Apple Sues Creative

boarder8925 writes "Apple is counter-suing Creative, claiming it has infringed 'four patents in its handheld digital players.' The suit was filed the same day that Creative filed suit against Apple. 'Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions,' a spokesman for Creative said. 'At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit.'"

Comments

Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Quoting the summary:

'Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions,' a spokesman for Creative said. 'At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit.'

Waaah! Waaah! Waaaah!

What were creative thinking? That they'd get some sympathy? Play with patent fire & you're going to get burnt.

And frankly, I think Apple & Creative should be more worried about this patent then each other.

Mildly interesting to see what's happened to Apple and Creative's stock since the two announcements (looks like Apple's lost ~4% & Creative ~2.5%).

*Sighs* such a pity to see two companies that employ so many talented people wasting their time like this.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple held prior art. Microsoft just created the patent in hopes that the judge will be stupid.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[idonthack]

The Microsoft patent article you linked to:

Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple's application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod's contents.

The basis for the denial: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.

Prior art for the lose?

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[CrackedButter]

When I read that Apple didn't discuss the patents Creative is infringing on, I thought why should they? Like any sane thing to do is show all the cards you're playing with.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[weileong]

live by the sword, die by the sword.

in any case, this was the last option for creative anyway. if they lose this case, it's over for their MP3 players.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[crerwin]

Why is it over? Maybe I'm not up to date on Creative's financial situation, but for me their mp3 players are cheaper and as good or better than their Apple counterparts. I have a Zen Touch and am a little annoyed that it doesn't mount as a generic USB drive, but other Creative players do and that's my fault for not researching first.

I'd like to get a MuVo at some point. Mounts as a generic drive, FM receiver (and recorder, get 'em while the RIAA is unaware!), etc. I have no intention on buying an iPod anything. They're good products, but expensive, overhyped, and apparently "think different" means "buy an iPod like everyone else." Meh, whatever.

Sure, everyone loves Apple and will defend them vehemently when they get sued over a patent, yet we all like to forget when they've done the same. To me they're just another corporation trying to make a buck.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[lbrandy]

When I read that Apple didn't discuss the patents Creative is infringing on, I thought why should they? Like any sane thing to do is show all the cards you're playing with.

Close, but wrong. Apple was afraid.... One the patents that came up early in the discussion was Creative's patent on 'a method of meeting and talking openly about patents in an attempt to extort money'.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[God'sDuck]

Mildly interesting to see what's happened to Apple [google.com] and Creative's [google.com] stock since the two announcements (looks like Apple's lost ~4% & Creative ~2.5%)

coincidental, not necessarily causal...the entire Nasdaq/Dow, as well as Europe and Japan, have been plunging for the last week.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[gEvil (beta)]

Play with patent fire...

Is that anything like patent leather?

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

such a pity to see two companies that employ so many talented people wasting their time like this.

I would hardly call it wasting time. The potential benefits from a successful patent lawsuit far outweigh the risks involved. You can quite literally put your competators out of business and gain a monopoly. In a very real sense, patent litigation is worth throwing everything and the kitchen sink into.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common enough tactic to (a) prepare a complaint and not file it until absolutely necessary and (b) after filing it, not serve the complaint on your adversary until absolutely necessary. When there's still a chance for amicable negotiations, it can be unhelpful to waive the proverbial cocked pistol in your adversary's face.

It's also a common enough tactic to pretend to be outraged by whatever your opponent does, even if it didn't harm you at all. Yesterday, Creative was free to negotiate an end to this. Today, they're still free to do so. The ball is in their court. "Waaaaaaaah", indeed.

YIIAPLBIANYPL. GYOGDPL. YMNO.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[goldspider]

Is that why we (the hive mind) are so sympathetic towards SCO too?

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

coincidental, not necessarily causal...the entire Nasdaq/Dow, as well as Europe and Japan, have been plunging for the last week.

I dunno, Creative seems to have dropped 2.6% when the straight time's index fell only 0.3%.

Apple was certainly traded a good deal more then usual and it's share price seems to have dropped 4.3% against the nasdaq's 2.4%.

I'd say it's definitely more the coincidence - patents do hurt the market.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[mausmalone]

When I read that Apple didn't discuss the patents Creative is infringing on, I thought why should they? Like any sane thing to do is show all the cards you're playing with.

Because they could've resolved this before going to court, saving both companies a lot of time, money, and face. Instead, their stock is down 4%.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Ender Ryan]

Re: Apple, I agree. To me, they're just another company. It saddens me when people vehemently defend Apple like they are friends with Steve Jobs himself...

Anyway, I'm pretty happy to see these ridiculous lawsuits. In fact, the more the better. Eventually we'll have to rethink WTF we're doing in this country, or we'll topple under our own weight.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[crawling_chaos]

You don't buy enough Creative players by yourself to save them?

Apparently "better for me" does not translate to "better for everyone."

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, if they're going to court, they had better. Despite what you might have seen on tv, the idea of surprising the opposing side in court is not tolerated. Litigants have a duty to give a lot of information to the other side unasked, and to respond to what are often quite broad requests for information that made by the other side. The courts want both parties to know all the facts so that there are no surprises, and hopefully a sufficiently predictable outcome so that they settle or at least stipulate to facts, reducing the size of the dispute and the court's workload.

Lawsuits are not poker games.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Prog_Burner]

I'm of the opposite opinion, the Creative Zen Micro I have has a broken headphone jack, due to bad design (Letting the headphone jack move enough to seperate from the board.) I later found out that in order to get warranty service I will have to pay labour and provide proof of purchase. This was a gift from my ex, so small chance I'll be able to get the reciept and smaller chance that the labour charged will be worth it in the long run (I want to be able to put the damn thing in my pocket, it's supposed to be portable!) Due to those two things (bad design, crappy service) I will be putting that "labour" cost towards an Ipod and I hope that Creative stops making shoddy MP3 players.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[IAmTheDave]

"It's incredibly embarrassing," said industry analyst Rob Enderle. "That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn't on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time."

I know... God forbid they spent their time innovating instead of patenting. Don't they know how the world works now??

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[carlislematthew]

It's not about which player is better or which player has what feature. In the consumer's mind, it's simply about which ones they *want*. The marketing makes them *want* the iPod, so they buy it. As long as it isn't total shit, they'll continue to buy the coolest product that will make them look cool.

I went to CES a couple of years ago and saw all these Japanese/Chinese manufacturers with there cool new MP3 players. They have a billion buttons on them, names like "X Tech 2000". It was sad. They all thought that the cheapest and most feature-rich product would be the winner...

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[carlislematthew]

Quick question: Has fire been patented? "A method of creating heat and light through the integration of fuel, oxygen and heat".

