iPod Faces Patent Probe 203
twofish writes "The long running patent spat between Apple and the struggling Creative Technology took another turn today. Creative is claiming that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has now launched a probe into the possibility that the iPod infringes on Creative's patents. Creative has asked the ITC to issue an order stopping Apple from marketing, selling or importing iPods into the US."
Patently Nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess it is completely non-obvious and innovative that a portable music player would need a menu to navigate through its songs.
I must be brilliant because that requirement seemed pretty obvious to me.
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
*drumroll*
*curtain rises*
Creative couldn't compete with Apple, so they're doing the next best thing--litigation! Didn't you know, Creative retroactively invented NeXTStep's column view?
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Creative certainly didn't invent the 'hierarchical menu'. Nor were they the first to use it to make selections in a "device".
Office phone handsets, POS boxes (for swiping credit/debit cards), clock radios, home theatre amplifier
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
I'm the opposite of you. I don't hate patents "as such", some of them are valuable, some of them are stupid. I agree with the general opinion that Apple is the one who "really gets it" but I don't think that Apple's edge actu
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
So? NeXTSTep wasn't a portable music player.
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
You mean NeXT OPENSTEP on a laptop? (Score:2)
So? NeXTSTep wasn't a portable music player.
Unless you run it on a laptop. Didn't later versions of NeXT OPENSTEP [wikipedia.org] run on a commodity x86 PC?
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
I believe this will only be good for Apple.
Heh.
Raydude
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
(The MP3 players in question were a SoulMate and a Rio 600. The SoulMate was a piece of junk with poor audio quality and connected to the computer via parallel c
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Laptop + Windows + Winamp = infringement? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about the specific implementation
The article doesn't specify the number of the patent at issue, so I can't just go look up the claims on uspto.gov like I usually do. But if this patent is the one I think it is (U.S. Patent 6,928,433 [uspto.gov]), I deconstructed that patent [slashdot.org] nearly a year ago and found that it's worded so broadly that even Windows 9x + Winamp on a laptop would infringe.
Re:Patently Nonsense (Score:2)
Although, what's so specific about having a list that says "Music" and "Extras," and in the Music menu are "Artists," "Albums," etc.?
Creative just can't compete. They pulled out of the music player market already, so this should tell you something.
If you can't beat 'em... (Score:4, Insightful)
-h-
Re:If you can't beat 'em... (Score:2)
Gosh, if Creative wins, I hope they don't make me give back my iPod.
I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:4, Funny)
How about I patent a method of aerobic circulation by which oxygen is drawn into an organ which passes it to the bloodstream!
seriously hundreds of posts about this in half a dozen dupe stories have pointed out so many examples of prior art it's insane.
Re:I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:2)
Did any of these prior art examples have to do with music players? If not, then no, they don't count. Just because you saw an interface in Windows 3.1 that worked the same way doesn't mean that's patent-refuting-prior-art.
Windows Media Player for Windows 3.1 (Score:2)
What if the operating system included both a file browser and a music player, and the file browser could start the music player?
Windows 3.1 included both File Manager and an early version of Windows Media Player.
Re:I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:2, Interesting)
both the computer and the portable player have stored files to browse by category from a filesystem.
the patent attourney you asked might know his patent law, but he doesnt know squat about how a computer works, ill bet he thinks it's full of hampsters doing math on miniature abici
Re:I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:2)
it's not?!
Re:I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. A computer and a portable player are not the same thing. They don't do the same job. They both use 1's and 0's to store data, but the similarity ends there.
"the patent attourney you asked might know his patent law, but he doesnt know squat about how a computer works, ill bet he thinks it's full of hampsters doing math on miniature abici"
I know, I know. Opinions are strong, so we attack t
Re:I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care what you're patent attourney said; these kinds of patents are utter bullshit anyway!
Non-obvious is non-obvious is non-obvious, and that doesn't change just because it's a slightly different kind of device! And the only assholes who think otherwise are -- guess what -- the attourneys, because they're the ones who profit from the whole thing!
Original (Score:5, Funny)
My guess is Steve Jobs will file a patent on a rectally inserted portable music player. Just to make sure the guys at Creative are aware of this, he'd be glad to demonstrate how it works on their entire legal dept over at Creative.
Re:Original (Score:2)
I agree. The same could be said for putting a trashcan icon on a GUI desktop designed to emulate an office work space. Mundane, obvious stuff like this shouldn't be patentable.
Re:Original (Score:2)
I believe that was copyright, not patent, though I could be wrong. Apple lost that suit, EXCEPT for the Trash Can. The judge let them keep the Trash Can icon so they would have a place to store the rest of their stupid lawsuit.
Re:Original (Score:2)
Yeah, you are probably right. But as far as I am concerned, it is the same concept here. Using the courts to protect rather ordinary and obvious aspects of products to artificially reduce competition -- no thanks!
Re:Original (Score:2)
Dirty tactics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like some dirty tactics to me.
