Creative To Defend Interface Patent Rights

wild_berry writes "At the London Lauch of their new 'Zen Vision: M' portable media player, Creative Labs boss Sim Wong Hoo told the BBC that he plans to defend their August 2005 patent for interfaces in portable music devices." From the article: "Creative chairman Sim Wong Hoo told the BBC News website that the company was already talking to various parties about the patent but refused to be drawn on specifics. 'We will pursue all manufacturers that use the same navigation system,' said Mr Sim. 'This is something we will pursue aggressively. Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property.'"

Comments

Too late to patent the "Sound Blaster", is it?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Too late to patent the "Sound Blaster", is it?

Re:Too late to patent the "Sound Blaster", is it?

[Phreakiture]

What is the sound of one bit playing?

Mu.

Mu. It means "nothing", and that is exactly what has been patented here.

Just to make sure I've got this right

[Dark Paladin]

It's OK to copy the iPod design down to the "metal back/plastic colored front", but heaven forbid that someone should get to use their human interface (which, from what I've seen, it basically "folders that hold music instead of files".

Ah - ok. Sure.

Re:Just to make sure I've got this right

[why-is-it]

folders that hold music instead of files

Surely the music collection in the folder is a series of files?

Re:Just to make sure I've got this right

[mrchaotica]

It is, but it's not expressed as such in the interface, which is what the grandparent was talking about.

Re:Just to make sure I've got this right

[jdog1016]

Well, you don't have it right. Today we're talking about the iPod "ripping off" Creative's patented interface, which they ripped off the iPod. Is that more clear?

Re:Just to make sure I've got this right

[dgatwood]

Ah, but it is. It is essentially a filesystem with multiple views based on metadata keywords. I did the same thing in the late 1990s with my coworker's music collection---organizing it physically by source, symbolic linking it into folders by genre. I didn't have as MANY metadata bits as the modern players do, but that's because I didn't care about those attributes.

The only difference with music players is that it gets the information from a database instead of from the physical directory structure. However, since a filesystem is technically a very specific type of database (by definition), by all rights, I personally had prior art almost two years prior to Creative's design. I doubt I'm alone in having done this.... Right? Surely there's at least one other person out there anal retentive enough to have done that.... :-)

Re:Just to make sure I've got this right

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, but it's not just the ability to make symlinks and such that they've apparently patented. It's the particular hierarchical menu, touch-activated scroll wheel, green battery icon in the upper left corner thing. It's the interface, not the functionality. Navigating this player (or an iPod, which is identical) is completely different from, say, typing "cd [directory]" on the command line.

Oh, and yes -- I've considered organizing music with symlinks exactly the same way you have. The only difference is that I'm too lazy to have actually done it.

"Navigation system?"

[voice_of_all_reason]

Like "play", "pause", "next", and "stop?"

To be honest, stranger things have happened. Didn't someone in England patent strawberries recently?

Re:"Navigation system?"

[PhrostyMcByte]

Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property
Market speak for "Hopefully people will bend over and accept our abuse of an overly generalized patent"?

Re:"Navigation system?"

[javaxman]

Didn't someone in England patent strawberries recently?

IIRC, they tried to patent the *smell* of strawberries, and ( just recently, like last week ) were denied.

Re:"Navigation system?"

[gstoddart]

To be honest, stranger things have happened. Didn't someone in England patent strawberries recently?

I don't think it was strawberries they were trying to patent. I believe it was the smell
of ripe strawberries.

Which is just as wierd. At least it was rejected.

Re:"Navigation system?"

[lemnisca]

In Australia, someone patented the wheel.

They even won an Ig Nobel prize for it (Technology, 2001).

Re:"Navigation system?"

[NurseMaximum]

Didn't someone in England patent strawberries recently?

IIRC, they tried to patent the *smell* of strawberries, and ( just recently, like last week ) were denied.

Not quite but not far off. They tried to trademark the smell of strawberries...
See this for more details.

Differences between Defensive and not.

[Twanfox]

I had a sudden thought when reading over this summary. Companies say that they are only patenting software/interfaces/whatever as a defensive strategy. Knowing how some justifications work ("I was only following orders." and such), I wonder how long it is before statements such as "We were defending our right to profit from our patents" become commonplace. I mean, after all, if you have something like a patent, just about everything you do in terms of litigation is 'defense' of that patent, whether you sue them or they sue you.

Re:Differences between Defensive and not.

[IAmTheDave]

Whoa - you're a little behind the times. It's hardly a defense - as a matter of a fact, I read Mr. Sim Wong Hoo's statements to be quite agressive and offensive (as in offense vs. defense.)

Using patents to profit is definately commonplace, as more and more "Patent Holding Firms" pop up all over the place, like say, Eolas.

Make no mistake, this is not defensive. This is a proven, reliable, dirty business practice. Apply for a patent, if we get it, sue the shit out of everyone that might have something similar. This is no longer about who invents something or does something first, it is about who first has the money to file the patent application.

Creative produces shoddy products

[linuxguy]

I have bought their mp3 player, speakers, webcams and a few other items. It is clear to
me that they really make very bad products. I have already settled on never buying
another Creative product.

This latest patent scam merely affirms my beliefs.

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[GmAz]

Wow, I too have purchased their products. I have their FPS2000 Digital 4.1 speakers circa 2000 and still love them. Their soundcards rock. The fact that they copied the interface from the ever famed iPod and decided that since Apple isn't smart enough to patent their interface, and now they will patent it. Its auctually quite smart. What about all those other patents for crap. Recently on slashdot, Microsoft went on a pointless patent attack. This one is smart and will probably end up in making Creative a lot of money.

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[jacksonj04]

"The fact that they copied the interface from the ever famed iPod and decided that since Apple isn't smart enough to patent their interface, and now they will patent it."

There's a minor issue known as 'prior art'. You can't patent something which is already in general use.

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[Miraba]

Anecdotes are not statically valid. I own their Micro and am perfectly happy with it (even after having dropped it multiple times). Your data could be valuable, as you've bought multiple products from them, but without giving information on what they specifically are (and how you might have abused them), your data isn't usuable.

Now, if you were to find some data on the % of units that have experienced problems (other brands too), that would be a different story. Consumer Reports does that for appliances as well as computers, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some real data come out in a few years.

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[DorkusMasterus]

I personally have no opinion on Creative's product line, as I typically have no brand loyalty whatsoever... but, I don't understand how you can think they suck, yet you've bought all these things from them? That's like me saying "Well, after buying everything Sears sells, I won't buy anything else from them." I mean, I'm really honestly not trying to be flamebait here, but it does kind of seem kind of an odd statement to make, without qualification. Was Creative originally a good company, and now turned crappy, or have they always been crappy, and you've just kept on buying? ;)

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[Maarek_1]

Then you will be glad to know that the patent application was filed before the Ipod was released. Apple did in fact attempt to patent the UI, but were rejected due to (get this) prior art...namely the Creative UI application.

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[Anonymous Coward]

So saying Company XYZ's products suck in an article about Company XYZ which the slashdot dubbed EVIL gets a 3+(probably 5+) insightful?

Wow, who would have expected that!

Re:Creative produces shoddy products

[swv3752]

I have purchased a couple of creative products over the years. I have a SB Live!Value, Soundworks 4.1 Speakers, and a 1 GB Muvo TX. I have been quite happy with all three. I have been disillusioned with the company itself now, and quite possibly the GP is in the same position.

iPod prior art?

[blackcoot]

surely apple has several years of prior art in the iPod, which begs the question: why is creative bothering, other than to abuse the legal system in an attempt to get an injunction against iPod sales during a crucial retail season...

Re:iPod prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

surely apple has several years of prior art in the iPod, which begs the question: why is creative bothering, other than to abuse the legal system in an attempt to get an injunction against iPod sales during a crucial retail season...

I no longer attempt to see rhyme or reason in the behavior of corporations. I think they just fight over bullshit patents because it's in their nature.

Re:iPod prior art?

[mreed911]

why is creative bothering, other than to abuse the legal system in an attempt to get an injunction against iPod sales during a crucial retail season...

Two reasons:

1) Press. Apple still dominates the press, and Creative has no ads on TV that I've seen anywhere, while even my daughter, who hates Eminem, catches herself singing along with the iPod commercials. Apple also has bands ready, willing and able to release songs for their commercials - and those songs become hits. Apple his mindshare, and Creative doesn't. This lawsuit gets Creative some press, press that they're not paying for with marketing dollars, although it wouldn't be hard to qualify this entire lawsuit as marketing expense.

2) The off-chance that it might work. I think Creative fails to recognize, though, that their shareholders are likely to be less than impressed if Creative's main source of income in the DAP market is from iPod royalties on an interface patent. If you were a Creative stockholder, would you want to invest in a company that gets a very, very small percentage of profits from a competitor's product sale through an interface patent royalty; or would you rather invest in the competitor making the better product as a whole, and the larger overall profit from it? Oh, yeah, and are you willing to risk the time, expense and uncertainty of a legal battle?

It's sad, really. Creative makes some fantastic audio products, but they're primarily oriented around input/output for PC's. I can understand why they entered the DAP market, I really can, but to compete on patent assertions instead of product niche? Disappointing.

Re:iPod prior art?

[Gogo Dodo]

Because they're getting their butts handed to them in the market. So in desperation, they have turned to the legal system. Sound familiar?

Re:iPod prior art?

[gordo3000]

except the ipod wasn't anywhere near the first mp3 player or the first one with a navigation menu like it uses. it basically took the things that worked and put them together. and added a nice touch scroll wheel.

the reason these lawsuits are starting now is probably because the patent was filed for years ago and is just now being approved(as it usually happens).

Re:iPod prior art?

[stunt_penguin]

the iPod is a relative newcomer to the MP3 market. Creative were making hard disk mp3 players long before Apple ever dreamed of them. They were practially the only players on the market in 1999-2000, and they used the same type of heirarchial naviation that the iPod uses.

That's not to say that Creative have a legal case they should be able to press in respect to the patent (for heirarchial display of files by category) as the patent is so f**king obvious that is should never have been granted.

Re:iPod prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's America; If you can't get ahead through innovation and hardwork, then litigate!!

Netscape comes to mind: Browsers are free, then Netscape decides to charge for browsers. Microsoft releases free browser, Netscape gets mad and sues!

SCO is another great example.

Then we can look at all of the insanely stupid lawsuits such as suing McDonald's for making you a fat fuck.

Re:iPod prior art?

[im_mac]

Creative's patent was applied for in 2001, before the iPod's debut later that same year. Creative says they used that system in earlier mp3 players as well. So no, there is no prior art from Apple.

Re:iPod prior art?

[blackcoot]

i think the press game is... dumb, to say the least. i expect you'll see headlines like "dap anklebiter attempts to take on ipod giant in patent suit". i think the best press they can hope for is neutral but they're more likely to open a huge can of worms they'd rather keep shut (i.e. an item by item comparison of the products and related offerings, a comparison of market share, etc. it's almost impossible for creative to come out sounding good)

as for the off chance it might work... my money is on apple's lawyers. it will be really hard for a judge to keep the ipod out of his/her head when making decisions. doubly so for any jury. my gut is that any press that does come from a trial would again be neutral at best for creative. more likely is that creative will get some pretty negative press which will hurt any potential revenue from their patent. also, i'm sure that apple will break out their stash of ip and bury creative up to their eyeballs in counterclaims.

but what do i know?

Re:iPod prior art?

[muellerr1]

While reading your response it brought to mind how childish modern corporations are. They don't care what their public perception is as long as it isn't important to their bottom line. This stupid patent struggle (and most of the other ones we hear about these days) is like two children arguing about who gets to sit in the front seat when one of them has clearly yelled "shotgun" before the other.