First one to the US Patent Office wins!!!

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Basehart]

"It saddens me when people vehemently defend Apple like they are friends with Steve Jobs himself..."

You're just jealous.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[max99ted]

I agree 100%

They're good products, but expensive, overhyped, and apparently "think different" means "buy an iPod like everyone else." Meh, whatever.

OT, but that reminds me of my favorite King Missle line - "I want to be different, just like everybody else..."

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Mister Whirly]

"Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple's application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod's contents.

The basis for the denial: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent."

Apple - always showing up at the gunfight with a knife....Albeit a totally sweet knife with the greatest GUI ever seen, (and a leather case) but a knife nonetheless...

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[TheSalzar]

with or without the beard?

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[bhirsch]

They are not wasting time -- only money on legal fees. This is just maneuvering by their lawyers. In all fairness to Creative, I remember seeing the Nomad out quite a few years before the iPod and would not be surprised if there is some validity to their claims.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they weren't in court until Creative sued. Wrong answer.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Walking Dude]

Apple's stock drop had more to do with MTV's music store announcement than anything else. Which is a joke, but shows that Apple's stock is definitely in growth mode and subject to changes in price based on the littlest of news.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[kimvette]

Isn't a separate suit independent of the first? Apple had no obligation to notify Creative of their multitude of infringements since those infringements are independent of the infringment they are alleging against Apple. They are not "evidence" in the original suit, Apple is just firing back with the nuclear strike since discussions with Creative failed to result in a sensible resolution.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[kimvette]

Some people just hate Creative because they didn't admit to nor did they solve the SMP bug (a race condition resulting in a hard lock) in their sound card drivers (they flat-out any such defect existed) until SMT was announced by Intel, at which point they finally admitted to the defect and scrambled to get a fix out. Interestingly, Compaq identified and introduced a partial fix in their drivers for their OEM products based on Creative's cards. It's not so much a matter of loving Steve Jobs, but hating Creative Labs.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[cpt kangarooski]

That's what I'm talking about, yes.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[avronius]

When (if) they go to court, then yes, disclosure would be an issue. During a closed door negotiation that does not involve the courts, disclosure is at the discretion of the parties involved.

During their "discussions" yesterday, Creative may (or may not) have attempted to hamstring Apple. Being on the receiving end of an ultimatum is never pleasant, and I, too, would likely have refrained from giving my antagonist any ground.

But that's just me.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[why-is-it]

"It's incredibly embarrassing," said industry analyst Rob Enderle.

Enderle? The well-known microsoft and sco shill?

Embarassing indeed...

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, not seeing the evidence. None of the other comments he's posted even refer to Creative. If he's a shill, he's batting 3%.

I think you need to grow up.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[crerwin]

I wish! If someone from Creative wants to shoot me an email I can provide an address to send the check.

You're probably right, it's not a good idea for someone with such a high id number to get involved in mob mentality arguments. Honestly, Creative is just another corporation trying to make a buck as well, but I figured someone should try to represent a different view. My bad.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange. Here in Australia iPods are cheaper than Creative's players. I guess prices must vary pretty widely internationally.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[ConsumerOfMany]

It is truly about marketing. I have had an awsome little Mobiblu Cube for about a year, and get gawks and questions from at least 2 people on the subway a day. No one had seen it before, although walmart had a licensing agreement to sell them in the states. The features and price rock, as does the design

One thing that apple does have together though is the intergration with itunes. Having podcasts subscribe and download automatically is sweet.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Thrudheim]

It seems to me that Apple, in contrast to the opinion of some, has priced the iPod very competitively. Creative is losing a ton of money by trying to maintain slightly cheaper prices for its competing lines. In some cases, actually, the iPod is priced just the same or slightly less. It is a losing battle for Creative because they do not have the economy of scale that Apple has with the iPod, so they lose money at these prices while Apple does well. In this case, Apple has a Dell-like supply chain.

This article, from over a year ago, says it all: "Creative Responds to iPod Price Drop." Apple took the offensive by cutting prices, and it has continued this strategy. As an analyst in the article says, "Apple has left little room for other music vendors to compete on price." Creative followed that strategy nevertheless, and the results are very clear: Creative cannot sustain a price battle with Apple and stay in business. Their third-quarter sales fell to $225.7 million compared to $333.8 million for the same quarter the previous year. Their net loss for the quarter was $74.7 million. For the past three quarters, it was $105.4 million.

Simply put, Creative is in serious financial trouble. The recent legal action against Apple smacks of a desperate strategy to use their trump card -- their GUI patent -- to shore up their finances. Their problem is that this patent is being challenged and there is a very good possibility that it will not stand. A hierachical system for organizing a music library is just too obvious to be the intellectual property of any one company. Apple has the legal team to drag out the process as long as possible. Their countersuit is just the first step in this process.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[CODiNE]

That's nothing, I'm going to patent the idea of Patents and then shut down the US Patent Office.

Let's see here...
A process for the purpose of encouraging economic growth via the granting of temporary exclusivity of novel ideas.

Only problem is, after I take them down... we're only safe until my patent expires, then all the little tiny pieces of the patent offfice slither back together and reassemble themselves.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Trillan]

This latest move is like Apple just jumped half of Creative's checkers and landed on the far row. "King me!" Creative should not have been surprised by this. That they are shows how poor they are at strategy.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[krautcanman]

>>Mildly interesting to see what's happened to Apple and Creative's stock since the two announcements (looks like Apple's lost ~4% & Creative ~2.5%).

Sorry to be a bit OT, but this statement isn't necessarily correct.

Actually the drops in stock price is more likely related to the overall drops in the stock market. The ratios of losers to winners this week was over 4:1 or 5:1. Dow-Jones is down about 500 points in the last week and a half on a number of outside factors, so it's not unlikely that both Creative's and Apple's losses are part of greater market downturn in the last several days.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Read into Aureal vs Creative and how Creative basically drove Aureal to bankruptcy through lawsuits because they couldn't compete with Aureal's superior products.

Go read about how Creative strong armed iD into including EAX in Doom 3 (despite iD actually already using a better software based sound positioning system) by threatening them with a patent on a rendering technique that John Carmack arguably invented. (It's known in the industry as Carmack's reverse).

Creative has a long history of using legal strongarm tactics to attack competitors when their product is inferior in comparison. This suit against Apple is nothing new in that regard, and is why I'm really hoping they get what's coming. I'll be throwing a party the day that company finally goes bankrupt.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[DDLKermit007]

lol...those headphone jacks can be repaired without too much hastle if the jack just worked it's way loose (the solder job was weak). If you have any experience with a solering iron whatsoever it should be a walk in the park. I've repaired a number of headphone jacks thats happened to (I could always do it for you).

