Slashdot Mirror
Creative Sues Apple
E IS mC(Square) writes "Looks like Apple's legal problems are not yet over. ZDNet reports that Creative has sued Apple over their iPod interface. From the article: 'Creative Technology said Monday that it has filed two legal actions against Apple Computer, charging the popular iPod infringes on its patented technology. ... In both cases, Creative says that the iPod and iPod Nano infringe on a patent the company has for the interface in its Zen media player, a patent granted last August.'"
Finally the cruel injustice wrought on Creative will finally be rectified.
\.
It's sad, but it's becoming a predictable reality that corporations prefer to litigate rather than innovate. It's especially true of companies who are circling the drain. (SCO, anyone?)
Ok, I know that patents can take a while to get thru the maze that is the US patent office, and I also know of submarine patents, but does Prior Art mean anything anymore?
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
a patent granted last August.
I hate patents as much as the next guy who isnt recieving royalties. But I am guessing the patent in question might have been applied for years ago. How long does this process take?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
If you can't beat them, sue them.. And give me 33%.
At a bar, I don't go right for the 10, I go for the 6 and drink until she's an 8.
I haven't followed MP3 player chronology very closely. Didn't the iPod come out before the Zen player?
And if this patent was granted last August, why wait until now to sue?
Seems to me that creative is just ticked they got trounced in a market they originally had been doing well in.
Humorless sig goes here.
I thought that patent protection had changed. Instead of 17 years from issuance, it is now 20 years from first application. I am pretty certain I read about that change taking place in order to stop people from milking the system by filing an application and then repeatedly ammending it, effectively lengethening the period of protection.
So the bigger question is, "When was the application filed?"
I firmly believe the only way for us to be free of the insanities of the patent system
is going to be for things to get so unbearable for the big players
start clamoring for reform.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Not very surprising. Will probably be modded flamebait, but..
Creative is used to having a hold on their market and killing off competition (ie, SoundStorm) by buying out companies or technologies they depend on. The result is them making sub-quality products and incremental upgrades that are *just* good enough for people to bother, and selling them for top dollar. And then shafting the customer with bad support on all but their latest product line.
So I can see why they don't know how to play fair and compete. They don't know how to handle Apple any other way.
The column view (browser view) has been in NeXTSTEP since 1989. Apple acquired NeXT in the mid-90s. I do not say that Apple holds patent on it nor invented it (Xerox Smalltalk class browser?). I just want to say, that the column has been here for a while and it was somehow related to Apple too.
:-) It is the same to drill-down by region, store and date or by genre, artist and album. They are just different terms.
Moreover! Filtering data using a column view is also quite old. It has been used in data-warehousing as way of drilling-down. In the music player it is nothing more, nothing less: it is drilling-down through your song database. Just ask Bill Inmon or Ralph Kimball
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
What is the patent for though? Can't say that I think the UI is that similar, and in those regards that it is, it seems like quite obvious things, which I don't think should be covered by patents (and probably isn't anywhere else than the US). Or am I missing something?
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
I think it's telling the Creative Nomad navigation referred to has been renamed the 'Zen Patent' (their current line) by Creative. Along with going only after Apple at this point (other makers have similar navigation), it seems like sour grapes to me. Creative CEO Sim Wong has repeatedly shown he has no idea how to manage this space, publically bad mouthing Apple, while Creative sales slide and profits sink. Finally when Creative decides to do TV spots, this is what they come up with??? http://www.creative.com/tvc/
This seems to be a continuation from stories posted late last year. Here's a link to an article about this very topic posted September 1, 2005. http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Ar ticle/ArticleID/47566/windowspaulthurrott_47566.ht ml
My bet: after four rounds it will be 2:2 and they will solve it out of court.
And in the same time, I welcome our ligitation overlords...Ohh crap, I think I will go to China.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
After a little searching, I believe this is the patent.
United States Patent 6,928,433
Goodman , et al. August 9, 2005
Automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata
Abstract
A method, performed by software executing on the processor of a portable music playback device, that automatically files tracks according to hierarchical structure of categories to organize tracks in a logical order. A user interface is utilized to change the hierarchy, view track names, and select tracks for playback or other operations.
