Apple Is Accused of Violating Software Patent

Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by geomon · 2005-09-02 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know, Creative had it first. You can pull all of the patent information from the last time we discussed this issue but the fact still remains that a patent application date does not establish when an idea was first formulated. The Patent Office can only issue based on what is available, so it will be up to Apple to prove, if it can, that its interface was documented and notarized before Creative. That will mitigate Creative's claim of uniqueness and would change their patent status.

But that whole discussion pales in comparison to the larger issue of patents granted for things that the entire industry knows has shitloads of prior art attached to it. These defensive patents are what will kill innovation in this country, not piracy as Microsoft and the RIAA will claim.

Write your representative and tell them you DEMAND patent reform.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by VaticDart · 2005-09-02 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

so it will be up to Apple to prove, if it can, that its interface was documented and notarized before Creative. That will mitigate Creative's claim of uniqueness and would change their patent status.
Considering that Creative was granted a patent for a technology that describes the way just about every GUI, website, and digital media player on the planet uses, that shouldn't be too hard.
I have never seen the Patent Office's head so far up its own ass to grant something like this.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by geomon · 2005-09-02 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have never seen the Patent Office's head so far up its own ass to grant something like this.

They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.

Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by ackthpt · 2005-09-02 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with. Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.
The USPTO office has been recently identified as a department which desperately needs reorg and increase in staffing, the odds are it'll continue to get worse until the country, and then the world, are crushed beneath the weight of billions of stupid useless patents which prevent any innovation whatsoever -- exactly the sort of thing patents were meant to protect and encourage.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by FortranDragon · 2005-09-02 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.

So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?

I didn't think so. ;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.

--
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by mikecito · 2005-09-02 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

How about we just start boycotting companies that use this strategy? I, for one, will never buy a Creative product again. If more people would be loyal to honest companies, and refuse to do business with companies that try to pull off this crap, they would have no choice but to choose another method, like maybe, being "Creative". Patent reform is needed too, but the purchasing power of the public is still powerful. Combine the two, and problem solved.

--
HighSchoolForever.com
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by geomon · 2005-09-02 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO?

Nope.

Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?

Nope, I recommend application fees. They are a tax on the people who use the system.

I didn't think so. ;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.

Well, I agree that small inventors are hurt by an increase in application fees. But you are incorrect that the fees alone hurt small inventors. There are plenty of ways that a large corporation can screw a small inventor out of their patent: the one Apple might be able to use on Creative is a good one - litigate a claim of prior art.

So the fees are not the only thing that bury small inventors. And as for the increase in fees? If there are more aggressive and better trained patent examiners on staff at the USPTO, there will be fewer patents for trivial crap that are filed just so some corporation will have a set of defensive patents to unleash in court.

Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by fossa · 2005-09-02 06:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

I like Lessig's (I think) solution: allow multiple competing patent granting companies. The companies must comply with various federal regulations, probably being audited occasionally. Seems like this, done properly, could solve a lot of problems through good old fashioned competition (though it might cause many more problems).

Or how about this: we already press citizens into jury duty yes? Why not press them into reviewing patent applications? It could be like scientific journal peer review. If a large enough group was surveyed, you shouldn't need to worry about self approval too much. Review a patent? Get a tax break (money that otherwise would have funded patent review anyway).

Regarding lawyer speak, and the fact that nobody speaks it: if the average professional in the field is unable to understand the language of the patent application, then it probably shouldn't be granted anyway right? (since it isn't disclosing the patented device.)
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Goyuix · 2005-09-02 06:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Regardless of prior art and other nonsense involved in why this patent was granted... the thing that really bugs me about this is that Creative has long since stopped innovating - this is the third time in recent history that they have levied a large patent media mess. A3D, id and some 3D code, and now an interface? The madness has to stop. The other two I can actually fathom their point of view on it, but this latest is simply money grubbing from a large corporation and certainly is an abuse of our legal system....

I really don't have a problem with a company trying to make money, or trying to protect their assets, but I fail to see how the interface is their asset - or even something that should be protectable at all. Keep digging your grave, we will all be better once you are gone.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by WillDraven · 2005-09-02 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out? how about we reduce our military budget instead?

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by allanc · 2005-09-02 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Raising application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents, but it does have the following effects:
1. It allows the USPTO to hire more staffers to determine validity of patents
2. It allows the USPTO to hire more qualified staffers to determine the validity of patents.

Which would you rather be, a highly paid programmer or a lowly-paid patent clerk? If they can raise the salary offerred to trained CS people, they could compete with software companies and maybe get a person who'll look at it and say "Um. You're trying to patent a menu. There have been menus since the invention of the video terminal. Denied."

If you want to do this while also helping the small inventors out, maybe add a "Frivolous patent deposit" to the cost of filing. Then if the patent examiner determines that someone's trying to patent something that any reasonably competent third year CS underground would be likely to whip up in a college project without even thinking about it, the USPTO gets to keep the money. But if it turns out that it's really something novel, the money's refunded.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by NickFortune · 2005-09-02 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to
Valid points all. So, are you arguing for the status quo? Did you have a better idea?
Or are you just picking holes?

--
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Doctor_Jest · 2005-09-02 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Which is why the entire system is broken. But that's not the greater issue here. Sure Apple's a big company and evil and all that... I agree. They are a grubbing entity that loves to suck money from people's pockets. I do NOT defend their actions anymore than I am defending Creative using the patent system to attempt to eliminate competition that has beaten them soundly in the market.