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it over?

highest quarterly loss posted in its history. they can't keep this up.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Scudsucker]

It saddens me when people vehemently defend Apple like they are friends with Steve Jobs himself...

Sounds more like you miss the old days when any troll post bashing Apple would get you a +5 Informative.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Xamindar]

Sure, everyone loves Apple and will defend them vehemently when they get sued over a patent, yet we all like to forget when they've done the same. To me they're just another corporation trying to make a buck.

Well yeah, in this case I will root for Apple. I hate Creative. They sued Aureal out of buisness a few years ago over a stupid midi chip that most people don't even care about.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

heh....So you are the person who, by your own admission, managed to buy the only model which did not have a particular funtionality you wanted. And then you launch into your "Zen - Yeah! iPod - Meh" (or "Creative - Yeah! Apple - Meh" or what ever) op-ed. Yes my dear, it is just as stupid to be a Zen fanboy as is to be an iPod one.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[davidsyes]

Well, Apple better get TRULY creative...

Or,

Well, Apple better TRULY get Creative...

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[TeacherOfHeroes]

You're not the only one with this problem, I went through 4 (!) zen micros in 4 months. After a few weeks of simply walking with it in my pocket, the headphones would wiggle the socket loose.

I had the first one sent away to creative for repairs, and it came back 6 weeks later just as broken as it was when I sent it in.

I had a years warranty where I got it from, so the repairs/replacements didnt cost me, but it was quickly becoming absurd.

Finally i just traded up for an iPod mini 6 gig (traded up as in 1 gig more, and as in $30 more), and its lasted about 14 times as long as any one of those micros, and its still working properly.

I dont really miss the features that the creative had. The radio was weak as hell, and one local radio station could be picked up at 6 or 7 different points on the 'dial'. The removable battery was nice, and the first zen i got came with a second battery, but all the ones after that only had the one, so there was no real gain over the ipod there.

I may not be 'think[ing] different' with my ipod considering how popular it is, but i am 'listening better' with it than i was with the zen, and in the end, thats all that matters to me.

It'll be a long while before I trust creative with my money again.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Ender Ryan]

I beg your pardon? I'm not following you.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[cbreaker]

You *do* know that patents are public record, right? Creative can go search on Apple patents if they want to, but if Apple's counter-suit doesn't mention which patents, it's almost as if Apple needs to go find one to use against them because they don't have a clue what to use at the moment. Because patents are often so vague and full of prior-art, it probably won't be very difficult to come up with something eventually.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[cbreaker]

What I see happening is while everyone is watching the iPod product line and dismissing everything else, companies like Creative will start getting it right and offering competing products that are more feature rich, have more capacity, and don't have to be so tethered to a proprietary software product to get the most out of them. All of a sudden, we'll take a look around and say "hey, what am I doing spending all this money on an iPod when I can get xyz brand that does so much more?

After all, they're basically just MP3 players. Very nice ones, for sure, but it's not something that can't be done by anyone else.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think I like Microsoft to have the patents to the portable audio devices. In a twist of history, Microsoft is preventing other companies of becoming or continueing to be a monopoly.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[DRM_is_Stupid]

apparently "think different" means "buy an iPod like everyone else."

I don't think Apple meant "buy an Apple product so you can become a minority." But since when were advertising slogans really insightful/truthful/accurate/meaningful/etc.? They're just a ploy to get you interested in shit, but usually just annoying for me. Really smart people are a minority, true, but so are really dump people. Ads are probably good for one satire comedy skit but then it gets old quick.

I don't really want to join the "no iPod is better! no Creative is better!" flame war. Whether iPod is good enough or not was a question that I pondered upon when I was looking for a new player. But after I've invested in a new player, I stopped bothering about comparing the latest product lines.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[mhbtr]

My friend had a Nomad for a couple of years. kept on upgrading his firmware. I checked it out at a point in time where I was onto my 30 GB iPod (from the 5 GB). His menuing system SUCKED. It did not yet honor ID3 tags - it sorted everything alphabetically by track name and album name. To go down menus, you had to choose what you wanted then do a select, tewice. This was more than 2 years after the iPod came out. Look, Creative did not "Invent" hierarchical navigation. They did not "invent" navigating music, and they SURE did not implement it right, or my friend would not have sold his Nomad and bought an iPod SOLELY on the merits of the navigation. This is sour grapes, pure and simple. They lost in the market place because their navigation sucked - how can they be suing Apple for stealing their navigation?

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[TekPolitik]

why should they? Like any sane thing to do is show all the cards you're playing with.

Because if they don't, the Court may take the view that they invited the litigation and award costs against Apple even if Creative otherwise drops the suit.

Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"

[rakslice]

Maybe they thought they would at least get negotiations in good faith. But the joke's on them; it's Apple, after all.

This is why patents suck

[idonthack]

Everybody who does anything is vulnerable to this kind of attack, and the only way they can realistically defend themselves is to have a large patent library of thier own to countersue. Patents are supposed to help small inventors make it big, but all they're doing is letting large companies fight while squashing smaller competitors.

Re:This is why patents suck

[jcr]

Patents are supposed to help small inventors make it big

Whatever gave you that idea?

A patent is supposed to be a deal between the inventor and the public: the inventor discloses his invention, in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity. Whether the inventor makes any money on it or not is beside the point.

-jcr

Re:This is why patents suck

[gid13]

I suppose I would slightly disagree with both of you. The purpose of patents, from the standpoint of the people who set up the whole patent system (the government) is to encourage innovation by allowing inventors a chance to make money exclusively for a short period. Basically to balance the rewards between the inventor and the public. It's a nice thought, but...

I agree that patents suck, and yes, I agree that cases like this are part of why they suck. Society wastes time litigating that could be spent on productivity. Worse examples of why patents suck include the NTP vs RIM case (basically NTP doesn't do anything except sue, all 5 of their patents were issued temporary rejections, and due to the uncertainty of the patent status, RIM was essentially forced to settle because of the potential for almost limitless losses), Amazon's 1-Click Shopping patent (can we say "non-innovative"?), and the Eolas vs Microsoft case (this will fuck over all browsers from IE to Safari to Firefox to Konqueror while forcing Microsoft to seek defensive patents, and while giving Microsoft the excuse to use horrifying patent tricks like this themselves against OSS). As far as I'm concerned, the entire patent system (along with the copyright system, but that's another story) needs to be rethought or removed entirely. It is no longer benefiting the public, and as such the public should force their government to make a new set of rules.

Re:This is why patents suck

[Jay Random the Other]

Um. If the inventor isn't going to make any money from the deal, what's in it for him?