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:2)
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:3, Funny)
$ sed s/children/patents/g A_Modest_Proposal.txt | less
Yep, I'm thinking of the "patents." Mmmm, yummy, yummy patents....
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:2)
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:2)
A. bomb them and blame it on someone else..
B. Send their law peps free video ipods and a life time of itunes..
C. keep ignoring them
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:2)
Considering Creative litigated Aureal out of existence [singnet.com.sg] and then hit id Software with patent infringement right before DOOM 3 was about to go gold [theinquirer.net] (which resulted in DOOM 3 adding in special EAX extensions...), I'd say your gut feeling is dead on.
Just my $.02...
Re:Dirty tactics... (Score:3, Funny)
huhuhuh... you said "fair play" huhuhuhuh...
In a related story (Score:2, Funny)
Standard Procedure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standard Procedure? (Score:2)
Re:Standard Procedure? (Score:2)
Re:Standard Procedure? (Score:2)
Yup. The opening of an investigation simply means "Congratulations! You filled out the form AND remembered to sign it!" Creative is going old-school SCO style by touting this in a series of press releases.
Go Creative! (Score:2)
not gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, good luck with that one, Creative.
For those that don't know- in civil court matters, that sort of action requires you present proof that you will suffer irreperable harm unless the court acts immediately. In other words- if your only claim is a patent violation, you're not suffering irreperable harm, because you can recover patent royalties. Proving irreperable harm has a very high standard, because it is a rather severe action. I would imagine similar standards apply at the ITC.
Re:not gonna happen (Score:2)
Creative Technology Ltd, the maker of Nomad and Zen MP3 players, said yesterday its quarterly net profit plunged a worse-than-expected 72% due to a price war with Apple Computer Inc's iPod.
That looks like harm to me.
For the record I think the patent is BS, but (if it wasn't)this is pretty much what these injunctions are designed for.
Re:not gonna happen (Score:4, Informative)
My Predictions... (Score:5, Funny)
Next most likely scenario (15% chance): Apple settles with Creative for an "undisclosed sum" and this becomes a non-issue after briefly causing a few people to worry and Apple's stock price takes a dip, then rebounds.
Next most likely scenario (4.999% chance): Apple buys Creative and this becomes a non-issue after briefly causing a few people to worry and Apple's stock price takes a dip, then rebounds.
Very unlikely scenario (less than 0.001% chance): The sun explodes, causing a dip in Apple's stock price.
Re:My Predictions... (Score:2)
Hmmm. I don't like those odds. I'd better sell my Apple stock and build myself an exploding-sun-proof bunker.
Re:My Predictions... (Score:2)
What? No rebound?
Re:My Predictions... (Score:2)
Re:My Predictions... (Score:2)
"Sun explodes"? (Score:2)
By "sun explodes", did you mean explosive growth of SUNW [google.com] or explosive destruction of SUNW? And how would such movement of SUNW have an effect on AAPL [google.com]?
Re:My Predictions... (Score:2)
Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
I wonder if Creative will give me a finders fee for reporting you! How dare you infringe on their novel and unique invention!
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a patent on MP3 players or buttons or anything or FUD-related nonsense, it's a patent on a specific organizational structure in the software.
No, this is a patent on organizing music in a hierarchy, but on a portable, much like patents on a dutch auction, but on the internet, or patents on blue lights, but in a car. This patent was applied for 5 days before Apple released to the public iTunes and long after other music jukebox software did this same thing. Apple, and many other companies, sold laptops with speakers. In particular, look at a Linux laptop, with a speaker, running MPlayer. Creative's case hinges on proving that their patent issued years after people were doing just that, should prevent the selling of iPods (which run Linux and use it to organize and play music in the same way). It isn't even a matter of it being obvious, it is a matter of them filing for the patent years after people were already doing this by arguing that the iPod somehow differs fundamentally from other portable computing devices.
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
Now, if we're talking about software which automatically parses ID3 tags and/or filenames and arranges the music accordingly, Creative might very well have been the first to do that, and it would be something of a unique innovation, even though others would certainly have arrived at the same solution independently. Windows Media Player does it as well...could the be suing Microsoft
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't seen any articles that explain in depth what the patent covers, so I can't comment on exactly how broad its scope is.
It covers navigating songs using a three layer hierarchy on a portable music player. The example listed is organizing songs into artist folders, containing album folders, containing song files. Mplayer and a dozen other players did this years before the Creative patent was filed.
Now, if we're talking about software which automatically parses ID3 tags and/or filenames and arrang
I've got the facts right here (Score:2)
And before anybody replies that a computer is not a portable music player, please explain how the court would draw a distinction between a laptop computer and some other sort of portable music player.
Which I have done, in detail [slashdot.org].
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
Well fine then, I'll just go sit in the corner and shut up.
After I point out that I was trying more to say what the suit isn't about, things like the physical interface and the whole "portable music player" concept.