This is yet another example of what I consider a grave "abuse" of the system for their own personal gain. Creative's players suck. They haven't been able to beat Apple with a better product, so they're going to patent them to death to win. Add an FM tuner? Yeah! Ship a bunch with viruses. Have a player that you have to drop to "wake up" the reader arm on the hard drive? Possibly. ;)

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Make a better player, Creative. Stop this "if I can't win in the market, I'm going to litigate them out." I hate this when Apple does it. I hate this when Microsoft does it. I hate this when ANYONE does this. Just because this happens to be one giant company against another doesn't make it right. No matter what your feelings toward Apple, etc. are, you have to admit, this is just a court-induced market grab.

And I'm sorry, but it's just fucking lame. Creative lost the day the iPod became a best seller. And it peeves them to no end. Life's hard.... buy a helmet. Stop making shit players, and maybe you can beat Apple. I'm not shedding tears for Apple either, but this disgusts me to no end.

Keep the lawyers in the storm cellar where they belong... or run them the hell over. Either way, it'd make our lives a whole lot better.

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by mzwaterski · 2005-09-02 06:39 · Score: 5, Informative

If you as an outsider know about prior art for a patent you can request a rexamination for a patent and submit the prior art to be considered. This process is conducted by patent examiners not a court : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/05-3 8.htm
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by fshalor · 2005-09-02 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like it... The review by peers part. I could juyst see corperations getting too bad. I mean, think about the whole domain name fiasco. But extend that to patents which *are* what people make their livelyhoods from.... yikes.

Peer review is the solution. ...

--
-=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by The+Spoonman · 2005-09-02 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

allow multiple competing patent granting companies.

What? You mean like the credit reporting houses? Yeah, that oughta work. They do such a wonderful job of keeping track of my credit. Consistently and fairly with no hassle at all if they make a mistake. I'm sure that would work just great for patents.

--
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by natophonic · 2005-09-02 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Probably the AC read your intial comment the same way I did: pick random people off the voter registration rolls and have them judge the merit of patents on internet routing metrics, gene therapy drugs, etc. The American general public, half of whom think dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and over half of whom couldn't pick out whether it takes a day/month/year for the earth to orbit the sun... they're the ones I want reviewing my patent!

But it sounds like by 'jury of your peers', you meant people in the field who actually understand the material covered in the patent. That's an interesting idea, though in small/nascent fields, I'd would still worry about competitors' conflict of interest.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by milkman_matt · 2005-09-02 07:34 · Score: 3, Funny

it's bullet

Unless he was talking about biting Steve McQueen!
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by falconwolf · 2005-09-02 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.

Yea, raise patent application fees so an individual can't afford to get a patent. Leave it to big business to get all patents.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Dashing+Leech · 2005-09-02 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Au contraire, what you are seeing is the true raison d'être of IP law."
No. The intent of IP law is the publication and dissemination of innovations, not the protection of them. From the USPTO's own words: "Through the preservation, classification, and dissemination of patent information, the Office promotes the industrial and technological progress of the nation and strengthens the economy." Notice there's no mention of protection or helping the creators, it's about helping everyone else learn how things work and advance the ideas. The limited time protection is merely the means by which creators are given incentive to disseminate the information; it is not the intended purpose.
A world without IP laws is a world of secrets, which stiffles innovation. It is unfortunate that poor application and understanding of the principles behind IP -- both at the legislative and approval levels, and abuse by the industry for unintended purposes -- has lead us to the mess we have today that also stiffles innovation. Clearly reform is necessary.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Tim+C · 2005-09-02 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seems the problem is people misreading your suggestion; I think the comparison with jury service was probably responsible for that.

The absolute last thing you want to do is to get average John and Jane Does to review patent applications. That works with juries, as they're not ruling on technical points of law (although increasingly, complex fraud cases are becoming too much for the average person in the street to follow). For patents, though, you really need someone who is expert in the relevant field or, failing that, a closely related one.

So, yes, I can see the merit of having a "patent duty" for programmers, engineers, etc to review software patents, engineering patents, etc respectively, but you wouldn't want just anyone doing the job.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by drsquare · 2005-09-02 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.

As a small-time inventor, I'd shit bricks if fees were to double. Patents shouldn't be just for the rich. It should be a democratic system where all you need is ingenuity and hard work, not a giant bank account.

Increasing the fees just means that if you invent something and you're poor, you need to get a loan from a giant corporation (a bank), just to patent it. How does it help anyone by making indepedents and small companies rely on big corporations to get on the ladder?
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by kansas1051 · 2005-09-02 09:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

As someone who has been involved in the patent litigation process for several years, I can tell you the last thing *anyone* needs is lay people reviewing patent applications and deciding if something is novel is non-obvious.

The vast majority (95% plus probably) of juries I have seen in patent cases find infringement regardless of evidence or common sense. Juries will always grant money when given the chance and they would always grant a patent application.

Also, juries have a hard time determining if shit stinks, let alone trying to determine if widget x is the same as widget y without knowing what a widget is.

The easiest solution to this mess is to move to a registration system, where patent applications arent examined, and just allow everyone to fight it out in court (which is what happens anyway, but this would be without the presumption that patents are valid).
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Kadin2048 · 2005-09-02 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

This might have been true in 1850, or even 1950, when "centralized referencing" implied a centralized database filled with file drawers of patent application hardcopies, but this is no longer true.

You could very easily maintain an externally-accessible central database, or even a distributed database which linked the different systems belonging to the patent granting firms.