Inventors: Goodman; Ron (Santa Cruz, CA); Egan; Howard N. (Capitola, CA)
Assignee: Creative Technology LTD (Singapore, SG)
Appl. No.: 755723
Filed: January 5, 2001
Didn't the early ipods have no queue list function? Perhaps its this they are talking about.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Do American patent laws have any concept of prior use? It seems almost anyone can patent anything these days and sue anyone for any reason. Would it be possible for me to take out a patent on replying to posts and ask everyone who replies to this for royalties ?
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
I'm posting AC because I don't want anyone to get into trouble. Anyways, this is the story I heard.
Jobs had the creative pres in his office. Apple was going to have creative make the original ipod. Conversation went something along these lines.
Jobs: We like the idea of the nomad jukebox, but it's really ugly.
Creative pres: Apples suck.
Creative apple lover: Boss you just told jobs apple sucked!
A few months later the peon got fired, then rehired to work the booths at fry's electronics. He had a really good position at creative before this, but supposidly inside creative it is a very PC (personal computer, not politically correct) enviroment. Basically anyone even breathing the word Apple gets the shaft.
True story, might have gotten some facts wrong but it pretty much sums it up.
Lots of people are referring to the column browser in NeXTstep (or the Lisa). That's all fine and good, but probably irrelavent.
What is much more relavent as prior art is the empeg car. That had hierarchical playlist menus in '99, which beats the priority date for this patent by a year.
However, that IP is now held by SigmaTel, and their largest customers are Creative and Apple (no idea which order)
Prior art doesn't have to be held by the defendant in a patent suit...it just has to exist. This patent won't hold, and I'm a little surprised that Creative doesn't know better.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Right, so when can Apple sue Windows for making a GUI file system for their OS? Eat shit, Creative. If the judge files for the plaintiff in this, I will personally kick him in the teeth.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
It's theft of ideas, before this patent was issued anyone in the USA could use a hierarchical menu to organise their music. After this patent is issued they have that taken away from them.
Since the patent is only supposed to be issued to genuinely new and non-obvious ideas, its theft.
In this case it's Creative of Singapore, attempt to steal Apple's right to hierarchically organise its music.
(Hasn't worked out for SCO though; either because they didn't really have a case or because their lawyers weren't good enough to pull it off - depends on how corrupt you believe the system is)
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Reminds me of the time Creative sued Aureal for making A3D compatible with EAX. Aureal won the case but the cost of defending themselves ended up bankrupting the company. Next they bought Sensaura who provided nVidia, VIA, etc. with 3D support (soundstorm for nForce2) and killed the technology. They have done everything in their power to protect their precious EAX even though it is inferior to traditional home theatre suround sound.
Luckily Auzentech is growing and their technology is improving greatly. The Auzentech Xplosion 7.1 does Dolby Digital Live and DTS Connect. This card sounds incredibly better than any Creative card I have ever heard.
Creative mp3 players sucks. I had a Zen, interface useless, ended up throwing it out.
At least, that is my theory.
I really doubt this is a money-grab-patent-trolling attempt, rather it is more likely Creative wants access to iTunes as settlement. That means being able to use Creative's players in iTunes and also the players being able to play FairPlay protected content.
If that is what Creative is gunning for, then I hope they get what they want as it would be a good thing for all of us.
I have a Creative Zen Nomad, which a friend sold me for a bargain.
The menu interface is obvious. It's what I'd have built myself.
And even though I own a Zen, I've got to say that the iPod does it much better.
I hope that every slashdotter boycotts your products for this.
"Creative says that the iPod and iPod Nano infringe on a patent the company has for the interface in its Zen media player, a patent granted last August"
:) hehe
Oh now that's what I call balsy
All the Creative media players I have tried have crap interfaces that try to be pictures of 'real' appliances with tiny unlabelled buttons. Also, the applications are slow and bog down the computer, so you can't work and play a CD at the same time.
These are the number one reasons I choose Apple iPod over Creatives products - I couldn't trust them to provide good software for their MP3 players based on past experience with their sound card application bundles.
Forget about the fact that the iPod's interface has remained constant (and nothing like the patent in question) since inception.
Just sit and laugh at the marketing retardation that is Creative. Right now they manufacture and sell TWENTY-FOUR mp3 player models. Each model has multiple sizes as well. Haven't they heard of brand dilution?