The scary thing is that these children are currently running the world.

Re:iPod prior art?

[SQLz]

I don't think a hierarchy of anything should be patentable. I'm sure that monkeys have organzied banannas first by size, then by color. Organization of objects is a natural part of being intelligent. Its not really an invention to index data by more than 1 attribute, no matter what the data is. If this patent holds then you could technically patent anything that organizes X type of data first by one way, then by another. I guess someone could patent indexing general data by more than 1 way and start demanding licensing from Orcale and MS.

Re:iPod prior art?

[chocotof]

Euh and what about the PJB100 ? AFAIK it was a compaq device that had ... hierarchical menues and had a 10 GB harddisk in a MUCH more practical packaging than the Nomad (i.e rectangular ?) I think that the PJB100 existed WELL BEFORE any Creative device

Re:iPod prior art?

[Reverberant]

So no, there is no prior art from Apple.

Well, there is no prior art from Apple with regards to a DAP, but there is prior art from Apple nee NeXT.

Re:iPod prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see.. Creative is in the business of selling mp3 players and has lost a significant portion of their market share to Apple. Apple is making a tremendous amount of money of the iPod. Creative filed for and was able to obtain a patent that could read on the iPod. Asserting the patent against Apple could generate a large amount of money or improve Creative's market share. Not asserting the patent would open up Creative's officers and board of directors to a shareholder action for failing to take advantage of business opportunities. Why would you expect corporations to not try and fuck over their competitors if it gives them a business advantage.

Re:iPod prior art?

[surefooted1]

If you were a Creative stockholder, would you want to invest in a company that gets a very, very small percentage of profits from a competitor's product sale through an interface patent royalty; or would you rather invest in the competitor making the better product as a whole, and the larger overall profit from it?

I see your point, but as a stockholder, I could care less where the income comes from, as long as it comes.

Oh, yeah, and are you willing to risk the time, expense and uncertainty of a legal battle?

Chalk it up as an investment risk.

Re:iPod prior art?

[back_pages]

Creative's patent was applied for in 2001, before the iPod's debut later that same year. Creative says they used that system in earlier mp3 players as well. So no, there is no prior art from Apple.

No publicly available prior art, which is generally all that is available during examination of a patent.

If Creative sues Apple for infringement, however, then the two companies can get out the engineering notebooks, prototypes, designs, etc., and will duke it out in the courtroom to decide who invented it first. That's assuming that Apple is sued and is willing to admit infringement but argue invalidity.

So I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Apple has no prior art - merely that they have no public prior art that kept the patent from issuing. It is a slim but important distinction.

Re:iPod prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct. The PJB100 was pretty amazing for its day. All of the software (disk IO, UI, audio) ran on a single Motorola 24 bit DSP. It used a notebook style 2.5" hard drive. Played about 12 hours on a single charge. Supported "gapless" play of album oriented music. (Most current generation MP3 players, iPod included, can't do the gapless play trick.)

I still own a PJB100 along with an iPod mini (about a year old) and now an iPod nano. Rather impressive how "1000 songs in your pocket" has physically shrunk over 6 years time.

I actually laughed at the guys I worked with at the time that bought the early Nomad Jukebox. They were bulky, heavy, with horrible battery life and the sound quality wasn't particularly good. (Compared to the PJB and the PJB wasn't exactly small but it was noticeably lighter weight and produced much better sound than the Nomad.)

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[CoderBob]

I haven't seen the actual patent, and don't have time to look it up at the moment, but the original Nomad used a series of nested menus for navigation- and was released well before the iPod.

woot!!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Now I can get some traction protecting my patent for "A Rotary Device For Increasing Or Decreasing The Volume".

Re:woot!!

[hometoast]

I believe there is prior art on this, at least the ones that go to 11!

Re:woot!!

[Hillgiant]

If it is an extra kick to send you over the edge you are looking for, I will gladly oblodge.

Re:woot!!

[vishbar]

Sorry, you're violating my patent on "Devices."

About that...I'm going to start enforcing that soon. So, if anyone who constructs any physical peice of technology could send me a check for $100,000 or so, then that'd save us a whole lot of legal trouble, ok?

In Design for Over a Year

[Pray_4_Mojo]

I love how they claim this isn't a ripoff of the iPod video.
In the article (yes, I still read them) the creative spokesdroid states "This has been in design for over a year."

Its too bad the iPod's form factor has pretty much been the same since coming out in 2001.

Nice try, tho.

Re:In Design for Over a Year

[mreed911]

In the article (yes, I still read them) the creative spokesdroid states "This has been in design for over a year."

Its too bad the iPod's form factor has pretty much been the same since coming out in 2001.

A search of ThinkSecret's archives puts a start date on rumors of the video iPod around the time of MacWord Expo 2003.

Re:In Design for Over a Year

[Maarek_1]

...but we all know how strongly Apple protects information about upcoming products. Do you seriously think that Creative could have developed this product in the 2 months since the Ipod G5 release? Or do you think they would let Creative, a company they are competing against, get ahold of design specs on their product? More likely is the fact that once a player shape is chosen (and Creative has been doing the Zen/rectangle design for a while) there are only so many ways to arrange the product. You either go with a sideways design like the big Vision or you go with a horizontal design like the Vision M, Ipod G5.

Re:In Design for Over a Year

[wootest]

Noone's going nuts over it looking like that on the outside. They were one of the first with a player of that format. The player controls have been in pretty much the same place for the last few players and remains one of the places where Creative's players really differ from the iPods. There's no skin off Creative's back for this. None.

Furthermore, noone's going nuts about it being marketed in white and black. Noone's going nuts about its menu color scheme looking an awful lot like the iPod's (which was introduced with "iPod photo" last year - white menu system, subtle gradients, blue selections, green battery), or about the menu arrangement being similar to the iPod's. It's the fact that Creative are more or less marketing the device with photos featuring all these combined, making it look remarkably similar to the iPod and *in the same breath* broadcasting the fact that they will strike down people who copy them that makes the situation ironic at best.

Re:In Design for Over a Year

[Pray_4_Mojo]

Yes, you're right. The iPod Video probably started development back in 03. It has the same form factor as a 4G iPod.
The iPod 4G has a similar form factor the (proud owner of one) 3G iPod.
Guess what the 3G iPod's form factor was based on? The second-gen iPod.
Do you see where this is going?

No?
Well, guess what the second gen iPod's form factor was based on?
No, not the damned Nomad! The (again, proud owner) First Generation 5GB iPod.

Which came out in 2001.
So I hope that this EXTRA OBVIOUS explanation of my reasoning (iPod form factor, while 'evolved' still bears resembleance to its predacessors) helps you make sense of my post!

Happy Holidays!

Re:In Design for Over a Year

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, it's "no one." Not to disparage your comment, but some people will ignore what a person's written if the spelling errors have lunged at their eyeballs.

Ha!

[Winckle]

I've got you know, I patented the process of patenting stupid patents, now you and this English gentlemen owe me alot of money!

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a patent on the English language, and you are seriously abusing it.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a patent on alphanumeric characters.

Pay up!

Intellectual property

[Psithe]

people have to respect intellectual property.'
Well, as long as we own it anyway...

huh? creative took the interface from apple

[lashi]

Doesn't the new Zen vision M looks like a rip off of the iPod ? How can they patent the interface they copied from Apple? I mean just look at this picture.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157071380/

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[mreed911]

How can they patent the interface they copied from Apple?

This is how the industry works.

Xerox PARC --> Microsoft/Apple --> Gnome/KDE

Ever notice how it's ALL the same? It's ALL built on what came before?

Gnome/KDE is obviously based on the Win9x GUI, which carries through to this day. That was based on the Apple GUI, which was based on earlier Win3x GUI's, what was "stolen" from PARC in the first place.

The same plays out in ANY tech market. Someone comes up with a product, and someone else modifies it and sells that. Hopefully, the modification is enough to actually be different from the original, not just spit-polished and spray-painted. Now that it's cheaper all-around to make gizmos, and because you can profit faster, then just go out of business with your lump of cash when you get sued, why NOT copy, resell and fold?

Who cares if it's "right" or not, and who cares about intellectual property rights - except of course the guy who DESERVES the credit for the original invention - but why care about him - he got enough to not be considered as "gotten screwed," right?

Gah... I'm gonna have a stroke now! /me runs off screaming, looking for a straightjacket

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I would find it interesting to see your support for the claim that Apple's GUI is based on Windows 3.x. The Macintosh was released in 1984, and it had, largely, the same "look and feel" that it did in 2001 before OSX. That interface was based largely on the Lisa Office System interface. Even some of the 'new features' in OSX are based on ones from the Lisa prototypes. The Lisa Office System was based, in turn, on Xerox's PARC interface (with the exception of click-and-drag, which was all Apple). Windows 3.0 was released 6 years later, in 1990.

Apple must truly be a revolutionary company if your claim is correct. They copied something that wasn't going to be released for 6 years!

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The Win 3x (and 2x and 1x) GUI worked rather differently from the old Mac GUI - the old Mac GUI had a desktop you could place files on (like Win 9x) and automatically associated file types with applications (like Win 9x). The Win 3x GUI had program groups on the desktop (basically, right click on the Start menu, explore all users, and click the Programs folder in the Folders tree pane and you'll see in the folder view pane something that looks and works very much like the old Win 3x GUI) and you usually had to use File Manager to view file directories visually as folders, and had to make many file associations manually. So no, the Mac GUI most certainly was NOT based upon the Windows 3.1 GUI, but rather the Windows 1.0 GUI was derived from a common source from the Mac GUI (it's hard to imagine that the klunky Windows 1.0 GUI was based upon the Mac GUI) - probably an earlier PARC prototype.

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your history straight.

Apple did not "steal" from Xerox. Apple asked to use the interface concepts and Xerox agreed. Apple then designed the interface from scratch using the concepts developed at PARC en MIT. The result was the Lisa. The Mac was derived from that.

Much later other graphical interfaces appeared, using the same basic concepts, which had by that time become common domain. Interfaces like GNU, KDE, Motif and others are sufficiently different that it would not be fair to say that they were copied from Apple's, merely inspired by it, with the exception of one: Windows. It was so similar to Apple's, even using the same trash can icons, that it could easily be seen as plagiarism. A lawsuit from Apple followed.

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

To add to your post, not only M$ stole UI ideas from Apple (*), but most importantly, they stole under-the-hood implementation ideas & concepts, if not code, from Apple because they had no clue how to "put mac on dos".

Apple's crew saw what was happening at PARC but not brought to market (**), *asked* if they could develop those *IDEAS* into actual products and then proceeded to build everything from scratch. This is not reverse engineering, this is downright building something yourself using your memory for reference ("we should *design* something that resembles what we saw yesterday"). You're still doing hard work in such a case.

A lot of UI concepts were created & implemented first at Apple, for use with the LISA -- compare it to the Alto and you'll see that they don't share much. The Cupertino crew found ways to "make things work", whilst the Redmond crew used their insider knowledge of the Macintosh to *copy* what the Mac developers did, again because they just did not know "how to do it".

Steve Jobs & minions would not have been cheesed at Bill's microserfs had they figured out for themselves how to re-build windows (the _first_ windows was more some sort of overgrown Multiplan-like text-based UI derived from IBM TopView IIRC than a GUI). /ac

(*) Except that Bill's idea of a GUI was to effectively bolt Norton Commander for DOS (hence windows' file manager) with this program who'se name I forget, but it was a program launcher of sorts that would present a menu of available apps on your computer (hence windows' program manager). You could not launch programs from the file manager, iirc, and you definitively could not manage your files from the program manager.