The ability to reference the patents centrally does not imply that a single monolithic patent-granting body is needed.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by ScrewMaster · 2005-09-02 09:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I remember reading that when Congress implemented the fee system they claimed that the extra funding would improve the USPTO. Which it might have ... but then Congress went and cut their regular funding. The net effect was to make it harder for smaller inventors to acquire and maintain their patents due to the fees, while simultaneously reducing the Patent Office's effectiveness by encouraging it to grant anything just to stay funded. Pretty good job all around, actually, if you believe that creativity and invention only abound within the confines of corporate R&D, and aren't of much use anyway.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by FortranDragon · 2005-09-02 10:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, I'd rather see patents go to a system where the inventor has to produce a working tangible model (at a minimum). Allowing patents of business processes, user interfaces, etc. just destroys the whole idea of inventors having exclusive right to their discoveries.

I'd also return copyright to the old 26 year copyright with the *author* being able to register a second 26 year copyright period. (Screw international treaties. ;-)) If someone can't make money on something in 52 years then it most likely isn't a money maker.

--
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-09-02 10:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Patents shouldn't be just for the rich.

Newsflash.. they are. Deal with it.

The fees are a *tiny* fraction of the money needed to defend a patent. If you can't afford the legal fees to defend it, don't bother with the patent, because it's useless anyway. The first company with money that likes your idea will steal it, and probably sue you for violation of a few other patents in the process.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by Scudsucker · 2005-09-02 15:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fees are a *tiny* fraction of the money needed to defend a patent. If you can't afford the legal fees to defend it, don't bother with the patent, because it's useless anyway. The first company with money that likes your idea will steal it, and probably sue you for violation of a few other patents in the process.

So? Patents are not trademarks, you don't lose them if you don't defend them. And if company X does rip you off and makes lots of money off your invention, then sooner or later some lawyers will be happy to take your case *for free* in return for a chunk of your very large settlement.
Re:Yet Another Bullshit Patent Dispute by shmlco · 2005-09-03 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Press average citizens into patent juries? Oh, yes, I can see it now....
Addressing the jury, "Today, we're evaluating methods of fractional co-polymer extraction using a protein-based... Hey, guys! Wakeup! You can't go to sleep yet!"
Voice from the back row. "Aw, go ahead and approve it. The title sounds like they know what they're talking about.
Point being that average citizens have no knowledge of the subject, no background in the subject, no knowledge of prior art, and no knowledge of current techniques. Other than that they should do just fine.
And before you suggest that we instead empanel a jury of experts in the field, let me remind you that this puts us back where we started, as any experts in the cutting edge of the field (where patents exist) in all likelyhood have vested interests one way or another.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.

Prior Art? by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-09-02 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yet another demonstration of how the patent system is irretrievably broken.

Seriously, it shouldn't even be possible to patent a hierarchical menu system...prior art abounds. This reminds me of the amusing, although almost certainly apocryphal, story of the man who attempted to patent the wheelbarrow. Like the man in the story, Creative ought to be thrown out of court, preferably onto some tender portion of their collective corporate anatomy.

--
____

~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

Re:Prior Art? by tpgp · 2005-09-02 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

This reminds me of the amusing, although almost certainly apocryphal, story of the corporation who attempted to gain all intellectual property rights over the desktop metaphor for computer interfaces using copyright.

Oh wait! Thats not an apocryphal story at all

Whilst I don't think software patents are a good idea generally and this particular patent is insane, I feel a certain....lack of sympathy toward apple for opening this entire can of worms in the first place.

--
My pics.
Re:Prior Art? by PhilHibbs · 2005-09-02 05:42 · Score: 2, Informative

It isn't a patent on hierarchical menus, it's a patent on "automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata."
Re:Prior Art? by shotfeel · 2005-09-02 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've been trying to figure out how long iTunes has been doing this. Does anyone remember if the first versions (on OS 9) did this? How about the jukebox apps that predated iTunes on Mac and Windows?
Re:Prior Art? by PhilHibbs · 2005-09-02 06:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah, but they aren't portable, so really it's totally different.
Re:Prior Art? by rsborg · 2005-09-02 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whilst I don't think software patents are a good idea generally and this particular patent is insane, I feel a certain....lack of sympathy toward apple for opening this entire can of worms in the first place.
Stop feeling any amount of sympathy for Apple, as in the end it will be the customers who lose when Apple and Creative sign cross-liscencing deals/etc.
It's not Apple who loses here, it's the customer, every time one of these bogus over-reaching patents gets brought up and cross-lisenced to raise the barrier to entry and exclude players who aren't already in the game.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Prior Art? by aristotle-dude · 2005-09-02 06:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The NeXT file browser is a perfect exactly of prior art. It looks visually similar to the iPod menu complete with arrows and a shifting of the display as you navigate further down the tree.
The iPod GUI could be described as a single pane Miller columns browser. Even iTunes uses a similar interface.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Remember when Patents were to create? by WillAffleckUW · 2005-09-02 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I do. But now they seem to be used to fight legal wars and stop technological and engineering advances, instead of promoting them.

Sigh.

Maybe I should file a patent for delivering virus programs with a USB or other plug-in computer device ... then Creative would owe me money ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Remember when Patents were to create? by Blue-Footed+Boobie · 2005-09-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Well now, I think that is a geat idea!
*runs off to patent office*

--
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Re:Remember when Patents were to create? by geekoid · 2005-09-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

You must eb old, since this has been the case for a very long time. Thomas Edison did the same thing.

The only issue here is that they allow software patent, which they should not do.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Remember when Patents were to create? by Cornelius+the+Great · 2005-09-02 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny

"Maybe I should file a patent for delivering virus programs with a USB or other plug-in computer device ... then Creative would owe me money ..."

Great idea, except that Creative has prior art ;)

--
Sigs are for losers

In the word of the Black Eyed Peas... by LegendOfLink · 2005-09-02 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Let's get retarded.