It's a business's duty to thrive by any means necessary, but i think they may have bit off more than they can chew with the Apple fight and with their overcrowded mp3 lineup.
Sorry for the spelling and grammar, been at work for 21 hours. Only 13 more to go :)
USPTO issued a patent for "anti-gravity device"! Enough said. The Quality of their work is secondary as the employees get "bonuses" based on productivity and that means approved patents. One USPTO top level manager was quoted at one time saying that the US Patent office was a patent office, not a patent rejection office. With the US having treaties with other courtries where Intellectual Property of the US is to be respected... if I were sitting in another courtry that was supposed to respect the USPTO and it's granted patents... I would be scratching my head about now and wondering if there was anything "intellectual" working in the minds at all at the USPTO. Software Patents and Business Method patents, the existence of in the US, would also make me wonder about the US and it's "intellectuals". Both sound pretty dumb to me. Maybe to lawyers looking to profit from confusion that results in litigation... it sounds pretty good. To a criminal hitting somone over the head and stealing their wallet also sounds pretty good. Countries of the world should be lining up to invalidate the "intellectual property" clauses in those trade treaties, asap (for their own good and to protect their own minds from contamination brought on by a dirty US process and a very idiotic USPTO)!
Creative's ridiculous UI patent existing in NeXTStep has been well established, but here's a shot of it in an early MacOS beta from 1999.
Ya I'm a girl - do you have a problem with it, bub?
Show me your tits!
Apple has decided to scap it's entire product line and bring out new versions of the I-Pod shuffle in 30 and 60Gb versions. They might also bring out a new Nano without a screen. Company spokesperson said " We fixed the cracking screen issue on the Nano and we're not infringing on Creative's interface patent anymore" They then continued to launch a new portable transportation device called i-skates. Company spokesperson commented: " Hey, If we managed to create a brand new market for modern day walkmans, then surely we can do it for rollerskates as well!"
Creative innovated too. Show me who did they copy the original SoundBlaster from, for example. I also think technically they invented the HDD-based MP3 player, _before_ Apple.
And more importantly the tended to offer products that offer a good bang-per-buck balance. Yes, it's easy to do the "bah, but <insert pro card costing 500$> sounded better or had lower latency" sneer, but from a more pragmatic point of view, Creative did an outstanding job of bridging the gap between pro equipment and the utter crap everyone else was selling.
It's pretty telling that even though virtually any modern motherboard comes with some Realtec or some such sound solution, people still buy SoundBlasters. Because invariably those on-board solutions sound like crap. The signal-to-noise ratio is invariably crap, and often they tend to squeak too whenever anything happened on the bus. Pretty much they amplify any noise and EM interference in the system together with the signal. And having actually tried some, let me assure you that the sound boards based on those Realtek, Cirrus Logic and whatnot chips don't sound any better.
I even went and bought an USB soundcard/headphones combo from Plantronics in my misguided days of trying to boycott Creative, and, honestly, for all the hype about USB being better because of not picking up EM stuff inside the computer, it actually sounded the worst. It was more of a white noise generator than anything else. _And_ it offered _nothing_ except a DAC on the USB bus. There was no way to get any effects out of it, in games or otherwise. There was not even any way to hook it to anything else (e.g., to speakers). Looking back in retrospect, it was just a waste of money, as eventhe lowest end Creative cards cost a lot less and I already had better headphones too.
And a lot of those supposedly better-than-Creative sound cards were just a case of fanboyism and Amiga persecution syndrome. E.g., I've actually had an Aureal Vortex based card -- you know, _the_ one that got everyone up in arms along the lines of "waah!! Creative killed Aureal Vortex!! They're evil!!" -- and frankly it wasn't half as great as it sounded on paper. All that reflection processing and whatnot, sure, sounded like a major technical achievement. In practice most of the time it just made it impossible to tell where the sound is coming from, or WTH did they think it reflected on over there to sound actually louder from there than the original sound. I.e., from the perspective of a gamer who lived or died by hearing the enemy's footsteps or gunfire, it actually was a bigger disadvantage than those no-frills DAC-on-a-card cards.
And so on.
