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.'"

Comments

Re:Last August?

[OverlordQ]

The key word there is granted, not submitted.

Re:I want the patent clusterfuck to get worse

[Penguinoflight]

because that worked oh so well for copyright.

Re:The Actual Patent

[mveloso]

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.

Re:The Actual Patent

[sane?]

That is what I found, although mention is made of two patents. Maybe its just a followup patent that companies usually file to carve out a bigger segment of patentspace?

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.

• The small inventor has no way of using a patent to protect them since costs are high and costs of protecting the patent are even higher. Any reasonably sized company can grind them into dust in the courts.
• Companies actually creating virtually anything find there is some spurious over-general patent somewhere that they infringe in putting one piece of plastic next to one piece of metal; so there is an orgy of cross licencing and costs associated. This all takes time and reduces the pace of innovation
• The public aren't served by ideas being freely available and built upon, because most of the ideas are obvious, the patent tries hard to make it impossible to understand, and if you ever use the information you get slapped with an injunction.

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.

Re:sweet

[vought]

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.

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, .mp3 device, new legal music software source - then designed, packaged and marketed them all together successfully.

Apple helped create the market - it's not clear that the 80% of the .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.

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.

it is very zen

[EccentricAnomaly]

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.