--
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!

Evil Plan by kaellinn18 · 2005-09-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Funny

I have a patent pending regarding complaining about idiotic patents online. When this baby passes, you're all going to be screwed! Muahahaha.

--

--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.

Bad Patent... by RUFFyamahaRYDER · 2005-09-02 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

"which allows users to select a song, album or track by navigating a succession of menus."

How the hell did they actually patent that? It makes me sick... What other ways are you going to navigate your music library if not by artist, album, or genre?! There's not too many ways to impliment this.

Re:Bad Patent... by mopslik · 2005-09-02 05:35 · Score: 5, Funny

What other ways are you going to navigate your music library if not by artist, album, or genre?

I organize my music collection based on the number of vowels in the second word of the group's name. If there is only one word, I take the total number of letters in the word (n) and add a number produced by the formula floor((n mod 3)/(n+1))+1. If the group's name is composed entirely of numbers, simple addition of each digit is performed -- if the result is 2 or more digits, the process is repeated until it's down to 1. Prince has his own unique category.

Really, I thought everyone did it this way.
Re:Bad Patent... by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-09-02 05:44 · Score: 2, Funny

a number produced by the formula floor((n mod 3)/(n+1))+1.

It seems we have a problem...as you can clearly see on my patent, I have prior claim to 'n mod 3'.

My attorneys will be in touch.

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

For Future Reference by ackthpt · 2005-09-02 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

From the original BBC news article

In November, Creative boss Sim Wong Hoo said he aimed to out market his competitors, saying the MP3 war had started.

From the NYT

Creative Technology, which is based in Singapore and has United States operations in Milpitas, Calif., said it would consider every option available to defend the patent, including possible legal action.

So the translation of "out market" in the particular Singapore dialect of English could be extended to "suing the pants off of" in American English.

Considering Apple holds the lion's share of the MP3 player market, though a late comer, it's not surprising to see the legal threat, but perhaps Creative Technologies should be looking at their own failure to capitalise on the market which left the door open for Apple.

Patent 6,928,433

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Innovation by ckliv · 2005-09-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe someone can explain to me, how it's possible to patent even such an elementary idea?

Re:We don't negotiate with terrorists by Red+Flayer · 2005-09-02 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Make them know that if they want to persue a claim, they're going to have to front a heluva lot of money for it.

So then the small organizations or individuals that have their ideas ripped off have no recompense?

The patent system is broken, but breaking it worse won't help.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Re:Question.... by djmurdoch · 2005-09-02 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Didn't Apple already have this interface for the iPod prior to the Zen? And if so why would the patent be awarded to Creative if there was prior art?

The patent application date was January, 2001. The iPod was developed and released after that.

Irony by Attrition_cp · 2005-09-02 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone else see the Irony in "Creative Technology" and this patent?

--
Touched By His Noodley Appendage.

good patents? by cerelib · 2005-09-02 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just a question. This patent seems completely stupid, but are there valid examples of patented technologies that anybody can provide, or does everyone here hate patents in total?

Re:good patents? by KitesWorld · 2005-09-02 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yup. The development costs that go into things such as new pharmacuticals take a long time to get back. If not for patents, the big drugs companies simply wouldn't bother doing research - because they'd be spending all that money only to get ripped off by a competitor. Patents are not a bad thing in themselves. The problem is that, particularly in the software world, they tend to get granted for obvious re-applications of existing technology. The intent behind patents is to protect innovators and give them time to recoup their costs. But the implementation is broken in that the people who pass these patents often lack the technical knowledge to be able to tell wether something is 'obvious' or not. On top of that, Lawyers often re-word the submissions to obsfucate what is actually bieng submitted to the point of making even simple ideas appear much more complicated than they actually are. Basically, the system just needs an almighty overhaul. I doubt that many people would (reasonably) argue that patents themselves are bad - even software patents have legitimate uses. It's just the implementation thats at fault.

The funny thing is by mcc · 2005-09-02 05:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

When I try to think of prior examples of people implementing the Creative patent as I understand it, the absolute first thing that comes to mind is... that little file browser thingy from NeXT. Which was later assimilated into OS X when NeXT was bought by... Apple. Can you tell the difference between this and the cascading menus in the iPod? Because I can't.

And of course I'm still trying to figure out whether NeXT themselves ripped off the browser from that class browser widget you see so often in Smalltalk, or if it went the other way around.

Oh, but of course, the NeXT example covers a browser for files and the Smalltalk example covers a browser for objects, and in the mad calculus of patent law this is totally different from a browser for music files...

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Re:The funny thing is by shark72 · 2005-09-02 11:39 · Score: 2, Informative

"Oh, but of course, the NeXT example covers a browser for files and the Smalltalk example covers a browser for objects, and in the mad calculus of patent law this is totally different from a browser for music files."

Precisely. You have pointed out what all the "prior art! prior art! Bok bok bok!" screamers have missed: it's the platform that counts here. Even an app that plays MP3 files on the PC likely wouldn't count; the "my PC is just a big fancy MP3 player!" argument likely won't cut it. The legal geniuses around here will likely need to find prior art on an MP3 player.

Additionally, "Hierarchical browser" is oversimplifying the patent by an order of magnitude. If all readers have to go on is the two-word summary (RTFA is hard enough, but RTFPA is not to be expected), I can certainly understand why they're not sure how such a trivial concept was patent-worthy.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

Nonsense by Darth+Daver · 2005-09-02 05:43 · Score: 2, Funny

So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.

