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.'"
The key word there is granted, not submitted.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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.
because that worked oh so well for copyright.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
It depends on your definition of imitate. For example, I don't mind that all consumer cars have four wheels.
To see why this patent is invalid, do the following:
* substitute 'classes' for 'tracks'
* substitute 'methods' for 'names'
* substitute 'computer' for 'music playback device'
And suddenly you have the classic Smalltalk object browser. This patent will be whacked in court, just like the uncrustables patent was denied by the USPTO. The USPTO said that uncrustables were basically big breakfast ravioli. Unfortunately, the examiner wasn't well-versed enough in the computer field (ie: he probably doesn't even know how to spell Smalltalk), so granted this one.
Applying the same old cookie cutter to a new kind of dough isn't a valid patent, even if the examiner thinks it is.
Face it, this is an obvious menu system based on obvious metadata. The problem here is it should never have been granted a patent in the first place. The patent office has become mired in money making scams in recent decades and the whole system has fallen into disrepute. It serves nobody well.
Oops, sorry, there is one group of people that do well, the lawyers. Strange that.
Face it. We need a year zero in IP, a fundamental reexamination of why we give any protection at all, and how much is the right amount. We need to accept that all IP to this date is on very shaky ground and that the simplest approach is to wipe the slate clean. Above all, we need to make it a criminal offence for a company to attempt to buy laws. How many of our problems can be traced back to corporate/politician corruption? Maybe the best solution is to extract a written guarantee from anyone standing in the midterms that they will ensure IP laws are scaled back? Make it an issue.
A jihad against lawyers wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Seems easy to say which is worse. Imitation is great... it means we get various refined versions of a new idea and people can choose. The public usually benefits. This is what progress is all about: incremental improvements building on the ideas of others.
Litigation on the other hand is just a way to squash competition without benefiting anyone but the litigant. It's a crap business tactic and a sign of a company who fears they can't add to the mix.
And FYI I'm no Apple fanboy... I think iTunes DRM sucks and they should drop it entirely or at the very least open it up so it's a standard.
Cheers.
Usually years, somewhere around 3-4 on average. Stick a random number between 5,500,000 and 7,000,000 (1996-2006, ish) into the USPTO numsearch page and compare the granted date (top right) to the date of filing (usually the last line in the third info-section) if you want to have a play.
It takes such a long time because they have to be reviewed by patent examiners, compared to prior art to make sure they're not infringing, which includes referring to patents not in the patent referral list (you'll see in a lot of patents that the inventor compares and contrasts his application with previous patents, to clarify the differences). It usually has to be sent back and corrected, sits in a waiting queue whenever it's in the patent office's hands, suffer any delays the submitter wants or has; the list goes on. It's a tedious process that I think we saw an article about last week, since the workload of patent reviewers is simply too high; it all contributes to major delays. Compare with older patents - the few around 4M I checked took between a year and two years.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
Right, so when can Apple sue Windows for making a GUI file system for their OS?
In 1988, since you ask.
So, we know from that lawsuit that Apple believes that an interface can be legally owned, and that litigation is an appropriate way to resolve a situation where a more successful competitor is using a similar interface to your own.
How does the saying go again? "Live by the sword..."
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 :)
But Im all for Creative getting a little justice out of this. Apple is a computer company then they come along and act like they invented portable media.
.mp3 device, new legal music software source - then designed, packaged and marketed them all together successfully.
.mp3 player market buying iPods would have bought any other kind of music player. Because of Apple's music platform, the unique and appealing iPod designs (not just small and/or light), and the healthy aftermarket of accessories, the .mp3 player scene is a lot healthier now than it would have been without the iPod. Millions of people who never would have bought a "Zen" DID buy iPods, and because of it will at least be aware that there are such devices as well as competition for the iPod.
.mp3 players, but like most businesses in this workaholic's valley, they can't see past this contrived slight of their intellectual property to the larger advantages of a market Creative could never have built on it's own.
Nice to see your idea of justice is based on...how a company "acts".
You know what? Apple did a better job of making stuff people want. Creative, for all their supposed groundbreaking innovation, didn't have the magic combination of marketing savvy, features, and product design that made the iPod popular.
The iPod wasn't a runaway hit because Apple stole Creative's heirarchically-organized system for obvious navigation or whatever - it's because Apple took all the pieces - jukebox software,
Apple helped create the market - it's not clear that the 80% of the
Creative should be thankful Apple has grown the market for
Creative should be thankful Apple has grown the market for .mp3 players, but like most businesses in this workaholic's valley, they can't see past this contrived slight of their intellectual property to the larger advantages of a market Creative could never have built on it's own.
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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.