Yes, I know it's slashdot and it's good for your karma to sneer at any corporation -- as long as it's not Apple --, not to mention to rehash variants of the same "alas, the only way to get ahead is to be a monopolist" fatalism and defeatism. But I'll go ahead and say that they (A) innovated plenty, and (B) at least in the sound card market, actually offered good bang/buck.
Where they lost it in the MP3 player market was being utterly clueless about user interfaces and, again, they got beaten in the bang/buck arena. Where Apple got ahead wasn't being the only ones who innovated, but in having an all around good product and placed just right. There were plenty who had ideas before Apple, believe it or not, and there were plenty who had one extra gimmic or advantage over the iPod. Where they failed was invariably having more disadvantages to make up for that. Some were a LOT bigger than an iPod (I still remember some, e.g., Archos ones which were bigger than a 3" hard drive!), some were actually a lot more expensive in the name of some gimmick noone needed, some had a crap user interface, and so on.
Creative's players, for example, tended to be both bigger _and_ have a crap interface, and some had other faults too. It wasn't lack of innovation, it was simply a combination of a flawed perception of the market and flawed execution.
Basically let's st
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Granted it also happens to be very similar to how I arrange music on my PC but that is something I hope you will keep between us or I might get sued.
In away though the zen and the ipod are very similar. Although the zen uses a scrollwheel and the ipod that touch thingy the end result is the same. You scroll through lists and then select items with a button press.
There probably ain't to many different ways to present the files on the device then in this way. But hey, this patent business. Common sense needs not apply.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
this is stypid, apple was there first with their interface and creative comes miles behind. Apple owns their file browser system. It maybe that neither creative or apple did develop that interface anyway. this will be interesting fight.
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
Well, my solution is: no more creative sound cards. M Audio is my next card. Very sexy. Wide product line of professional sound equipment.
l y
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.fami
If you're an investor in Creative get out now.
A company that sues competitors for patent infringement is like a defender who has been beaten so thoroughly that he turns to plead with the referee. You don't do that if you can still reach the ball, even if you genuinely believe you've been fouled. So a company threatening patent suits is a company in trouble. Paul Graham
...but I say right on Creativ. Im sorry, as much as apple have done good things in the world of software, they're beginning to get a bit too much, for too less. i.e I'm outraged that the Nano (in the UK - dont know about other countries) doesn't come with a DC adapter, and you have to fork out over 10 pounds for one.
I own a creative zen touch, and also a nomad, which work absolutely brilliantly - and after using the ipod nano, mini and 20gb photo I have to say Creativ's work on the menu systems etc is much more streamline and faster than anything Apple seem to have come up with.
I'm not just trying to complain because I don't like Apple, like I said I agree they've done some good things, but they're beginning to act like M$ in some ways. To resolve the issue of the Nano being so slow, I find the Linux distro available for it works much better than the standard IPod software.
So again, I say Apple need a good kick up the arse, they need to sort their software out, they're good at it usually and I think if they come up with something original they could do very well at it.
g00p.
. . . one slick ass MP3 player . . . .
. . . pounds my iPod into dust . . .
. . . one kick ass combination . . .
. . . a swift kick in the ass . .
Step away from the Mountain Dew and put your hands over your head where we can see 'em.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Apple fanboys on this site will defend their precious little company no matter what. Its that kind of bias that is making Slashdot is go down the tubes and sites like Digg more and more popular. Taco and co. and going to have to find a way to curb this garbage before these idiots run this site into the ground.
Soundblaster == Adlib with 8 bit audio playback. They just ripped the Adlib design and HWQ interface (which used off the shelf Yamaha OPL FM synth chips, thus no legal issues) and added 8 bit sample playback chip. That was all.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I think the new Diamond rio does ogg too. I have an I river and its pretty sweet. Strangly however I cant find them in stores anymore :(
The SHIT has HIT the fan. And it will stink for years and years. As much as I hate monopolies (ipod), I hate Creative even more. Who's with me?
Itunes is basically an alarmingly poor piece of code that runs essentially like a virus or spyware.
Creative has a sound card monopoly and doesn't write decent drivers for any platform, or any drivers for Linux.
Whoever makes it into the computer audio space and isn't a total asshole like these guys is going to dominate the market. Don't count on Sony, either, their track record is OBVIOUSLY bad.