(**) This is why many went from Xerox to Apple, they wanted to see their ideas leave the labs and reach the public.

Re:huh? creative took the interface from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome/KDE is obviously based on the Win9x GUI, which carries through to this day. That was based on the Apple GUI, which was based on earlier Win3x GUI's, what was "stolen" from PARC in the first place.

3 strikes! You are out.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[The Warlock]

I do believe that the Creative Nomad was released well before the iPod. That said, hierarchial menus date back to, well, to very far back. Certainly before Creative was ever incorporated.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[daranz]

And ipod was totally the first HDD DAP ever

Though yes, the patent seems somewhat cheap.

Zen Micro sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend got a free one from somebody who replaced theirs with an ipod. She ended up throwing it away because the interface to transfer music was so slow and convoluted. Pointing it at a network drive full of mp3s just caused it to churn for 15 minutes then lock up.

Me too

[supersocialist]

I've had some serious bad luck with my SB Live cards. GTA San Andreas in particular didn't like the drivers, which were hard to get to install properly. Creative's install let XP's "emulated" sound drivers run the show, and their own drivers (which I got to install after a load of fussing) crashed nearly as often. I was told time and time again on help forums that I ought to just buy their $25,000 (approx) sound card, which, it was claimed, actually worked.

Re:Me too

[timster]

A twenty-five-thousand-dollar SOUND CARD? I notice that your nick is "supersocialist"... what are these, Soviet dollars?

Re:Me too

[supersocialist]

I was merely approximating. It might have been a little less, but it was definitely significantly more than I was willing to pay for a sound card.

Re:Me too

[PurPaBOO]

i gave up when they decided not to produce any win2k drivers for my very expensive (£200, at the time!) AWE32 soundcards. cnuts.

Re:Me too

[default luser]

What the fuck, is this "everybody bash Creative" time?

I'll have you know that the AWE32 (which is basically a SB16 + wavetable synth) is FULLY supported in Windows 2000 (SB16 and Wavetable Synth). Not only is it supported, but the drivers come with Windows.

Maybe if you bothered to actually TRY it rather than believing some rumor you read on some website, you might stop wrongfully bashing Creative's name.

Creative has been mostly decent for me...I have never had a serious issue with one of their soundcards. Although in some cases I have been more impressed with other competing products (like my old Ensoniq AudioPCI), Creative hasn't dropped the ball yet. My Audigy hasn't coughed at working with ANY games, and this is on a Via chipset motherboard (KT800 Pro).

AS for my experience with their mp3 players, I've been a fan of the Muvo series since the inception 4 years ago. I did not experience serious problems despite buying the first revision, and I have been impressed with the features and clean design improvements of the latest Muvo TX.

Re:Me too

[PurPaBOO]

Yeah. Fully supported as in "no wavetable support". cnuts.

Re:Me too

[default luser]

Actually, it supports the built-in ROM wavetable, you just can't load your own sounds. My Ensoniq AudioPCI (then renamed SB PCI 64, and supported by Creative) also lost its excellent support for wavesets with the Win2k drivers.

But this was also encouraged because the software synth by Roland that shipped with Win2k/XP sounded pretty damn good.

To be honest, the AWE32 was on its way out the door: the card was released in 1994, and had drivers made for Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and Windows 98. It was limited by the maximum 32MB on-card (assuming you could get your hands on the RARE 16MB 30-pin SIMMs), when modern PCI wavetable cards could use hundreds of megabytes of system ram for samples. There's a point where you just can't afford to support niche features. The software synth plus the age of the card made the decision to drop full support easy for Creative.

My take: never pay hundreds of dollars for a Creative sound card, because you simply don't have to. People have been doing this for years with the SB Live Value, and later the SB Audigy ES. I paid $35 for an Audigy ES last year, and it does everything I need, including Soundfont synth. I realistically expect it will be fully supported in Vista, and afterwards dropped like a rock. Well worth my $35.

So you paid too much for a soundcard back in the day, and support for its special features was dropped in the typical 5-7 year period...big deal, that's how the industry works. They always try to sell you something new, flashy and expensive, because if you could go on using your old card forever, they would go out of business.

Zen Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound of one hand clapping....

LoL

Oh, really?

[ScrewMaster]

... but people have to respect intellectual property.

Why?

Re:Oh, really?

[kidtwist]

"People have to respect our legal owndership of something that we have no moral right to own."

Re:Oh, really?

[ScrewMaster]

Ah. It makes so much more sense when you put it that way.

The ONLY way they can make money...

[uzada]

They don't have much choice for making cash other than pursuing these patents. Their devices are also-rans and have been since the iPod. Their newest offering looks suspiciously like the Champ's. Not that there is a lot of sympathy to pour on Apple here either. They're presumably revving up the legal engine to sue Creative for copying the look of the ipod or somesuch.

As to the Creative chairman's comments about focusing only on the technology and selling people on that -- when was the last time that worked? When over the past couple of years did that seem like a good idea. Sure, if your technology is a breakthrough, but slapping videos on something the size of my cell phone? And doing it after the Showman already released his version? And what does it do differently than the champ? Support a few more formats heard of only by the slashNerds? C'mon!

The real answer is purple. It worked for Prince. You need purple devices. That'll differentiate your product. Plus Purple has the most RAM.

Re:The ONLY way they can make money...

[mrchaotica]

The real answer is purple. It worked for Prince. You need purple devices. That'll differentiate your product. Plus Purple has the most RAM.

Creative does sell purple MP3 players! (see "360 demo")

Re:The ONLY way they can make money...

[LordMaxxon]

Plus Purple has the most RAM.

No. Mauve has the most ram.

Re:The ONLY way they can make money...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plus Purple has the most RAM"

Huh, I think you mean

"I think mauve has the most ram", from the nov. 1995 Dilbert cartoon (1995 was a good year for Dilbert, I have to say). /ac

Quick question...

[Havenwar]

Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property.

Ah yes, but do we have to respect intellectual bullshit? To allow someone to patent "the way files are organised and navigated on a player using a using a hierarchy of menus" is about as logical as allowing someone to patent the way of transportation that involves putting the rearward foot infront of the front foot and then repeating.

Come on, for as long as there has been more than one menu on ANY electronic device they have had the need to put them into a hierarchy, right? Oh, I know, let's patent the use of language on a display! No, there is no prior art, because my patent is only related to this new kind of display... I think it's called LCD.

Re:Quick question...

[DrSkwid]

"on an LCD" is about as novel as "on the internet"

Re:Quick question...

[Havenwar]

and "on a portable music device" is about as novel as "on a computer". Walkmans, discmans, minidisc players... any laptop. Any pda. Any cellphone.

Re:Quick question...

[rhendershot]

...cave paintings...

I mean, those were a type of menu also! Please select from the following possible successful hunts: Bear, Buffalo, Deer.

Ok, not real 'portable'. But the *drums* they took along on the hunt where they drew the same icons were most certainly portable and music devices.

Stretching? Maybe. Sublime/ridiculous - take your pick.

It is Wong to patent a file tree

[digitaldc]

"It applies to the way music tracks are organised and navigated on a player through a hierarchy using three or more successive screens."

So if Creative wins this suit, should you also be sued for using the buttons on/off, play, pause, stop, rewind and fast-forward? Or should you have to rename them iniate/power down, engage, hesitate, halt, go-back and go-forth?

Re:It is Wong to patent a file tree

[tapo]

I don't know about you man, but I think it would be pretty fucking cool to start playing a heavy-metal track by hitting a giant button marked ENGAGE.

Re:It is Wong to patent a file tree

[thebdj]

You obviously did not bother trying to determine what the patent was for. It is not the buttons, but the way you navigate through the successive screens. To put it in simple english for you: the nested menu system used on iPod and like devices.

Re:It is Wong to patent a file tree

[digitaldc]

You obviously did not bother trying to determine what the patent was for. It is not the buttons, but the way you navigate through the successive screens.

Isn't 'navigating through successive screens' as ubiquitous as 'pressing play?'

Re:It is Wong to patent a file tree

[woolio]

No is isn't "Wong". It's "Sim Wong Hoo".. RTFA!

If at first you don't succeed ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting a hardware product to market (the reception to Creative's much earlier sound players was lukewarm compared to the takeoff of the iPod), sue the ones that do succeed in that market.

Is there truly anything innovative about using hierarchical menus to act as an interface to a music collection? They are files. Files in a hierarchical system. Files in a hierarchical system that also happen to encode music. There is nothing original here. If they want to patent the hardware, fine, but the interface is obvious to people "skilled in the art", especially as soon as people put more than, oh, 6 songs on their player and they run out of screen space.

Full points for getting there first as a mass-produced product of this particular type, but this Creative patent makes as much sense as Ford trying to patent the wheel.

Re:If at first you don't succeed ....

[Anonymous Coward]

To the folks saying that Creative is copying apple...

You're wrong.

Apple copied Creative (not a fanboy here just stating facts).

Creative had their Jukebox player on the market almost 2 years prior to the first iPod was put on the market. Rio was right on Creatives heals as well. In fact Creative and Rio didn't pay attention to Apple at first because their marketshare on the PC side was so limited they thought their brand had little ability to penetrate the mainstream.

My my my...what a few commercials with shadows and colors will do.

The patent covers more of the software inside the players and how the software manages songs.

I know Apple zealots...I've spoken against the almighty Jobs. I will pay for my sins (or something like that).

To be honest I couldn't care less. I do find it amusing though how Apple TOTALLY screws over their fanbase with the screwed up screens and batteries on the Nano and their zealots eat up the excuses by Jobs and crew with no hesitation. Mr.Gates should have spent more time in those mind control seminars as well methinks.

Re:If at first you don't succeed ....

[symbolic]

Your post is testament to the fact that these kinds of patents are nasty, and can only create a huge drain on resources that would otherwise be spent on trying out new ideas. Creative tries something, their implementation sucks, and consumers don't go for it. Apple tries something similar, but gets it "right" - according to the sales numbers at least - and Creative gets all bent because Apple used "their IP".

This is exactly why patents will kill innovation. Consumers will either be tied to an IP "owner", who could easily be producing an inferior product, or pay a premium to a competitor who uses the idea (licensing it from the "owner"), but makes a far better product. In this scenario, both producers and consumers are penalized for making and buying superior products, and companies that can't quite pull it off, are rewarded. This has "half-assed backward" written all over it.

If this goes through, maybe things will change

[denis-The-menace]

Let's face it,
-Creativity (ie design, written words, picture) are protected by copyright.
-Ingenuity is protected by patents (at least it used too..)

Here Creative Labs wants to use a patent to protect a design (Apple tried too, but too late)
If Apple looses the Ipod menu design, maybe people will finally wake up and see how Fscked the USPTO really is.

What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[Chemisor]

So they say Apple has to respect their intellectual property. It is curious, since in most business contracts, when one party pays up, the other gets something valuable in return. What does Apple get from paying? They have thought up the interface themseleves, and Creative's only claim on it is that they have thought of it first. If Apple has never seen Creative's patent, what exactly would they be paying for? Creative did no work for them and gave them nothing of value and yet Apple has to pay up anyway? Usually this is called "extortion". In the modern times we call it the "patent system".

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[spacefiddle]

No, you're not understanding the scary realities here. This retroactively rewrites reality (say that X times fast).

If the patent goes through, then it is a "legal fact" that Creative "thought of it first." Whatever "it" happens to be defined as. There is no 'everybody knows' in a court of law unless or until the court declares that everybody knew it.

This is the CRUCIAL ISSUE OF PATENTS (now i will be sued by a RAM manufacturer). I make something, you use it, you make something, we all use it, everybody makes their own, Fred patents it, it goes through. From that point on, Fred thought of it, and if you don't agree, you have the freedom to be sued.