Re:This is why patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

From Article 8 of the US constitution:

[The Congress shall have Power ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

And an ipod is both a science AND a useful art!!!1!!1!!!!

Re:This is why patents suck

[BFaucet]

Either way it was intended to promote innovation, not stifle it.

I really don't see how having a hierarchial menu could easily be avoided. Hierarchies have probably been the most common organizational structure for centuries. To patent it on portable audio devices sounds about as sensical as patenting plugging headphones into portable mp3 players.

There should be a "No shit, dingbat." clause in the patent requirements.

Re:This is why patents suck

[TrekkieGod]

A higher chance to make money. Whether he actually does or not isn't guaranteed.

Re:This is why patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the point is to make money. If money wasn't the bottom line, what exactly would patents be "good" for?

Re:This is why patents suck

[ShyGuy91284]

I concur. Although I know nothing about the patent process (so this may be partially in effect as far as I know), companies shouldn't be allowed to sit on a "good idea" for years without using it, if they ever do. That would be slightly similar to the company making Tamaflu deciding "Ok, this hasn't hit critical proportions yet, so let's not sell it yet. Let's wait till it starts killing quite a few people, and selling the vaccine for $2000 a pop". Although that would be a case of waiting for the right time while non-used patents are just wating for the right accompanying technology, it's still withholding something that could be great from the people....

Re:This is why patents suck

[Garabito]

the only way they can realistically defend themselves is to have a large patent library of thier own to countersue.

And that's true only if the other party also has an actual product on which you can sue. If you're being sued by a patent troll with no real products or services, you will have to settle or try to get the patent invalidated in court.

Re:This is why patents suck

[neersign]

comments like these (parent and parent of parent) pop up every time an article of this nature is posted. Please people, educate yourselves:

http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/us c_sup_01_35.html

i could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Re:This is why patents suck

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, yes, but the comment you're replying to is substantially correct.

The purpose of the patent system is to serve the public good. There are a few different public interests at work here, and what we want is to satisfy those interests to the greatest degree possible. We're looking at the net satisfaction, so a reduction to one portion of the public good may be acceptable if it results in a greater increase in another portion of the public good.

The interests in the patent system are: 1) to encourage the invention of novel, nonobvious, useful inventions, whether they are original or refinements of previous inventions; 2) to encourage disclosure of inventions, the best modes for practicing inventions, etc.; 3) to cause inventions to be brought to market; 4) to have no, or minimal restrictions on the public (including inventors) with regard to inventions.

If we have no patent system, then we see this:
1) There are encouragements to invention, as evidenced by the fact that people invented things prior to the first patent statute in Venice in 1474, but there could pretty certainly be more encouragements. Thus, the first factor is somewhat, but not fully satisfied. Note, however, that sometimes there can be a lot of encouragements without patents; does anyone think that Apple or Creative would not have invented what they did even if there were no software patents? Remember, not all inventions will require a huge incentive; often a modest one will do.

2) Disclosure is generally uncommon, so this factor is not being well satisfied at all. It's possible that for some inventions it is not difficult to reverse engineer the invention from an article embodying it E.g. if you had a Creative mp3 player, it would not be hard to suss out the menuing system just by fiddling with it. OTOH if you had a wonder drug, it might be trickier to figure out what it was, how it worked, and how to make it. Deliberate disclosure by the inventor is better than relying on reverse engineering.

3) Inventions may be brought to market, but it might occur in a more limited fashion, since without patents, inventors that don't want competition are concerned with reverse engineering. If they feel that they can't recover their costs and make a good profit, they might as well let the invention languish. This factor is partially satisfied, but probably not much.

4) Without patents, there are no restrictions on inventions. So this interest is maximally satisfied.

The net satisfaction then, with one factor maxed out and three not particularly fulfilled (though this might vary depending on the kind of invention we're talking about), is decent, but capable of being improved upon.

Alternatively, if we have a modest patent system, we see this:

1) The monopoly of a patent is a significant incentive toward invention. Of course, we have to be wary, since we don't want to offer one iota of incentive if we don't have to. Offering extra incentive is like going to the car dealership and buying a car for more than the sticker price. The dealer likes it, but would have sold you the car for less, and it's money out of your pocket, since you would have gotten the car for less. It's waste. So we might want to limit the patent monopoly in significant ways to minimize wasted incentive. (This is why I oppose software and business method patents -- I think there's enough natural incentive already that it's foolish to offer more)

2) Disclosure is required. Since the inventor would likely prefer to get a monopoly with less disclosure, this is one of the things the incentive we offer has to make up for. But it's worth it, since without required disclosure, first, no one would really know what the patent covered, making it impossible to avoid infringing on it while still doing absolutely anything that wasn't infringing. In this way, disclosure acts like a fence, or a map, letting you know where you can and can't go. Second, without disclosure, it would still be hard for others to practice the invention once the pat

Re:This is why patents suck

[gwhenning]

Not to mention that the whole idea creative is suing over is basically an offshoot of the old NeXtStep (and now MacOS X) column view.

The only difference between the column view and Creative's patent appears to be the obvious use of forethought to create your folder structure. First by one class of identification with subfolders containing different classifications of the first folder to divide up the sub-folders.

Last time I checked they taught this method in 7th grade biology class. Instead of music Genre, Artist, Album, Song it was Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & species.

Re:This is why patents suck

[Midnight Thunder]

Everybody who does anything is vulnerable to this kind of attack, and the only way they can realistically defend themselves is to have a large patent library of thier own to countersue. Patents are supposed to help small inventors make it big, but all they're doing is letting large companies fight while squashing smaller competitors.

Ill conceived and badly verified patents suck. Don't put them all in the same basket.

This case also shows how important having a patent portfolio is. Only the desperate will try using patents to sue another company, many use it as a shield: "You try to sue us and will will sue back".

Re:This is why patents suck

[jedidiah]

The invention.

This is why most invention really occurs. It's not to get rich, it's to solve a problem.

Maybe they need to start showing Schoolhouse Rock again.

Re:This is why patents suck

[shawnce]

"I suppose I would slightly disagree with both of you. The purpose of patents, from the standpoint of the people who set up the whole patent system (the government) is to encourage innovation by allowing inventors a chance to make money exclusively for a short period but only if they agreed to share the essence of their invention and how it works."

Fixed that for ya. :)

The intent was two folds... 1) ensure the sharing of ideas to increase the knowledge pool, and 2) ensure inventors could profit off their inventions for a reasonable amount of time to see a return on investment. In other words... it wasn't just about granting exclusivity, it was also about getting trade secret out in the open to foster new and better ideas.