Anyone wanna go halves with me and start a real computer audio company and bury these guys?
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Patents don't scale. There is a limited number of viable solutions to most problems. When the population gets bigger, and bigger... the likelyhood of someone having patented all of the solutions to a problem increases. The end result is that some problems are impossible to solve for 20 years unless you pay someone a license fee, that is, if they're willing to license their patent.
The patent system will eventually make progress impossible and be removed, but it is going to impede progress for years and years before that happens.
I don't know about unicode tags but Samsung make a whole bunch of devices with OGG support.
This seems like this is a standard tactic of companies that can't compete in the marketplace. It looks kind of like the SCO suit.
Companies such as Apple and Creative all live by the sword when it comes to Intellectual Property, so they can die by it too.
Obviously, without the concept of and ability to protect IP, there would be little to no incentive to research and develop and thus it must exist.
I am not convinced, however, that the balance required - to realise maximum public utility - is realised under the current system.
I think that the current patenting system offers to much protection for broad, in many cases inherent, ideas for too long.
I suppose the fault is partially due to the fact that those who grant these patents cannot be an expert in all fields and cannot therefore easily come to fully considered judgements when it comes to awarding rights.
Seriously, take a look at everything they sell. They're still doing fine, and will continue to do so, I suspect.
In case you have, you have *cough* "Valuable Intellectual Property" and you can try to monetise that by suing the potential infringer with the deepest pockets in sight. How is that different from everyday business? Really, what's the hoopla all about?
And what venue would be more proper to decide if you have rights than a court of law? And why shouldn't you be allowed to appeal to a judge if you believe you have rights?
Please don't forget that private companies are generally required -through their statutes- to maximise shareholder value. Maximise in this context is to be taken in the Mathematical sense. As in execute any policy which is:
(a) permissible (not unlawful) and
(b) generates the highest expected pay-off.
Nobody ever mentioned ethics. Who are we to complain if a company executes a lawful policy? Those rules they play by were made in our name, and that patent they flourish was issued in our name too. Guess who's to blame?
The column view, or something very like it, goes back _at least_ to the Wang OIS (circa 1987).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Anyone wanna go halves with me and start a real computer audio company and bury these guys?
One major problem with this is that the majority of residential end users will choose to buy and use the hardware and software that grants them lawful access to recordings published by the four major record labels.
I think the new Diamond rio does ogg too.
I tried, but the "Digital Purchasing" link on Diamond Rio's web site links to a web site that sells only WMA.
http://www.bfi.org/node/809
I'm pretty sure every music store I've ever been to sorts by Artist > Album > Song. Some even categorize by *gasp* Genre. Oh the horror.
Ok it may be my bad on this one for not reading all the posts, but... Has anyone bothered to look at the dates. Creative got this patent in August of last year??? I do believe that Apple had the iPod out before then. So if I read the dates right then this is just plain old STUPID!!!
This is a good sign for Apple, everyone in the mp3 player market is on their last leg. Creative has long since sucked ass on their mp3 hardware and I suspect their lawyers are equally crappy in comparison to the mighty Apple's. go Apple! Go Intel!
Everyone (at least that I have talked to) who has owned an iPOD as well as a ZEN has said that the ZEN is much nicer than the iPOD (the newer ones at least), and, you don't have to put up with shitty ass itunes and DRM issues. With the ZEN its drag, drop, listen. Yes, I have used both, and chose the ZEN over the iPOD not just b/c of the DRM shit, but because I just like it better. Now if only there was a magic way for all ID3V tags to just work....
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
Creative is sueing Apple b/c the ipod uses their "heirarchically-organized system for navigation"? Are you !@$#^#& kidding me? Since when is a heirarchical organization system something new? How can you patent something that is in the public domain... it's like patenting the way you drink your coffee in the morning, or something equally insane.
I think it's telling the Creative Nomad navigation referred to has been renamed the 'Zen Patent'
Calling the patent "Creative" would be misleading.
It would be interesting if they did, because I think Apple could probably still find ways to litigate against another player that prominently featured a large circular wheel, on the basis of trademark and probably some design patents. I haven't checked recently what sort of design patents they have filed, but I wouldn't be surprised if "Portable music player featuring a selection wheel centrally located on the front face..." or something like that. I think something like this might even have some merit: when you see a player that has a big circular wheel on it like that, most people assume iPod.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Why does everyone seem to forget the PJB? I paid something like $700 to have the first hard-drive based mp3 player, which *surprise* had the same interface as claimed by this patent. How else are you going to navigate a music player with that much music?