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[utexaspunk]

precisely- whether or not Apple had seen Creative's device before designing the iPod, they would have come up with the same navigation system because it's obvious. Patents are not supposed to cover obvious things.

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[muuh-gnu]

How do you know they thought up the interface themselves and not ripped off (aka "improved") Creative early players?

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[thebdj]

Because someone else thought up an item at nearly the same time on their own does not make it obvious. There are cases in history (and I am not going to look for them now) where people have discovered the same scientific facts or invented like items who had no knowledge of the other person or their work and the discoveries were made in relative closeness to each other.

Unlike what the people here would have you believe, there is a process to solve this who invented it first idea within the US Patent system. If two parties file for a patent with similar claims to an invention, a Interference is performed where the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (wonder where that came from) decide based on the facts available who invented the item first. At that point prosecution would continue on the case. Just be glad the US still has a first to invent system. In pretty much the rest of the world, they use a first to file system where first to the patent office wins.

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[utexaspunk]

Look again at Title 35, Section 103:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Anyone with the technical skill required to design an MP3 player is going to be aware of heirarchical menu systems, and would likely choose to use one for the player's navigation. It's totally obvious and therefore this patent should likely be invalidated.

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[thebdj]

Thank you for quoting a statute I already know. Now let me quote you two things that do not make it that easy. First is the requirements set forth by Graham v. Deere that you can see in MPEP 2141

Second is the requirement for motivation as determined by the CAFC and viewable in MPEP 2143.01

Not as easy as you would think huh?

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[utexaspunk]

I realize those requirements exist, but I don't think Apple will have a hard time satisfying those requirements to prove the obviousness of the invention. The motivation was clearly already there- navigating a large number of songs was a problem, and most existing mp3 players had shitty one-line LED displays. Most of them were made by small companies that didn't have the resources to design one with a decent display that would support a more usable interface. Hierarchical menu systems have been around forever, and I think anyone given a device with the controls and display of an iPod or a Nomad would come up with a similar system for navigation. Besides, the Rio Volt I had back in 1998~99 had a hierarchical menu system. It was a CD-based MP3 player, but it is no suprise a similar interface would wind up on a hard drive or memory-based player.

Re:What exactly would Apple be paying them for?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is almost always hard to prove obviousness once a patent is allowed. The legal standard is clear and convincing evidence which means that a decision won't be reached until after trial. Getting to trial can take years and millions of dollars. Plus, even if the main claim can be invalidated there are ususally many dependent claims which have to be addressed as well. In the meantime the uncertainty can cause stock values to take a hit. Many companies in this situation would rather pay out a reasonable settlement and write off the expense. I'm not saying that this is what will happen in this case, but I wouldn't be surprised.

colecovision already did this in the 70's, right?

[passingNotes.com]

aren't there more important things to worry about than claiming invention rights over on and off buttons and round and square pads? honestly, i've seen this interface already as a CHILD when coleco introduced a rounded dial-pad interface on the colecovision game console...anybody see coleco going after apple and others? no. why? not sure, are they all dead over there?

Stay away

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't buy products from this company. They look to sell your their product and then hang you out to dry. I payed $300 for the Zen Touch, under the impression that there would be firmware updates to increase the useability (scrolling is the biggest pain ever....its very "touchy" to be exact...move your finger 1mm and it moves 2 songs, then move it another mm and it moves 4 songs. Still can't figure out how to reliably select a song without missing it a few times on the menu.), and 2 years later, its still a nuissance to scroll with.

Re:Stay away

[Miraba]

I haven't played with a Zen Touch, but here's how you do it on the Micro:

System -> Player Settings -> TouchPad -> Sensitivity (High, Medium, Low)

According to the Zen Touch firmware page release 1.01.03 "improves the display order of the Touch Pad sensitivity settings," so there must be sensitivity setting buried somewhere.

If you've already tried that and the lowest setting is still too sensitive, maybe you should gather some like-minded people from the web (they're easy enough to find) and send some e-mails to Creative. It might not get them to pay attention, but it's worth a shot if you plan to use the Touch for a while longer.

Re:Stay away

[electrosoccertux]

Yeah theres plenty of like minded people, and we've started petitions on their forums and everything. Some petitions got up to several hundred posts/signatures. But no update.

As far as the setting, it may be different on your player, but on the Touch, the "sensitivity" setting only changes the speedscroll speed (how fast it scrolls when you hold your finger down at the top or bottom of the pad). It does nothing to change the ratio of the number of songs scrolled to the distance the thumb has travelled. If there were a setting that said "for moving your thumb from the top to the bottom of the pad, scroll number of songs", then the problem would be solved. How hard would it be for Creative to add this? If the drivers were Open Source (theres another petition we made), I could have added that setting in 30 minutes.

You're lucky to have bought the Micro; I've used it, and it doesn't suffer these same problems. But who was treated worse? The guy who bought the "hip" product (nothing against you) or the guy who bought the "serious" product (I obviously was planning on using this more because I got the 40GB version) and payed the serious price? I got the "serious" product, and have put this thing through some serious use...but have been treated worse than the "hip" crowd. I can't think of a better way to ensure they lose customers. Not only did they lose me, they lost everyone else that I warned who was going to get a media player and was open to alternatives to the Ipod. I advised all them to get an Ipod, because the entire package is simply better. It scrolls perfectly, it has ok battery life, it syncs effortlessly (can't say anywhere near the same about the Creative MediaSource program I have to use to sync with my Touch), its got decent audio, and it plays MP3. And best of all, its Apple, and they never leave you out to dry (with exception maybe of the battery issues); they've got the best customer service ever.

The grass is definately greener on the other side from where I'm standing.

Re:Stay away

[Miraba]

You're lucky to have bought the Micro; I've used it, and it doesn't suffer these same problems. But who was treated worse? The guy who bought the "hip" product (nothing against you) or the guy who bought the "serious" product (I obviously was planning on using this more because I got the 40GB version) and payed the serious price? I got the "serious" product, and have put this thing through some serious use...but have been treated worse than the "hip" crowd.

I suspect that you got shafted because the Micro came afterwards, when they realized that lots of people didn't like the scroll speed. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that they must have had poor testing in order to let the through in the first place, and that they've been lazy to not release firmware that fixes it, given that a) customers want that fix and b) the distance:song ratio can be changed on other devices.

BTW, I bought the smaller one because, quite simply, I don't have more than 7 or 8 gigs of music on my computer, and I regularly listen to less than half of it. ;)

Defensive means defence from lawsuits

[argoff]

Most companies get defensive patents not to " defending our right to profit from our patents", but to have something to countersue with if they get sued, or to have something to get into cross-licensing agreements to avoid even more lawsuits. Truth is, patents are a real pain - and if it wasn't for defensive purposes, most companies wouldn't bother.

So in truth, people are forced into the system even if they think patnets are evil. (Which I do)

essay: A Violent Protest Against Patents

Re:Defensive means defence from lawsuits

[rhendershot]

patnet... now THERE's a concept.... ;)

Tech versus branding?

[mypalmike]

""We are focused on the technology... This is still a technology marketplace... This is the key difference between a technology company and a branding company," he [Creative chairman Sim Wong Hoo] said, taking a side-swipe at Apple's successful marketing campaign for its iPod.

There was a message in your cluemail: The digital player market is no longer a "technology marketplace". You really look like an idiot when you make statements like this after losing to iPod, a battle that nobody even noticed you were fighting. Apple had the tech, the marketing strategy, the partnerships. You can't win with just technology in competitive markets.

Re:Tech versus branding?

[alexhs]

Didn't you get it ?

"technology company" is now a synonym of "patenting/suing company" ;)

Re:Tech versus branding?

[vicparedes]

Funny he said that. This is the same company that set aside $100 million to market their players, right?

Re: btw, here's a link...

[passingNotes.com]

image is small, but this URL will show you the console that i'm talking about - SEE that litle dial pad interface that controls the gameplay? this is clearly the precursor to all things home media, right? http://www.playerschoicegames.com/colecovisionsys. html

Patents Limit Innovation

[Dick_Stallmanat0r]

Most people that support patent laws argue that they are necessary to promote innovation. Without patents, people would have no incentive to innovate, since their ideas would just get ripped off immediately. While at first this may seem like a valid argument, it is in fact far from that.

First of all, laws are created to serve society. In theory, society's rights supercede those of patent/copyright holders. Patents and copyrights only exist (in theory and law, if not in practice) because (and to the extent that) they benefit society. They are NOT an inherent right.

The argument then is that patents benefit society by encouraging innovation. If, as I believe is true in this case, patents are LIMITING innovation by requring every inventor to reinvent the wheel. Clearly they are not serving their purpose, and should be abolished.

Re:Patents Limit Innovation

[alexhs]

> LIMITING innovation by requring every inventor to reinvent the wheel.

If only...

It's worse than that because if your reinvented wheel looks even remotely like "The Original Wheel" (TM) you would still be infringing upon that patent.

So you would need to reinvent *on purpose* a wheel sufficiently different to avoid infrigement, leading to imaginative shapes like spherical wheels, triangular wheels...

Re:Patents Limit Innovation

[16K Ram Pack]

Sometimes, patents are truly a great invention, and deserve protection.

A patent should be non-obvious, something like the Dyson cyclone cleaner or the way that John Harrison worked out for measuring longtitude. Typically where someone applies some lateral thinking to the problem in a way that other skilled people in the same field would miss.

Unlike many other inventions, software ones are either functionally possible, or not. It is simply a matter of functional decomposition. The constraints are known. When an inventor builds a new type of machine, they do not, and there are many attempts at inventions that simply fail. Likewise, for drug companies. They may pursue an idea and go down many blind alleys before succeeding. Then, there are the costs of drug testing. For these, I think that patents have a place. If you didn't have patents, you'd have to rely on charities or government to create new drugs.

Consumer devices like this may have R&D costs, but it's also about being first to market, getting a lead on other companies to have to write software to do something similar. This is not the same as copying a drug, where formulations have to be public, and therefore, get no market lead. That's the equivalent of saying "no copyright on software" - people would not produce commercial software.

Re:Patents Limit Innovation

[ChronosWS]

Societies don't have rights. Individuals have rights. At least here in the United States that's how it works (or did before we decided that a little communism would add flavor to our democratic republic.) In a communist country perhaps the State has rights that individuals do not, but it is a dangerous thought to suggest that a collection of people should have more rights than an individual.

Re:Patents Limit Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving a patent to an individual takes away rights from each and every other individual in the country. That should not be done lightly unless it benefits those individuals as a whole more than the rights they lost.

Re:Patents Limit Innovation

[Moofie]

"Societies don't have rights. Individuals have rights."

Uh huh. And by what natural right do you prevent me from creating anything, even if you've created it first?

IP law is not about natural rights.

Remember

[RoscBottle]

Friends don't let friends buy Creative...

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Friends don't let friends buy Creative...

isn't there a patent for that phrase??

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to defend Creative in this, or anything, but hasn't Apple been guilty of the same "Cease and Desist, OR ELSE" mentality?

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

rather buy from Creative than from Apple..

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[alienw]

Well, it wasn't the _first_ DAP, but it was the first DAP that held 20GB and didn't weigh as much as a calculus textbook. I think the closest competitor at the time was the creative Nomad. Ugly, bigger than a CD player, horrible interface, and only 6GB. Not much of a surprise the iPod has 90% market share.

Patent on crap sound cards?

[Kenja]

They should file a patent on sound cards that use more system resources then every other device in your computer. Thats one I'd be OK with them defending.

Re:Patent on crap sound cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should say that because their new X-Fi cards uses less resources than all other brands out there, especially pro cards that doesn't have hardware acceleration. In a recent test having an X-Fi card could boost your fps with around 5 fps compared to the competitors because of superior hardware accel.