Companies like this make me sick. I wouldn't accept a Creative MP3 player as a gift because they suck in comparison to Apple's offerings. If they sue Apple, I will never buy another Creative product again, and I do currently own a few of their sound cards and even an olde display adapter. Notice the "e" in olde. That's how old it is.

If this is a battle of lawyers by noewun · 2005-09-02 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Then Creative should give up, now, while there's still something left. I know for a fact that Steve keeps his litigators locked in a barren back room and only feeds them every third day. Makes 'em mean. . .

--
I am a believer of momentum and curves.

What goes around comes around by Frankie70 · 2005-09-02 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple sues Sorenson
http://slashdot.org/apple/02/05/01/2012217.shtml?t id=107

Apple sues to stop leaks
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/03/012024 0&mode=thread

Apple sues Think Secret
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/06/06 57245&tid=123&tid=3

Apple sues Future Power
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/july/990701/app lesuesfuturepower.html

Apple sues domain name owner
http://www.slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2004/12 /08/1126.aspx

Apple sues eMachine
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-230054.html?legacy=c net

Re:What goes around comes around by XxtraLarGe · 2005-09-02 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everybody's sue-happy, but what's at issue here isn't Apple's karma coming back to haunt them. It's the fact that the idiots at the Patent Office are giving out patents for obvious and/or non-useful non-innovations that are breeding a chilling environment that's stifling innovation, which is purportedly exactly the opposite of the purpose of patents.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:What goes around comes around by DurendalMac · 2005-09-02 08:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are an imbecile. Apple wasn't suing for patent infringement for some lameass patent on any of these cases. Futurepower and eMachines both created direct iMac knockoffs. Hell, Futurepower's was so close that you could almost consider it an iMac, although they gave utterly stupid excuses like "We use gemstones to name the colors instead of fruit! Floppy drive! Multibutton mouse!" The iMac had become a symbol and trademark for Apple, and the lazy assholes at both companies ripped it off so blatantly as to infringe on it. Both were sued and both of them lost. Serves them right. Apple sues leaks because of NDA violations, which, the last time I checked, was a perfectly legit reason. They went after Thinksecret because they knowingly posted NDA-violated material. The domain name is silly, though. I'll grant you that. The Sorenson suit was due to Sorenson trying to duck under the radar, and Apple caught them. It'd be nice to see the Sorenson Video 3 codec get around more, though. In any case, none of these suits are as retarded as this one from Creative. This is Creative being unable to offer a competitor for the iPod, so they're going to try and sue it away with an utterly fucking retarded software patent that was so broad it could cover almost any GUI. Pull your head from your ass.

The old GUI look-and-feel lawsuit by fred+fleenblat · 2005-09-02 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems like it was yesterday, or maybe 20 years ago, but I seem to recall that Apple tried to sue microsoft for stealing several aspects of its GUI, like the trash can, folders, and the assignment of operations to specific menus like File and Edit.

Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit.

Re:The old GUI look-and-feel lawsuit by Thu25245 · 2005-09-02 06:09 · Score: 2, Informative

As it happened, the court's approach seemed to invalidate the copyrighting of a broad "look and feel" of a piece of software, though this was not decisively stated in the court's ruling. The fact that Apple and Microsoft had entered into the licensing agreement for Windows 1.0 made a large part of the case a mere contractual matter rather than a matter of copyright law -- much against Apple's preference -- so it was not necessary for the court to set a precedent in its ruling. It remains unclear what would have happened if Apple had acquired a software patent purporting to secure the "look and feel" of the Macintosh user interface as an invention, and had then pursued Microsoft and HP under patent law.

From the Wikipedia article, of course.

Re:This is rediculous by The+Lynxpro · 2005-09-02 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Suck it Creative. Suck it Creatively too."

To which Creative will claim to be sucking it in 24-bit but experts will prove it is only 16-bit suckage.

Seriously, this is madness on the Kim Jong Il level. Apple has, what, $6 billion in the bank? How much does Creative have in order to survive a war of attrition in the court rooms? How large a patent arsenal does Apple have in comparison to Creative? Yes, folks, this is the end of Creative...and fitting it will be considering how they were able to grab Aureal's patents so long ago in a similar manner.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Perhaps Apple should contact Allan Sherman... by msauve · 2005-09-02 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

writer of "Hello Mudduh, Hello Faddah." The apocryphal story is that after being sued for one of his songs being similar (structure? tune?) to a copyrighted work, he copyrighted a work consisting of the b-flat note.

If Apple bought that copyright, Creative wouldn't have much that could be played using their patent.

Or maybe they could buy the rights to John Cage's 4'33", and sue anyone who produced an MP3 player which was silent when not playing MP3s.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:Good. Apple needs a slap in the face. by The+Lynxpro · 2005-09-02 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

"Apple restricts back-up copies
They restrict converting to other formats
They only work with Apple brand DRM
They restrict compatiblity with other players.
No editing of the songs."

How does Apple restrict back-up copies? The iTunes Store encourages you to backup your purchased songs on blank media. You just have to remember your iTunes account password to reload them.

And Mr. Coward, show us a legitimate rival online music store that offers the features you ask for? Napster doesn't offer to convert purchased tracks from WMA to AAC or any other format. And which service allows you to edit your purchased songs?

Thought so.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Patent proxy wars by pieterh · 2005-09-02 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

When a sliding company makes a bold and aggressive attack on the market leader, don't look for a direct link between that company and the attack.

Instead, look to other companies who would benefit most from such an attack.