I don't want to start a flamewar over this, but why does the iTunes DRM especially 'suck'? As a consumer, I agree that DRM is generally a bad thing, but as DRMs go, FairPlay is pretty friendly:
You can play your track on up to five computers (and as many iPods as you like) at any one time.
You can cancel computers individually or reset your DRM account if you hit the 5 computer mark and are unable to play your music on a new computer. (Handy if you didn't get the chance to deauthorize your computer due to system failure).
You can burn CDs of the music you buy.
The underlying format, AAC, sounds good even at 128kbps. Not OGG good, I'll admit, but good enough for personal use.
Also, how can a DRM be open? An open DRM would be unprotectable, which sort of defeats the point! It'd be nice if the Big Boys were that dumb. Maybe you mean licensed, so other media players could play FairPlay protected files? Right now, the only system I have that can't play iTunes purchases (without circumventing the DRM) is Linux.
The Supreme Court just rebuked the lower courts for mechanically granting an injunction in a patent infringement case without weighing the equities. In simple english, it is no longer possible for a company to claim they have a valid patent and have a court grant an injunction prohibiting use without essentially having a real trial. This means the plaintiff - Creative, here - has lost a huge amount of leverage because the courts would have to consider the effect of an injunction on Apple's business, its suppliers, its customers. The threat of injunction was a huge club to extort higher cash settlements. Apple can now likely fight this out for many years without seeing any noticeable effect on its business. They will likely consider the cost of defense versus the cost of settlement, but that is now much easier to figure with the threat of imposed shutdown so reduced. Apple may think Creative's suit is garbage and they may want to protect their image of innovation and now they can value the costs of pursuing those goals versus the costs of the lawsuit. Bottom line to Creative: this lawsuit became much harder and much more expensive, with a much lower settlement value.
...Old Weird Harold had a continental.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I thought the Zen Vision:m was superior and bought that over the ipod. Better screen for video, built in microphone and FM tuner, slick interface, plus it just sounds better.
Apple has the name recognition and market share with the ipod but they don't have the best technology.
..why make it a standard?
Fair enough. Just don't come crying when a new Costco bulldozes your house via imminent domain. After all, it's the law - right?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
it is very zen that creative has patented the 'zen user interface'. and are now suing apple (which seems to have a good understanding of zen) for violating their 'zen patent'. such a thing is so very un-zen, that it becomes zen again. We are now watching a koan-wreck unfold before our eyes.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
If you like the Zen better and hate iTunes, fine. The nice thing about consumer preferences is that everyone can be right.
To assert, however, that buying a Zen means you don't have to put up with "DRM issues" is just plain silly. As long as you rip from CDs (or get illegal downloads) *nobody* has to deal with DRM on any player. If you really think that using an iPod requires you to use DRM, then you are not anywhere near as familiar with iPod and iTunes as you claim.
As for my own opinion, I don't see that drag and drop via the desktop is any great advantage. Plug in an iPod and iTunes opens automatically. The iPod syncs. Done. If you prefer to drag and drop, then dragging and dropping from an iTunes library to the iPod is no different inside iTunes, except that you have the addition of easy filtering of the music library by keywords. I manage my iPod shuffle through drag and drop. Big deal.
It is impossible (and not necessarily desirable) to come up with a legal code that completely forces moral behavior on businesses.
This does not mean it is inappropriate to get upset at a business for legal but immoral behavior. Perhaps they cannot be prosecuted for it (although if the abuse is bad enough, it might suggest useful legislation). This doesn't mean that no one should be informed of their behavior, or that people shouldn't be bothered by it.
Who are we to complain if a company executes a lawful policy?
Any regulations on large businesses had to actually be written at some point, and more will be written in the future. Morality is applicable to a much wider range of behavior than any fixed law. Complaining about lawful but immoral behavior should be the right of any citizen of a just society.
Now, on the other hand, I think my arguments here might be a little self-righteous for application in the present case, since it is two large and overly-litigious companies yelling threats at each other, and not some company lawfully abusing consumers or something. But the behavior is still disturbing, and just because it's legal doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it.