"friendly"? "respect"? riiiiiiight

[ChipMonk]

Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property.

First, it's already unfriendly. From all appearances, it's downright thievery.

Second, your demand for my respect only serves to justify my disrespect.

Dream patent enforcement scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the Creative/iPod patent and the NTP/Blackberry patent both result in injunctions for stopping of sales/service on the same day. Maybe hordes of angry executives and angry music fans would get the lawmakers off their asses and reform the patent system.

OK, it's fanciful, but a guy can dream, can't he?

Re:Dream patent enforcement scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe hordes of angry executives and angry music fans would get the lawmakers off their asses and reform the patent system.

Mod parent insightful! While consumers get trampled on in this fracas, they're not losing anything as long as one company comes out a winner and fills the product void. The executives, on the other hand, have everything at stake - their company, their job, their board of directors, their stockholders, their institutional investors...

If patent suits were more punative, and had stronger injunctions up front, it'd be a mutually-assured-desctruction type scenario... talk about going nuclear!

Forget the Trees, Check out This Forest!

[Bob9113]

Lots of comments about, "iPod did it first." Umm, forget about the trees for a second folks. Look at the forest. Creative labs got a patent for hierarchical traversal of a structured content repository. Have any of you used a file browser? iPod didn't do it first and this isn't about iPod versus Creative. This is about the USPTO granting fiat monopolies (patents) to anybody who adds a new word to existing public domain technical innovation; in this case "directory browser + MP3 player". The problem isn't who should have rights to the idea, but that the idea should not have been patentable.

Re:Forget the Trees, Check out This Forest!

[16K Ram Pack]

Exactly. It's obvious.

It's like saying that you can patent a car wheel because it's no longer just a wheel, but one that has spokes and helps a car go round.

Patents should require lateral thinking, should reward true innovation. Where someone looks at a problem and thinks "I have another way". And it's a way that's never been visited before. And if you asked a dozen engineers, they wouldn't think of it, and if then shown the alternative would either dismiss it as ludicrous or scratch their heads, smile and say "cool".

Things like the jet engine, the transistor, Dyson's cleaner, the biro, the paperclip. These deserve patents, not doing what almost any software engineer would have done given the option.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[thebdj]

The Microsoft Patent in question is totally different then the Creative one. The patent in question there concerns an input method for a device and if you look at the Microsoft patent you will see a device that looks oddly like an iPod. This is of course assuming I remember the patents correctly.

Don't worry, It's the US Patent Office

[Biff Stu]

Nobody checks for prior art anyhow. Just make sure that it goes to 12 and you'll be OK! The last time I checked 12 is higher than 11. I'm sure that the patent examiners would see this as an innovation.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[daranz]

I find it strange that iPod would manage to hold the 90% of the marketshare with its features alone, at this point. There's other DAPs out there, that offer similar or sometimes even better features, and yet, if you asked your average Joe what alternatives to iPod he knows, he'd look at you funny and say "iPod nano?"

IPod not only managed to deliver a better product, they also managed to popularize it... Before iPods became popular, no mp3 players were popular - no flash player reached the level of popularity of ipods. IPods became "hip" and "cool" and that's part of their success. And that's also why Creative doesn't like Apple.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[freshman_a]

1. Blatantly rip off iPod.

uh, no...

the Nomad Jukebox was shipping about a year before the iPod was announced. Creative filed for the patent in January of 2001.

i hate this patent BS as much as the next guy, but Creative did not rip off the iPod.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Surt]

Mod the parent up. The grandparent is way off (and +5 moderation for bad information to boot!). It is far more realistic to say that ipod ripped off nomad, since nomad was released first.

Oppertunistic greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative labs yet another predatory company that does not deserve the prividege of doing buisness. When they used their legal muscel to to take John Carmack's work for private use without compensation by way of an illigitimate patent, I decided to never buy anything from them again.

They are repeatedly patenting ideas that do not belong to them. Worst of all, these patents should never have been granted, and never would have been granted by a competent patent office. They are showing nothing more than oppertunistic greed.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[mcho]

The background image (of water dropping and making ripples) is the same background of a Sony DVD player that I have...is anything original in this thing?

Subject Goes Here

[viewtouch]

Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property.

To that I say, Hopefully, this will be friendly, but Creative has to respect the idea that a patent based on the idea of pushing a button to navigate a hierarchy on a display and the idea that this can be considered to be anybody's property, intellectual or otherwise, is total bullshit.

people have to ...

[WickedLogic]

Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property.

Do we eh? intellectual property is a term thrown around by so many people that want money for anything they create. These people would not be able to say such stupid things, if they were reduced to talking about copyright, trademarks, and patents. I.P. refers to those, not some magical new thing that is going to make you money. We are being out performed by other regions of the world now, and these people are so desperate to try and claim they have a right to thought and design, just because... and that right includes money.

My favorite is when some calls it intelligent property, people need to think about getting stuff done and making the world a better place, not nickle and diming humanity. especially over something as superficial as an interface.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[i_should_be_working]

No. When the Nomad was only 6GB the ipod didn't exist. When the ipod did exist, at only 5GB, there were already 20GB players from several companies.

That tears it!

[wcrowe]

I've decided to finally place my patent on a "device which presents the user with a selection of paper sheets, arranged in logical order, upon which words and/or pictures are imprinted". Everyone who manufactures, sells, or reads a book owes me money. My intellectual property must be respected!

Some Reason in the Crowd

[thebdj]

US Patent Number 6,928,433

I do not have the time to analyze the claims right now, but if you people would really enjoy an attempt to explain why this may not be as evil as you think then please let it be known by replying.

Please note the application was filed in Jan. 2001 which pre-dates the iPod's release by about 9 months. It is important to note the claims are limited the device being a portable media player. I would be interested to see, however, if their use of the term track (and keeping it fairly tied to the idea of music) might not limit their idea to only music. It is something that would need to be tested in court at this point, but it could be an "unintended" limitation on them.

Re:Some Reason in the Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Both my laptop and my PDA are a portable media players. They predate both the iPod and Creative's patent by many years. Both let me view files in general, and music files in specific, in a heirarchy.

The patent covers an obvious idea. It does not matter what it is applied to. Anyone who says otherwise is either a layman, not a critical thinker, or a shill for Creative Labs.

Re:Some Reason in the Crowd

[wilcoxon]

The patent being limited to portable media players is really irrelevant. Using hierchical menus for navigation and what organization to use to store files on a media player are trivial and obvious extensions of existing technology (ie non-patentable). Using them on a media player is no different than using them on a computer (after all, what is a portable media player? it's a special-purpose computer) and there is nothing in the Zen or iPod navigation systems or file storage systems that hasn't been in computers for 10-20 years (or more).

Re:Some Reason in the Crowd

[thebdj]

Have you done much patent litigation? I will assume not since the word trivial is not in any patent lawyers vocabulary, a limitation is a limitation and if it get their client a patent they will fight for it. I also assume this because you mention them as obvious extensions of existing technology; however, you would also know that obviousness is not a simple matter of, oh I did it on element X so surely it is the same on element Y.

The key here is the patent is actually fairly specific and considering the litigation of the patent took four years, it would probably be safe to assume there was a lot of conflict between examiner and attorneys over the originally filed case. You can even view what should be the original listing of claims in the published application 2002/0147728.

While it might seem trivial to you to perform the claimed functions, the prior art obviously did not reflect this. Taking a present invention and further limiting that invention into a form of improvement or into a new or specialized function is what a great many patents are today. The computer mouse has not changed by leaps and bounds, it is still an encoder for movement and two buttons with a possible other encoder for the optional scroll wheel. Does this mean that there should be no patents for optical mice since optical encoders existed before and were used to measure motion? What about keyboards that instead of using physical keys employ a touch only method where there would be no mechanical pieces? A patent surely existed before any such keyboard for a button operating in that manner, does it instantly become obvious for someone to do it with the keyboard? Afterall, there are keys on a keyboard.

I believe the largest problem with people who complain about issued patents or the patent system is they do not understand the terms they use. Many people throw around the words obvious, prior art, and utility like they understand their meaning. The fact is a great many do not and even those who do sometimes find themselves short the information they need to know in order to use them properly. Obviousness is not as easy a devil as it seems, the requirements on the patent office to prove obviousness are quite large. Indeed, a look at the system will show you that the office is setting out to prove you do not deserve a patent placing a great burden on them to find and use prior art, which seems easy enough until you realize not everyone plays nice, especially in the idea of 'Duty to Disclose'.

Re:Some Reason in the Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying this is a reasonable patent or not (IANAL) or what counts as prior art, but it does seem that there are prior hierarchical menus in computers and portable computers specifically to sort music (iTunes predecessor SoundJamMP for example) for playback and heirarchical menus in portable devices (PalmOS apps, maybe Newton?) that precede this.

On the surface, it doesn't look like it's really innovative to me.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous. Creative had out mp3 players long before Apple did with the same interface. There is no "blatant iPod" ripping off here, just another Apple fanboy confused that there exist products and companies outside their bloated, profit-whoring junkheap.

related, yet different

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't intend this to be flame bait ...

How many of you vote?
And of those you who actually vote, how many of you actually write letters to your representative, or parlementarian?
And of those of you who actually write letters, how many of you actually get involved with your democratice process? Folks, this is where policey gets set, so if you aren't involved, then you don't have all much to complain about.

Re:related, yet different

[wilcoxon]

I vote and write letters to my congressmen/senators (usually when there is a particularly good or (more often) horrible bill going through).

Unfortunately, Congress seems to have decided to leave the patent office alone. :(

Obvious?!?

[headkase]

There are only so many ways to select songs. "Their hierarchal navigation system" looks and smells just like standard window menus (File, Edit, View, ...) to me except instead of using a mouse to generate events (such as up, down, ...) they have buttons. There are only so many ways to do things and if it is so obviously not new why the hell did they get a patent? Really, anyone with a bit of thought would have hit upon something similar!

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[wootest]

The grandparent poster's referring to the look and feel of the M vs the 5G iPod, not the Nomad vs the iPod in general or the first of each one. The M is undeniably looking very similar to the 5G iPod, approaching something that's almost completely identical to the iPod menu-wise (especially when considering earlier models), AND is marketed as basically having the same features "and then some" of the very same iPod model. This is not a coincidence, and it's tough to *not* write this off as a rip-off. It's one thing to follow whoever has the most market share and compare your products to them - that's just smart marketing. This on the other hand is just shameless.

(And obviously, patents of simple interfaces like this are bullshit, no matter who files them - Apple, Microsoft, Creative or my grandma. I'm not one of the apparently many people who believe that Windows should not be allowed to exist because it has a successful GUI, and Apple was the first company to sell computers with successful GUIs in the millions (Xerox didn't). I don't personally mind Creative having intuitive menus, but I reserve my right to get pissed off with a company that does this sort of relative cloning and calls it sunshine.)

Yet another get rich scheme?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Crappy Labs hasn't really learnt anything from SCO?

Creative

[ikejam]

As almost all other patent issues it boils down to a flawed system, one that grants ridiculous patents but we knew that already. repeatedly. sub-consciously by now. though Creative has a bit of my sympathy. I mean before apple totally trashed them, they were producing mp3 players for a long time, which i see as basically a good thing. uhm ok not very slick even though feature rich of a good thing. Along with iriver and all, they were one of the pioneers of mp3 players, w/o drm bullshit, and i felt their pricing was always reasonable. Give them credit also for making popular pcs have soundcards but thats offtopic. I like the patent mess about as much as any other /.er, and this is not a flamebait.