Re:This is why patents suck

[ringm000]

Let's suppose you're right. How it turns the public is forced to accept these agreements?

Re:This is why patents suck

[shawnce]

...and "Kings play chess on funny green squares" pops back in my head...

Re:This is why patents suck

[DragonWriter]

Patents are supposed to help small inventors make it big

No, they are supposed to stimulate progress in the useful arts and sciences. At least in the US, where the Constitutional provision allowing patents cites that purpose.

Preference for a particular "size" of creator isn't part of the purpose, at all.

Re:This is why patents suck

[ceoyoyo]

I think they call it "nonobvious." I like your phrase better though. Everybody write a letter to whatever government officials are in charge of such things and demand a "No shit, dingbat" clause!

Re:This is why patents suck

[debest]

It is no longer benefiting the public, and as such the public should force their government to make a new set of rules.

The problem is that there is essentially no way for the public to force a new set of rules. The way we have the government set up, lobbyists with money have the ability to get a politician elected/re-elected, so they become the parties that politicians are beholden to, as opposed to their constituents. And aside from cases like Apple vs. Creative (a battle between relative "equals"), the current patent and copyright law benefits the above money-laden interests, as it inhenently gives the advantage to the larger, established entity over the smaller upstart (and thus discourages competition).

I see only two ways that the "intellectual property" regimes will see any significant overhaul:

• It becomes demonstratably provable that all this IP overhead is causing our economy to be significantly harmed compared to Asia, coupled with a large percentage of the population accepting this as fact and insisting on making it an election issue (very difficult to do, given the public's disinterest in economic policy and the current corporate media's motivation to maintain the status quo); or
  
• Collapse of the current government structure by armed revolution (something the Founding Fathers would probably say we are overdue for anyway, if they were around to see the US today).

Since neither of these options will occur anytime soon, we'll just have to live with the current situation for the foreseeable future.

Good.

[Luscious868]

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Re:Good.

[Roody Blashes]

That's probably the most insightful thing I've ever seen, only because it's true.

jeez what now?

[Stray1]

Has anyone got the patent for the on-off switch? That seems to be the only thing that they are NOT suing each other about: someone call RCA.

Re:jeez what now?

[AusIV]

I can't speak for creative, but the iPod doesn't have an on/off switch.

Re:jeez what now?

[rcamera]

the shuffle has an on/off switch. does this not count?

Re:jeez what now?

[Bunch'a 4th Graders]

My Creative Zen Nano doesn't have an on/off switch either. You hold the play/pause button down. Wait, that's sounds familiar too...

Re:jeez what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the "Access Mode Standby button?" -- there's prior art by Douglas Adams ...

Re:jeez what now?

[Mikey-San]

Has anyone got the patent for the on-off switch?

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes

Re:jeez what now?

[Kenja]

You mean my One Click Power State Reverser (patent pending)?

So wait

[iknowcss]

If it was filed the same day, why are we finding out today? Is it more news-worthy that Apple is being sued or that Apple sues? My guess is the former.

Re:So wait

[geoffspear]

Simple. Creative has been publically saying since at least December that they were planning to sue Apple for patent violations, and when they actually filed the lawsuit they put out a press release about they want the attention. Apple isn't making a big deal about their countersuit, since they've got a new sleek black laptop to get attention.

Tiny violins

[Ravenscall]

So, Creative tried to play the patent bully game with Apple, and Apple turned the ship and broadsided them.

Serves them right. Get back to making products and selling them to make a profit.

Re:Tiny violins

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to wrestle that metaphor to the ground.

Re:Tiny violins

[Thaelon]

Get back to making products and selling them to make a profit.

That's a silly response. They still are, it's their lawyers that are suing apple, not their employees.

Re:Tiny violins

[Falkentyne]

That's a dumb ass response. They sued each other ON THE SAME DAY. They were in talks to discuss each other's patents and work out a deal. It falls through - they both sue each other *AT THE SAME TIME*. Maybe you should re-read TFA.

Damn apple fan boys.

Slashdot post date/time != real world date/time.

Re:Tiny violins

[Ravenscall]

You obviously do not understand a term called "Corporate strategy".

Of course Creative is still making stuff. Only an idiot would assume they are not. They, however as a company, decided to sue apple to either 1) quash competition and make more money, or the more likely 2) have apple pay them a settlement and negotiate a juicy licensing deal.

This strategy has obviously backfired, as apple had aces in hand, and now will just cost both companies money instead of one profiting at the other's expense.

My comment was in the light of they should have just stuck to thier product as a profit source instead of this ill advised legal misadventure.

Re:Tiny violins

[carlislematthew]

While I partially agree with you, I don't think it's an entirely silly response. Senior management at both Apple and Creative will now be involved with this, occasionally heavily, until it is resolved. This will take time and energy away from other activities, like production and producing new products. Similarly, a company that is concerned that it might quickly lose $10M (or whatever) in the near future may be very averse to funding that cool new product that the Technology group just came up with. "Maybe we should delay starting the new oPod group until this thing is over".

While this may not be the case at Apple or Creative (I don't work for either company!) it's certainly the case for a lot of companies, especially smaller ones. The distraction and potential to lose tons of money can really slow things down, which is why large companies like to sue smaller competitors as it will affect the smaller company more than the larger company.

Re:Tiny violins

[Ravenscall]

Hmm, funny, the article only lists specifics of apple's case, however, wherever you go this is referred to as a countersuit.

Kind of hard to countersue simultaneously, however, as Apple appears to have been expecting this, they had thier briefs ready to go, thus the same day filing.

So, unless you think the legal system works like Magic: the Gathering and you can tap two blue lawyers to simultaneous counteract a legal suit, I think I will follow the articles referring to it as a countersuit as opposed to your ill informed flaming.

Re:Tiny violins

[argent]

Senior management at both Apple and Creative will now be involved with this, occasionally heavily, until it is resolved. This will take time and energy away from other activities, like production and producing new products. ... so the people who actually develop and produce products might manage to slip a few decent ones out the door while the "vision thing" guys are distracted... like a two button mouse that works, or a Creative MP3 player that's not klunky?

Re:Tiny violins

[demonbug]

"Maybe we should delay starting the new oPod group until this thing is over".

oPod? Great, I can just see the commercial...

Dumpy White Guy: I'm a dick.

Buff Metrosexual: I'm an oPod.

Dick: My flexible hardware allows me to interface with software from all over the world.

oPod: That's kinda gross. My rigidly defined hardware is designed around the unique requirements of your software. And with my unique buttonless design, you will never again have to worry about whether you've turned me on - I'm ready to do what you want any time, anywhere, but only when you want me to.