I am the man with no sig!
Great! Cosby! Classic!
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
The big difference between the MacBook Pro and Macbook is that the macbook has 64 meg video with no options to expand it, while the macbook pro can support a 256 meg video card. I wouldn't expect many gamers to be buying this.
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
Creative seems quite resentful of the ipod's success.
Earlier this year at CES creative was showing off their new Zen vision m. Big posters calling it the ipod killer, events, announcements presentations, etc. I stopped by to play with the unit for a few minutes. Neat looking, but nothing special. When asked what I thought of the unit I replied "Well, it's no ipod" That garnered laughs and chuckles from nearly everybody standing nearby, but the creative reps were clearly not amused.
Patent Filed: 2001/01/05
Ipod Release: 2001/10/23
Which lives a fairly big lead-time for the design, manufacturing, etc of iPods. You don't just come up with a magical design one day and then pop them off the shelves the next. My guess is that it would be the iPod design/manufacture process somewhere prior to Jan 2001. Hopefully Apple's got some records to show that their designs preceeded the lame-ass Creative patent.
A jihad against lawyers wouldn't be a bad idea either
How about a special "patent-abuse" board or something like that. On a failed attempt to use a bogus patent, they can assess you return damages for abuse of the patent system. Lawyers wouldn't be so much a problem if businesses weren't willing to use/abuse them.
The question here is: Is a specialized portable computer any different from a personal computer with respect to the patent in question?
Willy
Perhaps there were just too many dud rounds in salvo #1.
Ironically, this reminds me of Apple's efforts to go up against Windows in the 1990s. Lots of money spent on marketing that didn't work, lots of legal maneuvering to no avail. Windows had such a strong network effect that Apple had to fight not just one competitor, but an entire industry - the Windows market. As the linked article points out, Creative is up against the iPod market, not just Apple.
I don't know what their odds of success will be in the courtroom, and I seriously doubt that most of us really have a clue either. We talk as if we know all the facts, but we don't. We also don't know how well the attorneys for each side will present their cases. So we'll have to wait, probably for months or years, to see how it all pans out.
In the mean time, Apple and Creative will have to keep making new products and keep marketing them to the public. If Creative is relying on the lawsuit to give them success where the market hasn't, they'll probably be disappointed. Apple and Sun can attest to that. Some time next year, I suspect SCO will be singing the same tune as well.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Patents laws, as they are today, are broken.
Most of the rest of the world follows the "loser pays" principle, which helps to discourage questionable litigation. Apparently the American bar doesn't like the idea, though.
For more info see this paper (PDF) Patents and Loser Pays: Why Not? by Solveig Singleton for the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Whoever told you this is probably omitting a lot of the story.
Creative is not, and never has been, a contract manufacturer. Apple would want its name and branding on the product and Creative doesn't do that. They, like Apple, hire other companies to put their name on things.
What might have happened is that Apple approached Creative to create some kind of strategic partership where Apple has a say in the fit, finish, firmware, etc. whereas Creative handles the fiddly details: picks the platform, HD vendors, etc. This would allow Apple to also leverage Creative's supply chain and Creative might be able to find new retail channels for its related products.
Also take into consideration that it was no secret that Apple was shopping around looking for a media portable platform and they weren't going to pull another Newton. The Creative pres might have already felt that his chain was being jerked around and wasn't feeling particularly friendly or enthused by the thought of such a relationship, hence his snippy response.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I'm pissed that the original album, Wonderfulness on iTunes store, doesn't have Measles or Chicken Heart as part of the album. WTF? And where's all the Jethro Tull and Beatles music?
I drank what? -- Socrates
"To assert, however, that buying a Zen means you don't have to put up with "DRM issues" is just plain silly. As long as you rip from CDs (or get illegal downloads) *nobody* has to deal with DRM on any player." Better yet, just use EMUSIC www.emusic.com. Vastly cheaper, more variety, and no DRM whatsoever.
...easynews
Seriously, that's where I got my versions of most of the Bill Cosby albums (...that I own on LP, fwiw; and, no, I don't own a turntable anymore).