Creative do many things, and attacking Apple in the player market is a very high risk gamble. If they lose they will basically have destroyed their player business - no-one is going to buy a product from a bunch of losers. If they win, they will still have a problem - people like Apply and attacking them like this just looks evil.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Someone rich, who wants to take over the player market, and has a history of launching proxy wars to harass and intimidate its competitors, on feeble or completely false pretexts.

Someone who has been fighting hard to get software patents enabled in Europe, through proxy groups such as the BSA and C4C.

This opinion is simply a gut feeling. Are there any recent reports of deals between Microsoft and Creative Labs that indicate money flowing?

--
My blog

Re:Patent proxy wars by matt4077 · 2005-09-02 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

. If they lose they will basically have destroyed their player business - no-one is going to buy a product from a bunch of losers.
A rather ridiculous conspiracy theory. What consumer will ever even hear about this lawsuit? What consumer will care? You know how many lawsuits any large company has going on at any given time? It's probably in the hundreds, and they are bound to lose some of those. Nobody cares.
But who has a stake in this you ask. Creative, of course. They see themselves as a leading company in everything music/computer-related, and they can't stand Apple's success on their home turf. Microsoft isn't really afraid of Apple. They are not even competing in that market.

--
Fleur de Sel
Re:Patent proxy wars by Tim+C · 2005-09-02 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they lose they will basically have destroyed their player business - no-one is going to buy a product from a bunch of losers.

Most people won't even know of the suit, or will very quickly forget if they do hear of it.

If they win, they will still have a problem - people like Apply and attacking them like this just looks evil.

Again, I think you over-estimate things here. Most people don't give two hoots about Apple, or Microsoft, or anything like that. They want a computer to do stuff with, and don't particularly know or care about it beyond that. Apple? They make those Mac things don't they? Something to do with graphics or something...

On the other hand, if Creative win, they get damages and a percentage of every iPod sale. That's likely to be a whole ton of cash right there, even ignoring that they then get to go after iRiver and everyone else making similar stuff.

Someone who has been fighting hard to get software patents enabled in Europe

I know who you mean, but do not forget that all of the big software producers have software patents, including Apple. Hell, IBM is the world's most prolific patenter. No, they'll not all for software, but some of them are.

Sure, MS is lobbying for software patents in Europe - and in my considered opinion, they can take their lobbying, shove it up their collective arse and fuck off while they're doing it - but they are by no means alone in that. With Apple branching into music downloads and related hardware, MS is by no means their only competitor anymore.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:Good. Apple needs a slap in the face. by BackInIraq · 2005-09-02 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple restricts back-up copies

Strange, I've found it very easy to burn the music to CD's, and thus "back it up." Also, one can archive the files quite easily, requiring only that they be activated when used on a new computer (though this can get complicated, if you've maxed out your authorized computers...but there are ways to fix this as well). The point: one can fairly easily back up one's iTMS purchased music.

Oh, and it is of course trivial to back up the non-DRM'd portion of one's music library, which for most people is probably damn near all of it.

They restrict converting to other formats

If by "restrict" you mean "make it a two-step process," then yeah. Burn to CD. Re-rip. Done. And you say that as if any other online music store (other than certain Russian stores of questionable legality) that sells RIAA-label music makes this any easier. To the best of my knowledge, they do not.

They only work with Apple brand DRM

Yep, and I don't freakin' care. Besides, the first two seem to establish that you don't like DRM in general anyway...so you like Microsoft's *better* or something? This is just stupid. Next!

They restrict compatiblity with other players.

Yeah, because MP3 is such a proprietary format. Or are you still taking about DRM'd songs? There has never been a need for iPod users to use AAC, except if they want to buy from iTMS. For those of us that just rip CD's, we have the option of doing it in MP3, which is pretty much universal...we can even use a different application to do it.

If you're just mad because you can't buy music on iTMS and put it on your Zen or whatever, I don't care. From the sound of the rest of this, you are probably also one of the people who complains about the prices in the iTMS, and the DRM, and probably wouldn't buy music from there to put on a different player anyway...so you're just arguing to argue.

No editing of the songs.

You mean, like from within iTunes? Because you can certainly burn them to CD and then re-rip them as .AIFF/.WAV if you want, and edit away. Or am I missing something. Or are you just really pissed at this whole two-step process? (or just unaware of it, perhaps?)

Oh, and let's not forget that all of these DRM restrictions were largely decided upon by the RIAA, rather than Apple. I think I should stop replying to AC's, but at the same time when I see something stupid written, I have to tear it apart like a junkyard dog with a piece of meat.

Obviousness? by PenguiN42 · 2005-09-02 06:08 · Score: 2, Informative

It seems to me that Apple shouldn't even need to prove prior art to kill this patent where it stands -- the defense that the invention is obvious, and therefore unpatentable, should be all they need.

Are there any lawyers in the audience who know exactly how the "obviousness" requirement is treated in courts of law these days?

--
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.

Re:Obviousness? by Macadamizer · 2005-09-02 06:59 · Score: 3, Informative

It seems to me that Apple shouldn't even need to prove prior art to kill this patent where it stands -- the defense that the invention is obvious, and therefore unpatentable, should be all they need.

To prove "obviousness," you need to show that the invention would have been "obvious" to one with "ordinary skill in the art" at the time of the application of the patent -- in this case, back in 2001. Of course, the way you show that is by showing what a person of "ordinary skill in the art" would have known in 2001, and you do that by digging up experts who can testify as to the ordinary skill in the art, and by digging up textbooks and articles and papers and everything else. In essence, you need the "prior art" to prove "obviousness," so you can't separate out the two like you suggest.