Re:colecovision already did this in the 70's, righ

[The Lynxpro]

"aren't there more important things to worry about than claiming invention rights over on and off buttons and round and square pads? honestly, i've seen this interface already as a CHILD when coleco introduced a rounded dial-pad interface on the colecovision game console...anybody see coleco going after apple and others? no. why? not sure, are they all dead over there?"

Uhm, the numeric keypad on the ColecoVision/ADAM was not round. And that was not a Coleco exclusive anyway; the Intellivision and the Atari 5200 (and later the Atari Jaguar) also featured numeric keypads on their gaming controllers. So how is that relevant to the Apple vs. Creative discussion?

Any filesystem with nested directories.

[hackwrench]

i.e. any non-trivial filesystem.

IDIOTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do all of you assume that they are stealing it from Apple. They had it before Apple.

Just because you identify that navigation with Apple... doesn't make it Apples!

If Creative patented it... then they should do everything within legal patent law to get whatever amound of money they can out of Apple and theres no reason why they shouldn't.

Re:IDIOTS!

[2nd Post!]

Apple had implemented their 'column view' interface as far back as 1986 in NeXTStep. Did you forget that Apple IS NeXTStep now?

Creative did not have anything implemented even close in 1986.

Re:IDIOTS!

[MOGua]

Zen Patent - U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433: "Automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata"

Re:IDIOTS!

[2nd Post!]

What, a file name is not metadata?

The name is an attribute describing the file, but is not actually the file itself; the name can be changed without actually changing the data in the file.

So if you had any folders with names, and files with names, and viewed them in column view, you have a hierarchical organization of DATA automatically sorted by metadata; name. Of course you could have folders and folders of music files, and then you'd have music organized by the column view.

Of course I don't remember that Creative actually implemented any hierarchical categorization by metadata when my co-worker had an original Nomad Jukebox; by metadata I mean ID3 tags. What I do remember was that Creative sorted files by folder, name, and playlist; so if I am right and folder name and file name are metadata, then column view folder name and file name is meta data.

Re:IDIOTS!

[MOGua]

Yes, you do have a hierarchical organization of DATA sorted by metadata. But, the viewer did not AUTOMATICALLY create it, it is simply parsing a table.

I am sure the 'column view' interface in NeXTStep reads from some sort of file allocation table on the HDD (like MFT on Windows). The application itself did not automatically create this table (The OS creates and maintains it), it is parsing this table of data and displaying it in a different way.

If the 'column view' interface did create the hierarchy automatically by reading each "item" on the HDD (folders, files, or shortcuts) then we are talking. (it would have taken forever because each time it is started, it has to scan the entire harddrive)

On the other hand, the Zen Patent describes the process how the player creates this hierarchical categorization of music (thus the "Rebuilding Library" during the reboot after synching)

It doesn't matter if the Nomad Jukebox used the "Zen Patent" or not (firmware update?) Creative still applied and scored the patent before Apple.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[richlv]

i haven't seen nomad/ipod in real life ;), but erm...

"nested menus" ?

one-click shopping ?

well, maybe i should try patenting scrollbars in usa. this might just get through...

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[krakelohm]

I am no leagal eagle for sure, but isnt there an issue that they waited this long to try to inforce the patent?

Individuals have Rights

[cheesedog]

Societies don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

You are absolutely correct about human rights, but wrong about patents. Patents are not a right, but rather a restriction on the rights of others. A patent is a government enforced monopoly over the implementation of an idea (and sometimes, unfortunately, over the idea itself). And forced monopolies are not rights, but rather the taking away of rights of others.

What you do have, as a natural right, is the right to create. That right is pre-society, pre-government, pre-law. It is only when government comes into play that patents can exist, otherwise who will prevent all but the patent holder from excercising their right to create?

Some of the first "patents were granted on manufacturing salt, soap, glass, knives, sailcloth -- things that people had first created many centuries (or even millenia) before, and that until the time of grant, could be made by anyone with the resources and knowledge to make them" (from this post).

Re:Individuals have Rights

[shawnce]

"A patent is a government enforced monopoly over the implementation of an idea" as long as you then proceed to document said implementation/idea in the public domain so that others can benefit from your implementation/idea when they attempt to develop their own. ...at least that was the original intent of patents.

Their patent will be invalidated

[utexaspunk]

103 of the Patent Act of 1952 says that an invention may not be patented if

the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

Who, among designers, engineers, and inventors with the skill to design an MP3 player, wouldn't think of using a heirarchical menu system?

Remember Aureal!

[10Ghz]

Whenever I hear Creative spokesdroids say something, I'm immediately reminded of Aureal and the fate they faced. So Creative wants others to "respect it's IP". It's too bad that Creative has done nothing to earn any respect. They are scum, and anyone with at least one working brain-cell will steer clear of them.

Why would you do this, Creative?

[tomthebomb]

The patent system is ridiculous, no doubt about it.

However, in order for change to happen, the lawmakers need to know of the blasphemy of our current patent system. Your lawmakers do not read Slashdot, but you do. Write your lawmakers and tell them what you think about ridiculous patent disputes such as this one. Creative may own this patent, but it's just an extension of previous patents. It's not really a new idea as it is an old idea using buttons.

The GUI has been around for years, and countless companies have copied it. So what gives Creative Labs the right to walk around and say 'Oh, this is ours!' when it's really an extension of a menu-based GUI. The only new thing it does is use a button for navigation. Files and folders have been around forever, and they will always be around. Windows and Mac OS have all used hierarchical file systems at one point in time.

There's tons of prior art on this patent.

It's also known Creative is an IP whoring company. Creative has bought out so many competitors (Aureal, Ensoniq, et al.) and pursued a lot of legal action against other soundcard manufacturers that even dared to infringe on Creative Lab's patents. We're lucky EAX2 is even available nowadays.

I for one would love to see Creative buried in the ground.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Archos Jukebox. 20Gb and smaller than a CD player. kicked arse at the time.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

About DOS 3, wasn't it?

Creative history of abusing patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone remember the dispute with John Carmack, in which they decided to enforce a software patent covering a shading algorithm just as Doom 3 was about to ship... unless he added enhanced support for their sound card? He was forced to relent.

Re:Creative history of abusing patents.

[kimvette]

His correct course of action would have been to:

1. Countersue Creative
2. Detect Creative products, if detected, disables sound in DOOM3 and display a splash screen proclaiming Creative to be a bunch of dips**ts

Respect for IP?

[supabeast!]

"...but people have to respect intellectual property."

If respect for intellectual property is something Creative holds so highly, why are they trying to enforce a patent for something that they didn't invent?

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very far back indeed. In 1945, a guy by the name of Vannevar Bush published an article called "As We May Think" in the Atlantic Monthly. In it, he describes a device called a "memex" which is thought to have forseen the web (among a number of other things). This device also incorporates a heirarchial menu system to navagate documents. It's quite the classic paper, and I would encourage anyone with an interest in either the history of computing, or Human-Computer Interfaces to read it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush

The memex is described on the fourth page at this link, but the whole article is worth reading.

What does Creative say about their new design?

[aychamo]

I would love to see how Creative would answer this question: "What do you have to say regarding why your new MP3 player looks almost identical to the iPod?"

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent #6,928,433 ,dubbed the "Zen Patent", basically covers any heirarchical category structure on a portable music player.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Pantero Blanco]

You're thinking of trademarks. IIRC, patents and copyrights don't have to be constantly enforced to stay valid.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[daveschroeder]

I'm talking about the video iPod. Everything Creative copied has nothing specific to do with a hierarchical menu system, and if you don't see the Zen Vision:M as a complete and total ripoff of the current iPod (which was what I was referring to; it's official name is just "iPod", not "iPod video", so I said "iPod"). Now, if you say that all of those things are just natural features for a portable media player, then I'd say so are hierarchical menus. If anyone is ripping someone off here and trying to capitalize on someone else's success, I'm sorry to say that it's Creative, not Apple.

Huh? Gnome is based on Win9X?

[ratboy666]

Gnome is based on Win9X? That would be a BIT strange. Gnome /uses/ X11, which is in turn based on older technology, Win9X isn't even slightly in that roadmap. Gnome is /based/ on CORBA.

Ratboy

Re:Huh? Gnome is based on Win9X?

[Weedlekin]

Everything in computing is based on something from Microsoft. A tiny sprinkling of the milestones that those innovate(R)(TM)ive fellows at MS have made to the world of computing follow: Babbage's difference engine was actually based on the Microsoft's Differentiator(TM), which Gates and Allen were marketing in the 1780s (little known fact: Ada Lovelace was having a secret affair with Gates, and was the real inventor of Microsoft BASIC); electro-mechanical tabulators were copies of the MS Tablows system; Colussus was a rip-off of Colusdos; the Manchester Baby of MS Babcel; UNIVAC plagiarised VALVEDOS; and UNIX was a direct copy of XENIX.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[alanQuatermain]

In a reply both to the parent and the GP, it's probably worth noting that Creative wasn't exactly the first to implement this sort of thing either: arguably it's actually a NeXTStep thing.

In any case, even if Creative's patent is on the first use of that 15-year-old (at the time of the Nomad, 11-year-old) browsing method on an MP3 Player, then -- all talk of meritless/obvious patents aside -- I think Apple should get the benefit of the doubt since their interface for the iPod is so obviously the same column view used in the Finder on OS X, and in NextStep before it.

I mean, it's patently obvious that the interface from the iPod is nothing but a port to an MP3 player of the existing interface to their computers. I mean, that's got to count for something, even if only to illustrate that the Creative patent shouldn't have passed the non-obviousness filter. I mean, if I can file a patent today which uses someone else's idea on a new device, and then use that to stop said company using *their own idea* on a similar device, then ...

Shit, I don't even have the words. And I know lots of words.

To Creative:

It looks like you lost the MP3 player war. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. I had a Nomad when they first came out. Nice piece of kit, although it used to take a hell of a long time to start up, and a long time to go through the library putting things into the 'current playlist' so I could play them. It was okay, though, and I liked it. However, the iPod beat you. It was fluid, simple, and fast. It looked nice, and rested in my hand nicely. It was the form & function that was needed for the type of device it was, and you didn't think of it first.

So, stop kicking your legs in the air and screaming, and get up of the floor. Mummy isn't going to buy you sweets. In this case, Mummy is more likely to take away what sweets you have, and give you a round thrashing in the process.

However, you make good sound cards (although I've not used them since my last Windows PC got stolen five years ago, but they were good then, and I'd assume they still are now). So, what I'd suggest is that you take that expertise and you make a rackmount wireless music receiver, so I can stream music to my hifi stack. Make it so that the rack jobbie can browse my music collection remotely, too. While you're there, you could do a remote, the size of the iPod nano, with a little screen so I can navigate through said music comfortably from my chair. There's not been a lot of good consumer-level activity on that front, so you've got a chance to really shine there. You can do good things. Just concentrate, expend some effort, and off you go.

Lying on the floor kicking and screaming won't do it though. You'll just stand up eventually to find you've been left behind. Take it from someone who knows -- I kicked, and I screamed, and my mum just got into the habit of walking off. I'd follow, then lie down and scream a bit more. She'd just carry on without me. All the fuss just made sure I wouldn't ever get what I wanted. Don't make the same mistake.

-Q

Is it really so binary?

[Infonaut]

Clearly they are not serving their purpose, and should be abolished.

The state of California's criminal laws are flawed. Therefore we should get rid of them.

The American electorate voted in George W. Bush. Therefore we should no longer hold elections.

The USPTO has many internal problems, some of which stem from how the office is funded, some from the pressures on patent agents, and some from rulings outside the control of the patent office itself. Does that mean that patents themselves are no longer serving their purpose? We see almost daily evidence of the limitations and problems of the patent regime as it is currently implemented, but to me that shows that the system needs to be reformed, not eliminated.