Still, my favorite line just might be "how long can you tread water?" Either that or his advice to never let your children outnumber you.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Alot of people (including me) think that Creative's complaint is without merit, but we feel that Apple deserves.... a certain lack of sympathy for playing hardball in the intellectual property games themselves.
Dude, Apple's history is one of not protecting enough if anything... They paid for the Xerox PARC technology, improved upon it, but then failed to adequately market it before it was copied by MS. MS then did a superior job in marketing Windows and thrashed Apple. They then came up with other great idea like the Newton but failed to execute.
Finally with the iPod they are successfully executing... and if I were them, I'd be very protective of my IP and not let history repeat itself like it did with the Mac.
And Creative is coming along trying to take a piece of Apple's business with a patent of a very, very obvious idea. The iPod UI is essentially the same as iTunes, which is essentially the same as every other mp3 player app. The fact that some many people came up with the same interface independent of each other (and years before Creative's patent) shows that such a design is obvious.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Once again we see the apple defenders come out and scream that even though Creative made it first (and better), that Apple -must- have thought of it before anyone else did, and Creative is crap (actually the sound quality of the Creative players is better than the iPod), Creative is evil, and how can they pick on Apple. Blah blah Blah.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. They copied it. Did they infringe on Patents and steal ideas along the way? wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
People here need to stop blindly support companies like Apple and Google. they're corps, they do what they can to make money. They do not have any kind of corner on good behavior. In fact Apple has been known to abuse its employees far worse than say EA -Ever Did-.
Anon cause this will be flamebaited or Trolled for not defending apple.
Sound Quality? I've had an iPod hooked up to a Pioneer VSX-D307 amp with Technics SB-CR77 speakers. The output is shit (from every person's opinion, those that have been in my house) and sounds like hardcore non-EQ'ed crap. I do a better job with my Scion's MP3 player built into their cd offering - they at least offer a decent EQ to compensate for the failings of MP3. Do I see Apple doing this? Do my friends see Apple doing this to this extent? No. Not even my few hardcore Mac friends see this advantage - and they do admit shortcomings in Apple's MP3 player market.
If I want portable mp3 music - I'll stick with my laptop hooked into my Scion's sound system thru an FM modulator. The iPod just pure and simple sounds like crap, not only to my ears, but to my speakers and amps.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Oh yeah, this is slashdot, follow the horde or leave, I forgot individualism is shunned.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
prior art takes on a whole new meaning when it is in the form of a released product. hahah. this has no chance imho. creative must be tanking, time to sell it's stock!
Just because you read it in Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's the whole story.
The Creative Nomad Jukebox (not the Zen) featured a 6gb hard drive and came out in November of 2000. By May 2002, Creative had offered a 20gb model.
The Zen looked most like the iPod, but it wasn't their first player by a long shot. Back in January of 2000 the Nomad and Nomad II were on shelves offering 64 and 128 megs a piece. They ALSO featured the familiar (now patented!) interface. So even if you want to quibble about storage size, the patent protects the interface, which came out WELL in advance of Apple's money hungry, constantly obsolete iPods.
There is also allofmp3 which one can use.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So basically the very fact that today you can have the whole spectrum of sounds including voice overs, realistic-sounding orchestra music (e.g., in SW KOTOR), ambient sounds (e.g., dogs barking or wolves howling), etc, are all made possible by the fact that someone gave PC a DAC.
The internal speaker on the PC already has a DAC. And it can play at sample rates similar to the original Soundblaster. And both were mono.
Creative improved it a bit (included a DMA engine for the DAC) and made it possible to hook better speakers up than what is in your PC.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You actually are incorrect on this one. Many things are open, and secure. In fact, if the security of the system depends on the mechanism being secret, then it is security-by-obscurity and not very secure at all.
For example, all modern encryption systems are based on open algorithms, where the mechanism of the encryption is open to scrutiny by anyone. However, it is still secure, as the security of the encryption doesn't depend on the secrecy of how the encryption is done.
An open DRM solution is completely possible, and would allow public trust in the mechanism. Of course, the public may hate DRM and push back on those using it. I think that it goes against everything that has pushed media technology forward over the past 75 years, and that the public isn't going to accept limitations on the media they buy, but maybe I'm over-optimistic about the energy expended on thinking about media purchases by the general populace.