DWG: I'm available in a variety of colors, and I am in fact more compact than you might think!

oPod: I come in only one color - shiny black. Cause, like, ya'know, once you go black....

Uh, yeah. I think I've laboured the point enough. I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with the Apple oPod.

More, more, more

[Britz]

Please, let the patent cold war already erupt into a huge patent suing everyone vs. everyone. I know you wouldn't like to see the lawyers take a couple billions away on this, but that will be the necessary sacrifice to make everybody see how bad trivial/software patents really are.

As soon as Sun sues Microsoft, Microsoft sues IBM and IBM sues them all I will sit back and have some popcorn (btw. do lawyers companies have stock options?).

Re:More, more, more

[Stray1]

HEH, I love yer SIG. I too am waiting for the set courst dat of Everybody v. Everybody. Wait wasnt that a South Park Episode?

Re:More, more, more

[Anonymous Coward]

(btw. do lawyers companies have stock options?)

IANAL, but I'm married to one. The answer to your question is no.

Re:More, more, more

[el cisne]

I say we take off, and litigate the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:More, more, more

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I will sit back and have some popcorn

I believe Orville Reddenbacher has patented "a method for sitting back and eating popcorn". Be careful.

Re:More, more, more

[ostehaps]

btw. do lawyers companies have stock options?

I appreciate this is written in jest, but I think it deserves an answer nonetheless. Law firms are generally partnerships, although I'm sure you can find some exceptions, so they aren't publicly listed. Only way to share in the spoils is to take a degree, and slave your way up to the top, I'm afraid!

Re:More, more, more

[jaxom_01]

Several years ago, while talking with IBM about patents, they told me that the patent database was run on IBM hardware at an IBM site. IBM had more patents then everyone else combine.

That was impressive and scary all at the same time.

I guess thats the reason for the saying "IBM's big bag-o-patents"

In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

...the patent lawyers win again...

HA

[schabot]

**SNAP!**

Re:HA

[ZvlvLord]

They're unbreakable you fool.

Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[scottsk]

Just too many lawsuits? The MuVo can already record radio broadcasts. Why hasn't the RIAA sued them? What will happen when every company has sued every other company?

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[faloi]

What will happen when every company has sued every other company?

I'll start regretting not going to law school.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[geoffspear]

The MuVo can already record radio broadcasts. Why hasn't the RIAA sued them?

Because RIAA doesn't have a patent on recording radio broadcasts, and the product has significant non-infringing uses.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[Sentri]

_Perhaps_ people and companies will start taking responsibility for their own actions instead of kneejerk-sueing everyone

Hey, I was shot by the police while comitting a crime: SUE

Hey, Im a clumsy person and fell up the stairs in your suburb: SUE

Hey, I once had an idea, patented it but did nothing else with it and now you have come up with the same idea independently and made money from it: SUE

I dont like our overly-litigious societies

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[ironring2006]

The MuVo can already record radio broadcasts. Why hasn't the RIAA sued them?

Because RIAA doesn't have a patent on recording radio broadcasts, and the product has significant non-infringing uses.

Really? Tell that to XM.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[jimicus]

What will happen when every company has sued every other company?

There will be about 3 companies left, all cross-licensing everything with each other, and some extremely rich lawyers living on their own private island.

Unfortunately, there will be no further development of anything for fear of further litigation, so when a terrible disease starts to sweep through the population of lawyers, reasearch for a cure will be crippled, resulting in lawyers as a species dying out.

In millions of years, their skeletons will be found by a future generation to ponder over. Some will see it as evidence of Darwinian evolution; others will see it as evidence that even an omnipotent intelligent designer makes the odd mistake.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[crerwin]

Because RIAA doesn't have a patent on recording radio broadcasts, and the product has significant non-infringing uses.

Yeah, but they are a bunch of asswipes. I believe he was referring to this lawsuit, where the RIAA is suing XM for allowing time-shifting by selling XM receivers that record. It's a lawsuit over copyright, not patent. One which I've heard Sirius avoided by making a deal ahead of time to pay record companies a fee so they can sell their recording receivers. I'm not sure if that means that Sirius gave in, but either way I maintain my stance that the RIAA can go suck a railroad spike.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[el cisne]

I dont like our overly-litigious societies : SUE

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[geoffspear]

The fact that the Inno can record a digital copy of an entire song, and is designed specifically to grab whole songs even if you choose you save the song in the middle of listening to it seems to me to be more specifically designed for an infringing use than just allowing the recording of FM broadcast quality radio signals.

At the very least, it seems more likely to fail to meet the standards set in Sony v. Universal, while I can't see any possible way a device that can just record ordinary broadcasts wouldn't meet those standards, since that was exactly what the case was about.

I don't think RIAA's correct in the XM case, but I'm sure they wouldn't be in a case against Creative, and I think they're sure of it too.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[MyNameIsEarl]

The fact that the Inno can record a digital copy of an entire song, and is designed specifically to grab whole songs even if you choose you save the song in the middle of listening to it seems to me to be more specifically designed for an infringing use than just allowing the recording of FM broadcast quality radio signals.
At the very least, it seems more likely to fail to meet the standards set in Sony v. Universal, while I can't see any possible way a device that can just record ordinary broadcasts wouldn't meet those standards, since that was exactly what the case was about.

I don't think RIAA's correct in the XM case, but I'm sure they wouldn't be in a case against Creative, and I think they're sure of it too.

Maybe you don't have an XM Radio, but, the XM signal is not exactly like listening to a CD quality recording, the station streams are compressed and while some stations have bettet bitrates than others, I would still compare it to an FM signal only there is no static.

I am using my SkyFi 2 and the XM Boombox/Car Kit as my reference.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[onedobb]

Because RIAA is to busy suing XM radio.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[geoffspear]

the station streams are compressed

So are the MP3s on the P2P networks, and RIAA goes after the people making those available.

I think the objection is more to the fact that the Inno makes it convenient to easily save specific songs from start to finish as a separate file, letting the user get something RIAA can sell on iTunes without giving RIAA money for each song saved.

On the other hand, it wouldn't shock me too much if they turned around and tried to sue Creative as well as anyone making Betamax-era boomboxes with tape decks that can record radio broadcasts, even though it's obvious they'd lose.

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[rahrens]

You fell "up" my stairs? Sounds like a lie: COUNTERSUIT!

Re:Why hasn't the RIAA sued Creative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except once it's saved you can't really do much except listen to it on that unit. You can't transfer it off (at least not off my MyFi) and as you continue to record other stuff the older recordings eventually fall off. The main use for this function is simply for time shifting programs you want to hear.

Well I never...

[adpsimpson]

Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions,' a spokesman for Creative said. 'At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit.'

Fact number 2: At no time during the discussions were Creative proactively suing Apple.