Legal obviousness is a pain in the ass to prove, because it's so fuzzy -- it's much easier to find a patent invalid based on prior art, if the prior art exists. Another thing to remember is that even if art appears to be prior art, if the applicant or the examiner referred to the art during prosecution, yet still issued the patent, then it is presumed that such art may not qualify as invalidating prior art under 35 USC 102. So even if you find something that looks like prior art, you need to go to that patent itself and the patent's prosecution history to figure out if the art was relied on in prosecution, and is therefore essentially (although there are exceptions) useless to prove invalidity.

When you are attacking a patent, you pull out all of the stops -- you attack on noninfringement (trying to show that you are not infringing, even if the patent is valid), invalidity (that the patent is invalid and never should have been issued, either because of prior art or obviousness), unenforceability (saying that even if the patent is valid, it's not enforceable, for any number of reasons), and, if you have any reason at all to believe that it might be true, inequitable conduct (basically accusing the inventor or his lawyers of lying to the USPTO to get the patent issued).

--

"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli

Re:Filing patent for "A method to clean one's anus by AstroDan · 2005-09-02 06:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, I think I will patent toilet paper.

Now /. users and the rest of humanity has to pay me to wipe their rear ends.

Then we'll all just start using the 3 sea shells!

Re:What will Gandhi Say? by StarvingSE · 2005-09-02 06:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Whats up with all the Gandhi stuff lately?? Has /. finally outsourced commenting on articles to India???

--
I got nothin'

Re:We don't negotiate with terrorists by ultrabot · 2005-09-02 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

So then the small organizations or individuals that have their ideas ripped off have no recompense?

Yes. Compete on execution, not the ideas, and if you have an idea you don't want to share, keep it secret. Just don't prevent everyone else from having, and implementing the said idea, which is the worst case scenario.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak

I'm hoping for more patent fights like this one by Prototerm · 2005-09-02 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only way the patent system will get fixed is if a lot of big companies end up spending lots of money in court fighting nonsense patents like this one. Eventually, the guys with the bucks will cry "Enough!", and Congress will be forced to make changes. After all, the men and women in Congress work for, and report to, those same corporations, right? I mean, it's not like they're going to listen to the voters (heaven forbid)!

--
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)

Unconstitutional by Doc+Ruby · 2005-09-02 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Constitution directs Congress to establish patents and copyrights to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences. We recognize that protecting investment in invention is necessary, because the freedom to copy someone's invention without other investment prohibits inventions being worth producing by people without the other protections of big organizations. Which big organizations aren't often enough the source of inventions necessary to keep our society coping with changes in the world, let alone lead in the invention work. And even when they are the source (as they often are), they can't always produce their invention when a tiny part is restricted by some other patent holder, who can demand any compensation for a license from their monopoly.

But we don't need the current system. When an inventor of a device has to consider that someone might have a patent on a hierarchical menu used innovatively on their own device, they won't be able to produce the actually innovative part. Or even just marginally improve the invention, incrementally keeping up with a changing world. The current patent system is a major impediment to progress in the useful arts and sciences. It is unconstutional, and must be replaced with something that actually works.

--

--
make install -not war

"Apple declined to comment on the patent." by bogie · 2005-09-02 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

What Apple is really thinking.

"dam, why didn't we patent that first?"

Apple just as bad as the rest. You reap what you sow I guess. Too bad its not just Apple and Creative but every fucking company in the world paticipating in an "arms" race with regard to patents.

Think some day it will get so bad that they will HAVE to reform our system? Don't make me laugh. And always the consumers will be the ones picking up the tabs for the "cost of doing business".

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:It just won't end by FullCircle · 2005-09-02 06:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Better start on a tiny C compiler first.

--
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison

Re:What will Gandhi Say? by RomanySaad · 2005-09-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny

I think Jesus held prior art to that idea long before Ghandi... Too bad he did not patent it.

Re:Question.... by mrgreen4242 · 2005-09-02 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The first iPod shipped October 23, 2001. I can't believe that Apple managed to design, prototype, test, mass produce, market and ship the iPod in 9 months.

There is also no way that they don't have dated mockups, drawings, documents with interface specs, etc. from Dec 2000 and before.

Re:Question.... by djmurdoch · 2005-09-02 06:37 · Score: 4, Informative

The first iPod shipped October 23, 2001. I can't believe that Apple managed to design, prototype, test, mass produce, market and ship the iPod in 9 months.

They're good, aren't they? :-)

Seriously, they didn't develop the hardware, they bought it. They developed the software in a few months in 2001. And the patent is about the software.

At least that's the chronology on this page.

Ravioli and Smucker's Uncrustables by mveloso · 2005-09-02 06:48 · Score: 2, Informative

You know, it's funny, but in some ways the patent office has gotten better over the years.

I heard that Smucker's tried to patent Uncrustables a while back (process patent?). For those of you who don't know, Uncrustables are fillings (PB & J, Cheese) that are wrapped in a neat doughy pod thing.

Anyway, the patent office refused to grant the patent, because they said that Uncrustables were basically big ravioli.

That's about what the PO should have done here. The Creative interface is basically a Smalltalk object browser. I suppose that's obscure enough that an examiner wouldn't know what it was, though - there's a big difference between ravioli and music players.

Whoa... slow down! by ezweave · 2005-09-02 06:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I've patented this system, you rollup soft paper on a cardboard cylinder thereby allowing its convenient dispensing when user has the need to clean up after defacating. Yes, I think I will patent toilet paper. Now /. users and the rest of humanity has to pay me to wipe their rear ends.

What is this toilet paper you speak of?

Re:What will Gandhi Say? - get the quotee right by stuuf · 2005-09-02 07:21 · Score: 4, Funny

... but Jesus didn't patent it when he said it.