If you think the deck is stacked against small innovators now, think about what would happen if patents were elminated altogether. The big players would be free to utterly crush would-be competitors. A properly functioning patent system protects the little guy and the big guy alike. No patent system leaves the little guy completely defenseless.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[tepples]

the original Nomad used a series of nested menus for navigation

So did any laptop PC running Windows 98 operating system and Winamp media player. I seem to have ripped apart this patent in the last article that Slashdot ran about it.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[JLF65]

In fact, a COMMON tactic in the patent world is to get a patent on an IDEA with no hardware to back it up, and keep quiet about it. Then wait for some big company to make a product similar to that idea, then wait a little more until it's making big money, then come forward with the patent demanding a slice of the pie. I would go so far as to say that is how MOST patents are used.

Laches

[tepples]

You're thinking of trademarks. IIRC, patents and copyrights don't have to be constantly enforced to stay valid.

True, trademark law imposes the most stringent enforcement requirements among the three mentioned legal traditions, but patent law and copyright law still recognize a laches defense.

Don't both use Portal Player?

[aristotle-dude]

If so, how can Creative claim a patent on technology both companies licensed from a third-party?

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[twollamalove]

QUOTE:
(Not to mention that the Zen weighs 20% more: 5.8 vs 4.8 oz)

But what's missing?

Elegant integration with software (mostly iTunes, but also things like iPhoto, iMovie, and so on).

That, and about 92% market share.

Well, it is missing a sub-2 hour battery life after a few months use.

Re:Stay away... or complain to them loudly...

[AbraCadaver]

I also bought a Zen Touch, and I have to agree the "touch" part is a pain in the ass. The sensitivity setting mentioned in a post below only adjusts how sensitive it is to touch, NOT how quickly it moves menus. And yes, they DO have a firmware update, but guess what, you HAVE to be using media player 10 to use it - some choice bits from the "more information" tab for this new firmware:

# This firmware is only for players that are used with Windows XP Service Pack 1 or Service Pack 2 (SP1 or SP2) and Windows Media Player 10.
# Be sure to back up all the audio and data files on your Zen Touch before installing this firmware update as all content will be lost when you install the new firmware. After installing the PlaysForSure firmware, use Windows Media Player 10 to restore audio and/or data files to your player.


Seriously, wtf? I pay $300 for this thing, and Creative refuses to allow me to upgrade it UNLESS I'm willing to install Media Player 10's DRM crap AND only if I'm using XP? (Media Player 10 provides compatibility with the "PlayForSure" DRM that the new firmware incorporates). I don't use downloadable music services, I buy all my own CDs and legally rip them myself. I have no need for this stuff to be forced down my throat so they can squeeze some hopefull sales from compatibilty with Napster and Audible.com - I mean, are they actively trying to push people towards the iPod?

The only good thing that comes out of this is, hey, they just screwed themselves out of using the DMCA to disallow firmware reverse engineering - which, you are allowed to do for "compatibilty" if I remember correctly. This thing doesn't work with my linux distros, and it's apparently incompatible with most people, given how goofy the touch device works. I can't use Win2000 with this either, if I decide to upgrade the firmware. Sounds like a compatibility problem to me!

Until that happens, I'm letting Creative know I could have just as easily bought an iPod, instead of watching Creative Labs take my money and light it on fire while laughing in my face! Maybe any other dissatisfied owners out there should do the same.

Correction: they ripped off the iPod

[kollivier]

I love how they claim this isn't a ripoff of the iPod video.

Its too bad the iPod's form factor has pretty much been the same since coming out in 2001.

You're right. They should have said it's a ripoff of the iPod form factor because, as you just said, it's been the same since 2001. And if you look at the Creative design, it's *obvious* they changed the form factor in small ways to keep from cloning the iPod. I don't have a hard time believing the feature sets were mostly coincidental, but I DO have a hard time believing that was the case with the interface.

They have to try

[UtSupra]

They are trying to get one cent for each iPod sold, thinking that Apple will prefer that, rather than taking the time to sue them out of existence. They are wrong. Big companies patent things in order to protect from patent suits. Can you imagine how many patents Apple has that Creative has violated one time or another? This will go away, quickly...

Increase moderation points on parent post

[neccoant]

This is actually funny.

Winamp == prior art

[tepples]

I do not have the time to analyze the claims right now, but if you people would really enjoy an attempt to explain why this may not be as evil as you think then please let it be known

I analyzed them last time, and my verdict was that Winamp was prior art.

Please note the application was filed in Jan. 2001 which pre-dates the iPod's release by about 9 months.

And post-dates the installation of Winamp on my first laptop by about six months.

Re:Winamp == prior art

[thebdj]

Your analysis ignores the fact that a portable media player would be a well-defined term. In the specification they define the portable media player which acknowledges they know the limitation of the term for use in the patent. Without seeing the full record of the prosecution, I can only assume the arguments made for the "display screen" are that it that each "display screen" is considered to be the full view of the display on the device.

Something being ignored is the limitation of a portable media player. You construed this into a laptop, but I will still argue that the term would have been defined in the art to exclude such an item. Some of your analyses also slightly misinterpret the claims. For example, claim 2 would be closer to Open Folder, Selecting Folder Two and clicking Play all Files in Folder Two.

I do have to give you some credit though, most people around here usually just yell foul and do not even bother to read the claim, let alone analyze it, but then again most people do not know how to properly analyze a claim.

Re:Winamp == prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is this prior art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Jukebox

Development started May 1998, shown at Comdex November 1999, I bought one of the 4GB models in 2000! This was literally the first hard drive based portable MP3 player on the market and it does use a hierarchical system for browsing content. (The hierarchy is limited to 3 levels: set -> disc -> track)

There is a patent covering the PJB-100 that essentially deals with power management. (In other words, how they managed to get 12 hours of battery life from a hard drive based device with a relatively small battery.)

Re:Winamp == prior art

[bit01]

Something being ignored is the limitation of a portable media player. You construed this into a laptop, but I will still argue that the term would have been defined in the art to exclude such an item

Apart from size a portable media player is a strict subset of the functionality of the average general purpose personal computer and is thus obvious to somebody versed in the art.

The fact that the USPTO are not competent enough to recognise even that simple fact speaks volumes about their general competence on anything to do with computers. I would've hoped the USPTO has not sunk so low as to award patents on size differences alone.

... most people do not know how to properly analyze a claim.

The "proper way" to analyze a claim being the USPTO's way no doubt. This self serving tunnel vision by the USPTO and people like you is a large part of the patent problem. Your other posts here about patent terminology are equally blinkered.

Please try to understand: most people here know the mechanics of how the USPTO works. Despite your attempts here to baffle people with bullshit so they, and you, miss the bigger picture.

The bigger picture here is that vast numbers of patents (=monopolies) are being awarded that protect nothing but a lawyer's pay check and are acting as roadblocks to innovation, competition and the free market. You can bullshit all you like about the mechanics of patents but the bottom line is you know it's true.

---

Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.

Re:Winamp == prior art

[thebdj]

Apart from size a portable media player is a strict subset of the functionality of the average general purpose personal computer and is thus obvious to somebody versed in the art.

Based on your argument a laptop is an obvious subset and shouldn't have any weight in allowability, but there are definitely patents drawn to that narrower model. The fact that it is a subset of the general purpose PC makes the claims further limiting and means you need to match the limitations of the claims. The only way to use the PC system in the handheld unit is if you have a motivation in prior art to do so.

The fact that the USPTO are not competent enough to recognise even that simple fact speaks volumes about their general competence on anything to do with computers. I would've hoped the USPTO has not sunk so low as to award patents on size differences alone.

They are competent enough to know this and quite possibly even made arguments to this effect during the prosecution of the patent application. Undoubtedly, an electrical/computer engineer, possibly a CS major, worked on this case and performed the search for prior art. Since the case took so long to prosecute, I would not be too surprised if an RCE was performed or if an appeal was made to the BPAI. If the latter is the case it is possible they made the examiner consider the patentable weight of a "portable media player".

The bigger picture here is that vast numbers of patents (=monopolies) are being awarded that protect nothing but a lawyer's pay check and are acting as roadblocks to innovation, competition and the free market. You can bullshit all you like about the mechanics of patents but the bottom line is you know it's true.

Patents disclosure is what makes them good for the public and helps drive innovation. There are ways to protect inventions outside the realms of patents, and they can be much worse in some areas then a patent can be. Patents obviously do not kill competition in all fields as plenty of technologies have plenty of competitors and actually help drive those industries because they seek to improve the prior art patents in order to achieve their own patents on the improvements and release their products. As for the Free Market, it is a world of fiction. Certain economies may be closer then others, but in the present day there is no Free Market economy that is true to the idea. It is an economists wet dream, where supply and demand is king and nothing else matters.

Sim Wong Hoo?

[Luscious868]

Sim Wong Hoo?

Who Flung Poo? Was It You?

Re:Menu System

[Anonymous Coward]

So did XTree Gold by PCTools in the eighties. And probably Midnight Commander before that, and oh, don't forget GEOS and Windows 3.x!

Good Luck Creative!

[rspress]

Microsoft has soiled any chance that you had with this patent. When Microsoft won the suit Apple brought against them about interface elements the judge ruled that things like menus and windows are generic and thus public domain and not protected.

Apple would still win on proof of concept as the have had nested menus on devices long before Creative. Both Macs and the newton was using them long before creative got into the Music Player business.

Re:Good Luck Creative!

[Software]

My understanding was that Apple lost the case because the UI was not protected by trademark. Apple v. Microsoft (don't know the exact case name, sorry) was never a patent case. And patents and trademarks have nothing in common except that they're grouped (with copyrights) under "intellectual property".

Re:Good Luck Creative!

[rspress]

Apple did have a rather open ended agreement with Microsoft about what they could take from the MacOS but the finding was that menus and windows were generic and the case was thrown out on those findings.

Even if you take that out of the equation, Apple did have the menu system on a handheld device that did play sounds, the newton. It was not a music player by any stretch.

Don't you think if Creative had the trump card they claim to have they would have used it by now? What are they waiting for, Apple to rake in the cash during the Xmas season?

If they do play the card sometime and the case is toss, as I am sure it will be, then they have lost. If they keep it to themselves and just threaten to use it without mention a company it my worry one of their competitors into making a deal. I believe that is what they are doing now, shopping for a deal with another player maker.

Statutory Bar

[elysian1]

Didn't Creative say it used a similar menu system in its earlier MP3 players? If it did use a similar system at least 1 year before it filed for the patent, then its patent may be barred. In patent law, if you use your invention in the public or sell it, a one year clock starts in which you must file a patent for that invention. Otherwise, you are barred from patenting that invention. I've read some other posts saying Creative used a similar menu system in its Nomads dating back to 1999. That would clearly be more than a year before it filed this current patent (2001). Thus, Creative's patent may be barred by statute.

Re:Statutory Bar

[Havenwar]

Thats cool. Unfortunatly it doesnt seem like the dudes granting patents bother that much about the background when large companies throw cash and "inventions" at them. It is probable teh situation woudl be cleared up if a case went to court, but it would still take long enough tiem for Creative to ride their patent and use it to scare and dominate smaller competitors, and annoy the larger. (Especially since courts doesnt seem to worry that much about the background when large companies throw cash and "intellectual properties" at them.)

Stupid People

[berenixium]

Bah! Stupid people with too much stupid time on their patent-rubbing hands. Stupid greedy people!

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

people have to respect intellectual property.

So, Creative builds MP3 players, devices on which most content is downloaded from P2P networks in violation of copyright law. Creative profits from this downloading, then demands that other people respect their IP rights?