Re:Well I never...

[Richard_at_work]

At least Creative talked to Apple about the patents before suing, Apple hasnt even tried to resolve Creatives patent 'violations' outside of court.

Re:Well I never...

[n2art2]

Duh!

Creative has been riding the coat tails of publicity for their case, for months, hoping Apple would crack and just pay them off. but what their lawyers failed to account for was all the time they where giving the Apple lawyers, to come up with a counter-measure.

Creative almost begged Apple to find something to fight back with.

I don't know about you, but if some bully down the block was bragging about knocking your block off, and telling all your neighbors how he was going to kick your ass. . . Well, I for sure would be getting as much dirt and weapons together in my arsonal* to be able to fight back when the wanna-be bully came knocking on my door.

The best way to win a fire-fight is the element of surprise. You see the bad guy coming to get you, and you set up an ambush, and you put them in their place.

Let's see. . . 1 patent vs. 4 who wins? Who was more "creative?"

Re:Well I never...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because Apple wasn't planning to sue?? When you are sued, you are effectively forced to countersue. If Apple hoped to settle "amicably" and in good faith, then threatening Creative wasn't the way to go. Once creative has actually sued, the entire matter changes and at that point, there is no benefit for Apple from being "nice".

Think like this. Creative had an argument with a defenceless girl; then suddenly creative pulled out a knife and tried to mug her. "Unfortunately" it turned out she was a self defense instructor with a gun in her handbag. Do you really feel sorry for Creative?

Re:Well I never...

[Ohreally_factor]

Translation of Creative's reaction:

We threatened them that we would hit them in the head with a 2 x 4 if they didn't give in to our demands, so we were forced to hit them with it. And then they hit us back with a 2 x 4!! Why didn't they have the decency to threaten us back during the threaten phase? Don't these people play by the rules?

Re:Well I never...

[vistic]

Well put.

Brain ..... Hurting....

[tinkerghost]

MS Patent
How do you pass the Novelty portion of a patent review when there is a product doing it on the market?
The inventors - Apple - gets denied a patent on their product because a competitor patented the process AFTER the product was on the market? What monkey do they have running the USPTO?

Re:Brain ..... Hurting....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You're right - its utterly insane.

Its kinda like Apple getting patents on the ipod even tho' the Zen came before it!

Re:Brain ..... Hurting....

[ajakk]

In the United States (and definately not Europe), there are several ways that the public use of a product can be prior art to a patent. First, if the prior art conceived of before you conceived of your invention, then you cannot get a patent on it (who came up with the idea first). Second, if the invention was publicly used more than one year prior to the date of your patent application, then you are barred from getting a patent (regardless of who invented it first). Thus, in the case of Microsoft, they could argue that they conceived of the invention before Apple did, and that they iPod was not in public use (or on sale) more than one year before they filed their patent application.

The law that describes what qualifies as prior art is 35 U.S.C. 102.

Re:Brain ..... Hurting....

[Mister Whirly]

How is this the Patent Offices fault?? Shouldn't one of the brainchildren of Apple thought to patent their stuff before putting it out on the market?? Maybe Apple needs to pull a few of it's lawyers of Creative for a bit...

Tiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just the Your Rights Online section to Who's suing who?

Re:Tiring

[sik0fewl]

Adding box scores would be nice, too.

Is this what it is coming to?

[boiledsoybeans]

Will (are?) all these companies snapping up patents just to protect themselves? One would have thought creative would have know better than to sue Apple.

Bet you...

[gowen]

... they settle out of court, sign mutual patent cross-licensing, and then carve up the media player market between themselves.

There's enough their for all to wet their beaks.

Re:Bet you...

[brufar]

So true, that will most likely be the outcome.

The question is will both companies be bright enough to settle out of court before spending tons of money on legal fees and lawyers..

Re:Bet you...

[SoulRider]

carve up the media player market between themselves.

In your dreams. Given creatives history they will keep making players only a few people want to buy and eventually either get out of the media player market or go out of business. Methinks creative has contracted gorillaitis.

Re:Bet you...

[node 3]

That doesn't make any sense. Such a deal would only help Creative and hurt Apple.

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

That doesn't make any sense. Such a deal would only help Creative and hurt Apple

Nonsense. It would save them from injunction (that would harm their cashflow), a long drawn out court battle (and the encumbent legal fees) and it would save them the chance of losing ( a bet-the-company type proposition).

Re:Bet you...

[mstone]

Rubbish. Why should Apple share a market it already dominates?

Look.. there's always a grey zone around patents. Most patent holders only sue over clear violations that hurt them in the market, because it takes a lot of very expensive time and effort to show just exactly if, and how much, product X infringes on roughly-similar patent Y. There's generally no payoff in being anal about marginal violations, and there are two strong benefits to taking a live-and-let-live approach:

First, it keeps business flowing smoothly. As long as everyone makes a general effort to do their own R&D, the climate stays friendly. The lawyers only come out when two companies follow the same line of grey-zone innovations to the same valuable result, and even then, they negotiate more than litigate.

Second, it's nice to have the option to drop the live-and-let-live attitude if someone gets difficult.

That's what's happening here. Apple was happy to let things slide as long as Creative was willing to play nice, too. But Creative knows that Apple has market dominance, first-mover advantage, economies of scale, phenomenal branding, and all that good stuff. There's no easy way for Creative to win that fight. Creative's management decided that their chance of making money by being anal over a possible marginal patent infringement was better than their chance of making money by maintaining the live-and-let-live mindset, so they sued.

Apple responded by showing what it could do if it chose to get anal, too.

There's nothing for Creative to win, here. Apple has no reason to settle, and plenty of resources to defend itself in court if it has to. The most likely result will be for Creative to quietly drop its suit in exchange for Apple doing the same, and both sides will go back to playing live-and-let-live, just like before.

Creative can't even win a crosss-licensing deal, because Apple has ponied up four patents to Creative's one. If anything, Creative will be lucky to get away without having to pay licensing fees to Apple.

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

Why should Apple share a market it already dominates?

Because it makes the possibility of losing the court action go away, and they like us, know that in open competition with Creative, Apple will clean their clock on quality, features, brand recognition and style alone. So their market domination isn't under threat from competition.

The only way this can be really bad for Apple, is if they go to court and lose. So their best strategy is to make that possibility go away.

Re:Bet you...

[mstone]

First, you only settle when you clearly expect to lose. I don't see Apple in that position, here. The Creative suit came out of a failed negotiation, so Apple already had the chance to surrender if they wanted to. Since they didn't, they probably don't expect to lose in court.

Second, settling only makes sense if the cost of losing the lawsuit outweighs the cost of splitting the market.