--

Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

Read the Patent by duerra · 2005-09-02 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.

Read the Patent

I've seen a number of posts similar to this in this discussion already, but Creative didn't patent menu heirarchy. They patented the automatic creation and filing of the heirarchy based on reading the meta-data of the music.

--
A community-oriented lyrics site

Re:Good. Apple needs a slap in the face. by Castar · 2005-09-02 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

If by "restrict" you mean "make it a two-step process," then yeah. Burn to CD. Re-rip. Done. And you say that as if any other online music store (other than certain Russian stores of questionable legality) that sells RIAA-label music makes this any easier. To the best of my knowledge, they do not.

There are a couple problems with this: First, just because it is the best there is, doesn't mean we can't ask for better.

Second, burning compressed music to a CD and ripping it to a different compression format will make your music suffer. It will sound worse than the original music - so it's not as painless as you suggest. I'd much rather have the option to download uncompressed, or losslessly compressed, music and encode it to my desires.

As you point out, this isn't Apple's fault, but unless consumers recognize the flaws in the system and complain, it isn't going to improve.

--
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

Creative is doing it wrong by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2005-09-02 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

They should have started with a small company like Neuros that couldn't efford to defend them selves. With a precedent setting case under their belt they would stand a better chance against Apple.

Re:Good. Apple needs a slap in the face. by Concertina · 2005-09-02 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, because MP3 is such a proprietary format.

[pedant mode]

The format is not proprietary, but the algorithms to create files in the format are. The Fraunhofer corporation visciously defends its mp3 patent against any software on the market incorporating an mp3 encoder.

To those in the world of proprietary software, with companies available to pay royalty fees, it is a meaningless distinction. But to those of us in the free software community, the fraunhofer patent is a major annoyance, because we can't legally ship mp3 encoders in our favorite distros/oses. It's one of the many motivations in developing the ogg vorbis codec and flac.

[/pedant mode]

If what you meant was something like "the mp3 format is ubiquitous, unrestricted, and unencumbered for most people", then I apologize, as that is definitely true.

- Concertina (peeved that iTunes does not support more open formats)

granting patents by falconwolf · 2005-09-02 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The easiest solution to this mess is to move to a registration system, where patent applications arent examined, and just allow everyone to fight it out in court (which is what happens anyway, but this would be without the presumption that patents are valid).

And what of the individual person who invents something yet doesn't have the deep pockets of a big corporation?

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Creative is already better bargain by xtermin8 · 2005-09-02 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think Creative does have a better product- certainly a better range of mp3 players that deliver more value per MB. The difference is iTunes- Apple has the Music store and the "PC" interface. Creative is unlikely to provide a competitive service or an iTunes quality application. To be anything but bemused about this shows how naive you have been about how the "free market" actually works in the real world. Buy your own helmet and put your bitter disillusionment violin away. Wanna improve your life? Study law yourself instead of whining

Re:We don't negotiate with terrorists by Tim+C · 2005-09-02 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Assuming you're talking about patents in general and not just software patents, that won't work. How do you keep an innovative mechanical or electrical design secret, whilst still marketing the product it's part of?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:Good. Apple needs a slap in the face. by jnkt · 2005-09-03 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Come on. I think you are a bit unfair.
First off, the sound quality of files downloaded from ITMS isn't very good to begin with (artifacts clearly audible on a mid to high-end stereo equipment). Burning the stuff to CD and ripping them back followed by yet another destructive re-encode yields even worse result. Unless you're going to use the purchased sound in a very noisy environment (like jogging in traffic or in a construction site environment) you'd easily notice the lousy quality.
Granted, I don't blame Apple entirely for the poor sound quality. I know it's the RIAA dictating the sub-par quality. Still, apple is the one selling the music via ITMS meaning they made a conscious decision to do so and thus I think it's only fair that people should be allowed to criticize apple for this.

All companies selling low-grade sound files (Apple, Real, MS, Napster ...) are essentially distributors of other distributors and as such have the option to sell something (even if it's bad) which some people might buy vs. not selling the thing and potentially loosing out on some revenue. Unfortunately most first line distributors have joined a cartel, resulting in the rules for second or third line distribution being the same for all with no wiggle room available for individual contracts between the cartel and the distributors to consumer (e.g. Apple).

The available options for Apple et al is to either sell the stuff on someone else's terms or say "no thanks, we don't want to sell your goods on the terms you dictate". Unfortunately, most companies are so called "quarterly companies" nowadays meaning that any additional cent in revenue (really profit) gained today wins 9 out of 10 times compared to a strategy likely doubling the revenue in a few years. Thus we have companies like apple etc. pimping for the current quarter's set of stock holders and not giving a damn "about the coming quarters" (read long term).

A working formula for a long term strategy has always been to cater for what the customers want, specializing in one or more of the specific demand characteristics (e.g portable sound files or high fidelity audio). This will give a company so.c. "value add" meaning their margins can increase without loosing a lot of customers. Diversification is the way to sustain a large market with healthy margins (allowing for fair pay of employees, sound operational investments and fair return to investors). Fighting in the market with low grade, off-the-shelf products is not a winning strategy and can't sustain more than a handful companies for a very limited time.

So, to wrap up. If a company does something wrong (not liked by others) it should be criticized. If many companies does the same thing wrong, they should all be criticized. Unless people criticize no change will ever happen which is the least desirable outcome. Pointing to other people and saying "but they do it too" is not a good base for reasoning about moral, ethics, actions and consequences I.M.O.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Is Accused of Violating Software Patent

91 of 503 comments (clear)