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
Check out the patent. The patent claims limit the scope to portable media players, which does not necessarily mean laptop computers. Sure, laptop computers play music, but that is not their primary purpose, whereas a portable media player is specifically geared to just that. The patent mentions specific button configurations and how the user interacts with the menu. For example, they mention three "soft" function buttons (i.e. the function of the button changes on context).
If the pat
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, independent invention itself is not a valid legal defense against patent infringement suits.
Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? (Score:2)
I'm so tired of everything being about iPods when MP3 players are mentioned that I almost want Creative to win the suit and force Apple to stop making them. That way we can go back to not having to hear "so you can plug in your iPod" so often.
Will be moot in about 4 months. (Score:2, Insightful)
Expected is a wide screen iPod with touchscreen access.
This kind of system will require a significantly different UI structure. For instance, gone will be the touch wheel and buttons, instead some integrated touch screen UI is be required to navigate and browse music and movies on the new iPod.
Also, Apple has dropped the chip used the cur
Re:Will be moot in about 4 months. (Score:2)
I may be stepping out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you haven't actually thought this idea through. The idea of an iPod with a touch screen seems appealing on the surface, but anything more than a cursory consi
Re:Will be moot in about 4 months. (Score:2, Informative)
Assuming a ruling in favor of Creative, not a settlement, t
Hopefully the Touchscreen iPod will come with... (Score:2)
Can't Stop the iPod!!! Oh no. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't Stop the iPod!!! Oh no. (Score:2)
So we can assume Anheuser-Busch is providing Creative with the financial backing then?
Winning this case would be a loser for Creative (Score:2)
Re:Winning this case would be a loser for Creative (Score:2)
What about NeXTStep menus? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about NeXTStep menus? (Score:2)
"The menu in iPod is identical to the list view in NeXTStep by NeXT , now part of Apple, and predating anything Creative did with its player menus."
Cool. If you can find any MP3 players that ran on NextStep and which were launched before Creative's, I think you've found some prior art!
OPENSTEP on a laptop (Score:2, Informative)
Here's why that's not sarcasm [slashdot.org].
Which iPods does this affect? (Score:2)
All of them? Or is this just a Nanoprobe?
Bah! Creative should know that resistance is futile!
Re:Which iPods does this affect? (Score:2)
I don't think Creative wants to get into (Score:2)
Re:I don't think Creative wants to get into (Score:2)
Re:I don't think Creative wants to get into (Score:2)
That one was hillarious! It had so many twists and turns! First, Universal goes after Coleco because they had the rights to the home game version. So, Coleco pays Universal off, cancels shipping what would have been a huge game for them - probably would have saved the ColecoVision. And Atari, who had been kicking themselves for NOT getting the home game rights, swoops in and licenses those from Nintendo.
Meanwhile, General Mills is cowtowed into
US vs ITC patent orders (Score:2)
The Judge will be jammin' (Score:2, Funny)
Here is the Patent . . . (Score:2)
Re:Sue Creaitive!! (Score:5, Funny)
Because you invented "sucking" and hold the patent?
Re:Sue Creaitive!! (Score:2)
Based on your high slashdot UID, I'm sorry to say there is *significant* prior art.
Re:Sue Creaitive!! (Score:2)
Ha ha! You said "prior art" as if that exists in the patent office!
Re:Sue Creaitive!! (Score:3, Funny)
I know some people who owe you big time royalties.
Re:Sue Creaitive!! (Score:2)
Product quality, along with price, demand, and availability are criteria that determine relative market shares in a free market.
Microsoft has a market dominance over linux(excluding servers)...
MS has a monopoly, thus the free market is no longer acting.
VHS eliminated Beta.
Betamax was more expensive and since it was a limited market (protected by patents) rather than a supply and demand market, VHS won. The price difference overcame
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
Well I bought a Creative Zen 10 minutes ago and it never worked. Anyways, your troll is seriously off-topic here. Exactly what does the lawsuit have to do with the quality of an iPod and whether someone should have to use it or not?
Also, your impression of Apple is affected by this trivial news release... Your impression should be more affected from those reports of Apple sweatshops the other day in China. Also, tons of companies use each others patents without approv
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
"Drag" and "drop UMD" are Sony inventions (Score:2)
Doesn't Sony have a patent on load times that drag [google.com] and dropping UMDs [ytmnd.com]? If not, doesn't the U.S. Government have a patent from back in the 1940s on dropping double-U-M-Ds [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
Re:Stealing ideas from "Creative" people? (Score:2)
If you don't put your name to it, you don't really mean it.
Re:rather use Nothing At All than Creative... (Score:3, Funny)
I still say it's obvious (Score:2)
You're right, it would be interesting to read the objections of the original examiner and to see what changes Creative made. I wonder about the "category --> subcategory --> item" jazz, though.
I used to work in a record store. (Yes, I said "record" -- it was a while ago.) We separated the records first into categories: Jazz, Pop, County, etc; then into subcategories: artists whose names began with the letter "A," then "B," and so on; finally, after navigating through category and subcategory, a "u