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[CoderBob]

I wasn't trying to imply that Creative's patent was valid- just dispell this myth that they only started working on MP3 devices after the iPod came out. I think it is a stupid patent.

boycott

[samantha]

No more Creative products in my home or company until they cease and desist this nonsense.

Re:boycott

[shark72]

If Creative's actions surprise and dismay you, you'd be shocked to see the plethora of concepts patented by Apple that would make the average Slashdotter utter a hearty "well, duh." Representing a hard drive as an icon that looks like a hard drive? A patent for a heat sink? A patent for a single window interface? Oh, please. Actually, there's a reason why these sorts of obvious-to-Slashdotters concepts are patented, but this has got to be troubling for the "Creative shouldn't be allowed to patent this! Bork bork bork!" crowd.

I know Apple fanatacism is often quite a humorous thing, but "Apple should be able to get patents for obvious things, and other companies should not" is something I'd put beyond even the most obsessive fanboy.

Patents are for Offense

[Migraineman]

A friend of mine had a wonderful comment about patents - "There's no such thing as a defensive patent. A patent is a sword. You use it to attack other people. Having a patent doesn't prevent someone from sueing you, so it never functions as a defensive element."

The so-called "defensive patents" are just used to deter attacks through the threat of countersuit. Mutually Assured Litigation?

Re:Patents are for Offense

[DaveHowe]

The so-called "defensive patents" are just used to deter attacks through the threat of countersuit. Mutually Assured Litigation?
The problem there is patent farming - once you have a patent, you have two choices - you can either use it as a countersuit, or you can sell it to a patent-farming company who can't be countersued, as they have no product other than the patents themselves. As making an actual product incurs production costs, risks market forces (despite what MS may think, you can't force people to buy your product if they don't need it) and usually requires a distribution chain. by contrast, patent farming requires only an agressive lawyer, and if you *are* an agressive lawyer, can be pretty much a one-man-show with no upfront costs at all.

How is this My Rights Online?

[mikemuch]

How is this My Rights Online?

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has to be really smoking crack to think ipods make up 90 anything percent of harddrive based mp3 sales. With creative, rca, dell, gateway, achos, etc all selling them like mad there is no way apple sells even 50% of all hard drive based mp3 players no more than they sell 90+% of all mp3 players period like they claimed until the last year or so.

Bad for Creative...

[Tharald]

This sort of stuff is bad business for creative, just like the DRM thing is bad for Sony. I will not buy stuff from creative, and I do have a long memory on these sorts of things. I will likewise recommend most people (and yes, people ask me) other people not to buy creative. The sad thing is that nobody will be held accountable. Loss of goodwill is not easy to measure, and executives that does stuff like this do not have to pay for their mistakes. Just look at SCO.

(Of course you could say that the problem is with the Patent system that allows software to be patented, but that does not mean you should abuse it):

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[PacketScan]

Oh Gosh another use that understands the big picture.

Glad i'm not alone on this one.

Creative is just trying to profit from someone elses work. What's new?

Prior art, also just obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

IMNSHO patenting something like a hierarchical menu system is BS. To do so is merely to use a patent to hobble competition, not to protect rights to something actually new and useful and original.

Menus on iPods are not new art. They're old art on a new device - but even the device qua a little computer device is old art. The whole issue is crap.

Right now, probably 99% of the things that I or any of you people might dream up independently is covered by a patent somewhere - whether or not the patent is being used, the idea is being used, or the idea is even useful.

Most things IMNSHO do not qualify as intellectual property... because most things are perfectly obvious to people knowledgeable in whatever area of expertise is being looked at. Otherwise some SOBs will patent eg linked lists, stacks, queues and every other perfectly obvious idea. Then other SOBs will patent eg linked lists of Integers, followed by linked lists of integers, followed by linked lists of cIntegers. Hopefully you get the point.

If not, wait until under the current regime some other SOB files a patent for "...a white box of dimensional ratio approx 10:4:10 (H:W:D) containing works for the purpose of performing programmable calculations and displaying results on a CRT..."

The patent system was not intended to used as an anticompetitive tool.

I say, and without a hint of irony nor an EFF manifesto on my bookshelf and having never ever owned a Che poster or t-shirt: mark my words there will come a day when the current system and collection of patents will be overthrown because it is fast becoming impossible to do or make anything without the permission of someone else's lawyers. It's the same problem in different clothes that led to several notable revolutions in western Europe & North America.

If anyone knows about Interface pantent rights

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's Apple, and judging from its experience with Microsoft, there's no way Creative is going to win.

Zen Micro is GREAT

[badriram]

I use a zen micro, with a subscription service from yahoo, and i love it. Of course that is my opinion, and based on my needs. But i know they are dont make a shody product. It is not like apple does not patent trash cans... and like creative, i do think apple makes good products too... just a little cooler looking than the creative counterparts

Apple - What goes around....

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate bogus patent and copyright cases as much as anybody, but I am a little comflicted on this one. Apple has been as big an abuser of the intellectual property laws as anyone out there. Have people forgotten the "Look and Feel" lawsuits? What goes around, comes around.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[John Nowak]

Creative makes good sound cards? hahahaha

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[sootman]

Yup. When the iPod came out, the Nomad was the gold standard against which it was measured. For about twenty minutes or so, but still. :-)

I just realized--that article is pretty much Slashdot's own "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Mod parent up. :|

[PsychoBrat]

Parent is not a troll! It merely points out the stupidity of begging the question like TFA does, and assuming that the public agrees with their right to hold and persue protection of their patent.

The more correct use of the word in Creative's case should be "patently obvious"!

Yay, another reason to dislike Creative...

[HunterZ]

I'll have to add it to my list: http://yro.slashdot.org/~HunterZ/journal/119625

John Carmack's Reverse

[rsmith-mac]

Great, it's the Carmack's Reverse situation all over again...

Re:John Carmack's Reverse

[^_^x]

They realized that their customer service is nil, and the quality of their products is sinking. (That's putting it lightly! I know two people who have lost motherboards/PSUs to their Audigy 1s!!! I didn't think it was possible until I saw it happen... twice in one year!) So now, they think they can make their money from patent squatting. I think they could have actually had a good run, but if Apple decides to fight it, they may just squish what's left of Creative, with legal fees if not actual victory.

I say good riddance. I loved my Sound Blaster Pro/16/Live (My Ensoniq 32 was a farce though...) but my Nomad Jukebox, DXR3 MPEG board, and really, anything I've seen from them in the last few years, is a bug-riddled crapfest. Several times, for lack of tech support, I've troubleshot problems I'd had with their products, and it's turned out to be a conflict between two Creative drivers. I've sent them both the problems AND the solutions I've had with their products, and they wouldn't act on either, not even sharing the solution with other users! Die, Creative, die...

Re:Apple - What goes around....

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Uh. Apple lost that fight. So, your post makes absolutely no sense.

Hey CREATIVE!

[kimvette]

I have neither purchased nor sold any Creative Labs product ever since you dropped the ball on the SMP compatibility issue in your Live! drivers back in 1998/1999. You flat-out lied, denying the problem despite many folks on the newsgroup and mailing list reporting the exact same fix, and the exact same workaround (booting with the /OneCPU switch or apply CPU affinity hacks to the driver). You didn't acknowledge the issue until late 2001 or early 2002, but by then you alienated many of your higher-end customers. You know, people who actually buy your products.

Anyhow, I would like to mention that I will never, ever buy any one of your products and instead will continue to buy your competitors' products, and also offer your competitors' products to my customers. Why? Because you continue to be scumbags. A GUI is something which is OBVIOUS, there is PLENTY of prior art, and should NOT be patentable. I hope Apple and others countersue you into bankruptcy once your patent is invalidated.

In short: F*** YOU CREATIVE. Welcome to the ranks of SCO and Sony.

Re:Hey CREATIVE!

[kimvette]

Uh, n00b, how is my post off topic?

Re:Menu System

[kimvette]

Actually, NeXT's multicolumn navigation is a direct ancestor of the OS/X and iPod interface. Since NeXT and Apple are one, Apple clearly not only used their look and feel, but the're own PRIOR, EXISTING art in the iPOD. The Zen patent should and will be found invalid if this goes through any judge who is at LEAST a barely functional mentally challenged individual, let alone an intelligent judge with some common sense. That presumes that court justices are not on the take, of course.

Digging their own grave

[melted]

The lawsuit will take five years and 50 million dollars (out of Creative's scarce profits), and at the end it will be thrown out by the judge. Good business strategy, there.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I only listen to original vinyl music played on my $50,000 system with gold plated monster cables. And I throw out my LP after each track because I can hear the scratches after a needle has passed over the vinyl.

Patents have rules...dont they?

[Maleclypse]

I thought that to issue a patent the thing being patented had to be something or at least a new way of doing things. Now if there is already in public use by many different people this way of accomplishing this specific idea then in theory no one should be able to patent it at all as it is now part of the gestalt knowledge of society.

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[drtsystems]

woah ya it is, i didn't notice that the first time through

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

$50k is not required for very high quality sound. Do something like this:

~$700 for Lynx L22 sound card (24 bit/192kHz fully balanced analog IO):

http://www.lynxstudio.com/lynxl22.html

~$1300 for a pair of Mackie HR824 powered monitors (flat response, amazing low end for "small" speakers):

http://www.mackie.com/products/hr824/index.html

So there you have a $2000 very high quality audio setup. (Assumes you already have a PC to plug the sound card into.) I run WinAMP with the MAD full precision MP3 decoder plugin and the low-latency ASIO output plugin with the above noted sound card and powered speakers.

Recently I have been experimenting with LAME encoding and the Foobar2000 player. I like the fact that this combination will preserve the segues on album oriented music (so called "gapless" playback)

I have been doing the encoding on my Powerbook using the Blacktree LAME encoder plugin for iTunes (I swapped out the provided LAME executable for one of the new beta builds so I could try out the "VBR new" settings.)

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[Anonymous Coward]

And before the Creative Nomad Jukebox there was the Compaq Research / Hango Electronics PJB-100. The worlds first hard drive based "high capacity" MP3 player. It used a hierarchical menu system of sorts sets->discs->tracks. Was also the first MP3 player to support "gapless play" of album oriented music. The iPod can't manage to do this 6 years later. No idea if the Creative Labs players can.

Boycott-happy slashdotters take note

[Trogre]

I trust all those who chant "Boycott Sony!" have read TFA and added these jokers to their "do not buy from" list, along with Rambus, Intel, Philips, Amazon and the rest.

Prior art from NeXTStep

[2nd Post!]

Install NeXTStep on a laptop and fire up the file browser.

Make sure it's in column view.

NeXTStep's column view has been around since 1986; on a laptop since at least 1992, maybe later.

NeXTStep was bought by Apple in 1996.

Apple releases the iPod in 2001.

You may not believe that the column view and the iPod menu is the same... but owning both a Mac and iPod and using NeXT machines in college, I can say the iPod hierarchical menu is exactly like the column view in the file browser and now the Finder. That's nearly 15 years of prior art against Creative.

Can't resist... sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative is a rotton apple.
Apple is always very creative.

In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative Labs boss Sim Wong Hoo also states he's been using FlowerPots for a long time and is trying to get the patents of Donald Weder of Highland, Ill. revoked.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/00 41208
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/cash68/romen ewspaper1.jpg

Re:"Creative" seems to be a misnomer...

[welsh git]

The Creative Jukebox looks much better than the plain old Ipod "Fridge"

Anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that some believe that it is immoral to own anything....

Perhaps that's not the argument to make, is all I'm saying.

Thank you! Gave me a grin!

[ratboy666]

Subject says it all. Thanks!