with a specific MP3 player, then programming the firmware for said device.
The iPod has been using pretty much the same dock connector for a couple years now, so if you make a gadget for the iPod dock connector there's damn near 50 million potential customers out there.
Creative has clawed it's way to be the biggest of "the rest of them" with the Zen (at least in terms of last year's sales), but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody came out with a statistic that said there were more iRivers out there than Zens. If you are going to go after the "not an iPod" market, your best bet is to make generic gadgets which plug into the headphone jack of any player, and don't rely on the manufacturer-specific features on one niche player.
The iPod is far from perfect. It needs more RAM, and still lacks gapless MP3 playback (a major buzz-kill), but with its market dominance and it's dock connector with standardized pin-outs, it's no surprise that it's what most manufacturers are building accessories for.
If I'm the CEO of "SuperCoolOggAndMP3Players, inc.", I'd be talking to Apple about licensing the iPod dock for my player. It probably would not be a cheap deal, but it would give me a leg up over Creative and all the other also-rans out there, including the upcoming players from Microsoft.
Then again... being a sore loser, rolling on the ground kicking and screaming, and extorting $100,000,000 out of a company would probably make Creative more money than their iRivers ever would. Maybe frivolous corporate lawsuits are the future of "competition".
Re:Downside? (Score:2, Insightful)
The downside is that they'll grab back the $100M from their customers at the earliest opportunity. As if their products weren't already expensive enough...
Re:The camel, the back, the straw... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them.
Good for you, and I will join you. Bad Corp, No Dollar.
Bless Apple Computers [i-bless.com]
Re:All your patents are belong to us (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not, this isn't about law, it's about money and power. Law is always about preserving money and power. Should anyone question that fact, it generally means that they do not understand who's money and power is being affected.
What is the "discovery" related to this particular patent?
I know it's a rhetorical question, but for the younguns among us, writings and discoveries are simply a non-specific, but generally accpeted all inclusive, way of saying creative and scientific works, which has been expanded in recent years to include novel ideas (software/IP, and business method patents). Let's not get into constitutional semantics, I mean "all men are created equal" has been taken to mean all people, men and women, when the intent was "all white male land owners of age"; or "shall not be infringed" referring to the right to bear arms in the absence of the purpose clause being about militias (also known as the state national guard units). Both have taken on new and expanded meanings. There is no reason that "men" shouldn't mean everyone, nor is there a reason that "arms" should not include high powered firearms as well as fighter jets, tanks, explosives, poisons in large quntity, or nuclear weapons of any size. Both the KKK and the BATFE would argue those expanded definitions. The fact is, regardless of your view on any particular issue, there is a currently held (but dynamic) view of such vague language. I really can't be sure whether the founders are laughing at us or crying over our trespasses, to be honest.
Re:prior art? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:really good chess move by Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Its also conceivable Apple could have spend more than $100 million in legal fees for all of this. Entering into a partnership with Creative is a better way to spend that money. TFA also says Apple could get some of that money back if Creative successfully gets other companies to license their bullshit patent.
Re:The camel, the back, the straw... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All your patents are belong to us (Score:3, Insightful)
The price you pay in order for people not being allowed to own guns, and for companies not being allowed to advertise cola when kids might be watching on television, and for throwing U.S. citizens in prison without trial as "enemy combatants", or whatever convientient unconstitutional laws that have popular support - is that only large companies will be allowed to develop software products because of the patent minefield.
Maybe it's not about Apple at all (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if Creative licenses its IP to other manufacturers, Apple gets a slice of the pie. If Creative sues manufacturers who refuse to license, it's got the Apple precedent to tilt things in its favour. Maybe a slice of that pie is part of the unannounced terms, too.
If I were Creative, I'd be miffed that, having joined the Microsoft Playforsure camp, Microsoft then went on to develop its own PMP. In fact, I'd be tempted to piddle in Microsoft's pot by getting MS to pay a hefty licensing fee or suing it, as needs dictated.
MS will be more likely to license (i.e. "pay money to make the problem go away") knowing that the market leader has stumped up.
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:probably wrong motivation (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone should patent 'A method for being an asshole while wearing a turtleneck' and see how Jobs reacts.
Re:OK then, $100mill question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.... there's gotta be a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple will pay Creative $100 million for a paid-up license to use Creative's recently awarded patent in all Apple products.
They were in a hurry, though, and not many caught this:
Apple can recoup a portion of its payment if Creative is successful in licensing this patent to others.
So, Creative now has cash in the bank, 'validation' of its patent with a license from Apple, and an incentive to go forth and seek licenses from others...
Then there's this:
In addition, the companies announced that Creative has joined Apple's "Made for iPod" program and will be announcing their own iPod® accessory products later this year.
Apple puts money into Creative, Creative makes iPod accessories, and a cut of the accessory revenue goes back to Apple.
So... Apple gets rid of some lawsuits, sets things up to make trouble for some other music player makers, and gets another revenue stream. All in all, this doesn't look too bad as a business move for Apple.
Re:disgusting! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent [uspto.gov]
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
Re:Pay. Counter License. Smile. (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think Creative or Apple are going to eat that cost do you?
B.
Re:OK then, $100mill question (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It means they were the first to patent it with regards to a music player. They wouldn't be going after software developers over this. I'm not defending Creative's patent specifically. I'm just pointing out that the 'for a music player' bit makes a big difference.
Re:All your patents are belong to us (Score:3, Insightful)
Not long ago I was a witness in a patent case against BIGCO (not their real name) for their use of BLINDINGLYOBVIOUSTECHNIQUE (n.i.r.n) in the field of SOMETHINGPROCESSING(n.i.r.n.)
I chatted with BIGCO's lawyers. They said the field of SOMETHINGPROCESSING is paralyzed due to fear of bogus patent lawsuits and there's been no improvement in it for years.
Neutral observers they are not, but I wasn't important enough to lie to, and they were in a position to know what was going on.
Melancholy Elephants (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744__
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it?
It's not like that money comes from nowhere or means nothing.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
Consider that nonsense like this is a direct disincentive to both innovation and copetition.
What you're saying is like saying that it's nice that heroin dealer got shot by herion dealer B. Is this really a good thing?
Re:This is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
and yes, it's a pretty fucking obvious way to categorize and navigate through digitally stored music.
just about every ripper i've used has an option to create artist then album directories to contain the actual song files - so just putting a folder of ripped tunes behind a web server infringes on creative's patent? that's BS, completely fucking obvious, and never should have been granted as a patent.
the question now is, who has the patent on doing this with video?
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing software for a Mac and/or Linux is a very different proposition from fabricating hardware for a niche music player."
Obviously.
"As expensive as software development is, it doesn't really compare with tooling a factory for making hardware that works with a specific MP3 player, then programming the firmware for said device."
Obviously.
But the patent in question is not for any invention in hardware fabrication technology or even for an invention that solves some problem specific to firmware programming, so it is hard to see what your point is.
I'm'a gets me some patent for... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:1, Insightful)
Simple test for beneficial patents (Score:3, Insightful)
In the software industry, developers actively avoid patent searches - because they are all stupid (with a few exceptions like RSA), and to avoid triple damages from stupid patent lawsuits. This is an answer to why software patents are bad - but patents in other industries might be ok. If you are building an oil refinery, experimentation is expensive. Licensing a patent for a method that is already worked out makes sense. (Computer simulations might reduce this cost - but ultimately you have to build it to be sure it really works.) Software experimentation is free apart from time - and takes far less time than a patent search.
Doesn't it sound like... Apple HFS from about 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
A thousand perhaps?
The money didn't vanish, it moved. That same $100m should be able to employ equally as many people at Creative, or less better people or more worse people or whatever. For all you know that money was lining some bank account somewhere, which will now be $100m shorter with little affect on employees, whereas Creative will use it to create a thousand jobs (like perhaps a better Linux team)
I see it as the old, fair and friendly neighborhood heroin dealer shot the new fast talkin' "tough guy" heroin dealer (honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil).
I like Apple, honest. I think Creative did an unethical thing with this lawsuit; and I agree with your reamark about it discouraging competition and innovation.
Now ask me if I think Apple did an ethical thing by flying into Creative's camp, pissing on their tent, and taking Creative's fair? share of Rio's MP3 player market. Hmm?
I have to assume Apple wouldn't visciously steal Creative's market share if "business" hadn't demanded that they take that opportunity. I also have to assume that Creative dislikes patents as much as you and I.
I'll bet most athletes, at times, dislike the fact that if they have less points than their opponent, they lose. They may have worked harder. They may have deserved it more. They may have wantedit SO much more. Their eighteen kids may be dying and only wishing to see their mother/father win, whereas their opponent's looking for their eighteenth win.
(point being, everybody has to play by the unfair rules, and $100m never just "vanishes" in a lawsuit between two giants, unless of course it's to a lawyer)
Re:What amazes me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:2, Insightful)
In the industry, no job exists in the form of "Oh yes, he's a nice guy and I had this 50k a year at hand so I hired him". It's a case of positive business case.
Re:This is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The camel, the back, the straw... (Score:3, Insightful)
"No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them."
Interesting. Given that Apple tried to file a similar patent and Creative was simply faster -- if things had been a little different and Apple had been awarded the patent, what do you think would be happening now?
Make no mistake: if Apple had filed their patent just a few months earlier, we'd be swapping "Apple" and "Creative" in all of these posts. Remember, Apple is the company that doesn't allow anybody else to draw their hard drive icon in the style of a hard drive. If you really feel this strongly about companies enforcing their patents, you probably stopped buying Apple products years ago. If Apple'd been first; they'd be all over Creative, et al. like they were the last chopper out of Saigon.
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Enlighten us then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers don't produce anything and are only necessary because we can't just all get along.
Like the police: If everyone were law abiding we wouldn't need police and jails and courts and all the other fine expenses that go along with enforcing the laws.
For me, this is one of the things that is much overlooked in Intellectual Monopoly law: what is the cost of running this system to society?
Even assuming that patents do increase innovation (I don't believe they do) they also cause a drain of production resources in terms of legal costs, both to file and then to protect. This cost (along with other social costs, like increased prices of drugs etc) needs to be deducted from any gains that a patent system gives (and since I don't believe there are any gains to begin with, I think we have an overall loss...but that's just mho)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:3, Insightful)
honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you really "love" Apple that much. Its not good to love any corporation. (And not for the stupid Dr. Phil, they won't love you back, reason, either)
Lets be realistic; Apple and Creative are both large corporations, who are in business to make money and use legal action to due so, where they deem appraise.
Don't believe me? Referee to This Article [slashdot.org] on SlashDot, about apple threatening to sue companies, who's products have the word "POD" in there name. They're not even companies that are in direct competition with Apple. Nice Company?
Did Creative's MP3 players hit the market before Apples? Yes. Is Creative patents claims valid? The court says so. Is $100 Million too much? Maybe.
Should we love Apple and hate Creative, or vise versa? No!
Companies look out for there best interests, not yours. Stop pretending that any of them are doing anything else.
In short (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Apple uses something that falls under the patent.
3. Creative sues Apple.
4. Apple fights back.
5. Apple fights back.
6. Apple fights back.
7. Microsoft announces Zune, which uses something that falls under the same patent.
8. Apple settles for $100 million and sets a precedent.
9. Creative uses the precedent to sue Microsoft.