Given the size and value of the market, that cost would have to be huge. Personally, I don't see Creative swinging that much of a threat. Again, the fact that Apple didn't negotiate a license when they had the chance suggests that they didn't see Creative's claim as a major problem. At very least, I'd expect them to fight to limit the damages they pay Creative if they do lose.

Besides, as noted, Apple has already filed four countersuits. Even if they lose the Creative action, they have the potential to win back everything they lost (and more) by the time all the dust settles.

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

First, you only settle when you clearly expect to lose.

Well, that's just wrong. If the downside of losing is much bigger than the upside of winning, you settle even if you think you'll win. Its not smart to risk a big defeat to gain a narrow victory, if you're 80%+ certain you'll win.

Apple are smart enough to understand rudimentary game theory.

You ... not so much.

Re:Bet you...

[node 3]

Nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting that cross-licensing with Creative wouldn't hurt Apple and help Creative?

There is no injunction, but in the currently unlikely event that there will be one, Apple would just pay Creative's license fee or change the iPod so it no longer is no longer open to injunction. No way on Earth is Apple going to simply cross-license the patents with Creative to carve up the music player market, as you suggest. If they were going to do that, they'd have just done that to begin with.

For Apple to do what you've suggested would be monumentally foolish at this point, and Apple would have to really foul up the lawsuits beyond all expectation in order for it to come to what you seem to think is the most likely outcome.

Nonsense indeed!

Re:Bet you...

[mstone]

I know enough game theory to predict that your risk-aversive strategy will get you 5 years in Siberia in a Prisoner's Dilemma. ;-)

I also think you haven't run the numbers. Game theory doesn't just say "avoid large risks." It says that you have to multiply the cost of losing by the chance of losing, then compare that to the cost of settling. Assuming your 80% chance of Apple winning is correct, and assuming Creative will get $1B if it wins, game theory says Apple should take the issue to court if settling with Creative will cost more than $200 million.

And that doesn't take Apple's four countersuits into consideration. If we give Apple the same 80% chance of winning those as in the Creative suit, the odds of Apple losing the whole $1B drop to about 3/100 of 1% (.2^5). The probability-adjusted expected loss on that is only about $320k. And if Apple wins any of its countersuits, those damages will cut into the damages awarded to Creative, so the $200 million settlement cost is an absolute maximum.

Beyond that, I find it highly unlikely that Creative would get the full billion even if Apple did lose. In practice, the court is more likely to set damages at a figure fairly close to what Creative wanted originally in licensing fees. To put it another way, Creative's lawyers would have to be utterly stupid to set their licensing fees significantly lower than what a court would give them. A bit lower, yes.. into the four-times-lower range, no.

Now, given the value of the portable music player market, it wouldn't take long for Creative to cost Apple $200 million in lost sales assuming Apple did choose to strike a cross-licensing deal.

Meanwhile, Apple has about a 30% chance of winning the Creative suit and all its countersuits, and even higher odds of winning Creative and at least some of its countersuits. In all of those scenarios, Apple comes out in the black on the litigation, and Creative suffers losses that will hurt its ability to compete with the iPod. That translates to some amount of additional revenue for Apple (figure 80% of Creative's lost sales, since the iPod has 80% market share), which translates to an even bigger win for Apple.

But hey, what do I know about game theory?

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

Sure, you can make it look like a good decision by pulling settlement figures out of your ass.

Thing is, if Apple lose, Creative won't take a cash settlement, they'll injunctively force Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface.

What's the cash value of that downside?

Now run the numbers.

Re:Bet you...

[lawyerguy]

Some good comments in this thread. I agree that a cross license is probably in the works.

Interesting that nobody has actually talked about the claims of the Creative patent. Since the claims are what define the scope of the patent, that's really the only thing Apple is concerned about. These claims are pretty broad--just about any at least three-level hierarchical interface for selecting tracks in a portable media player will be covered. So if the risk to Apple is real (i.e., either having to a) pay up or x-license; b) stop selling iPods; or c) rework the interface so that it does not infringe), then they'll need to take this seriously. By asserting their own patents, it puts them in better position on the cross-license front. (One lesson to be learned here: patents can be used for defense, too)

Also interesting is that the claims are all methods of selecting a track. That means that technically, it isn't Apple who is infringing--it's the end user. So Creative must prove "contributory infringement" or "inducement" of infringement. Each of those have their own legal requirements, which are probably not so tough to meet here, but are hurdles nevertheless.

Re:Bet you...

[mstone]

First of all, the whole "injunctively forc[ing] Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface," business only comes into play if Apple loses the case and refuses to pay Creative its licensing fees.

The worst reasonable scenario is that the courts force Apple to accept the license Creative offered in the first place and pay any back fees that apply to the iPods already sold.. in other words, pretty much what Creative wanted before taking the matter to court. The cash value of that downside is the $1-1.5B that Creative has been tossing around in its press releases.

Second, you apparently missed the Supreme Court's recent (unanimous) ruling WRT eBay, in which the justices said that plaintiffs are not automatically entitled to an injunction that shuts down a major product line simply because they've proved infringement.

Assuming Creative does manage to prove infringement, they'll still face a four-part test to determine whether shutting down Apple's iPod business is the only acceptable form of redress. Among other things, they'll have to prove that a cash settlement wouldn't be adequate, which will be difficult, because this whole thing started when Creative approached Apple with regard to a technology license.

Granted the ruling came down after Creative filed its suit, but the four-part test in question is already well established. eBay's argument to the Supremes was basically, "the lower court didn't use this test when it should have," and the majority opinion was pretty much, "yup."

So.. Creative's chance of winning its case still looks pretty low. Its chance of getting an injunction against the iPod, even if it does win, looks equally low. The chance of Apple actually shutting down its iPod business rather than just coughing up the cash is nil. The amount of cash a court would order Apple to cough up is pretty much the same amount Creative requested before filing its lawsuit.

Running those numbers, and using a standard strategy matrix, we have Apple settling with Creative and having a 100% chance of paying some amount.. call it $-X, since it's negative cashfllow for Apple. There's no winning or losing there, so we compare $-X to both of Apple's options for taking the case to court.

If Apple takes the matter to court and wins, it has a high probability of paying nothing. Call that probability P, and the cost to Apple of winning would be P * 0, or zero.. much better than $-X.

If Apple takes the matter to court and loses, it has a low probability of paying $-X, or thereabouts. Call that probability 1-P, and the cost to Apple of losing would be (1-P) * $-X. Since (1-P) is less than 1, that's also better than $-X.

Now in game theory, when every payout for one course of action is better than the corresponding payout for another course of action, that course of action is what we call a dominant strategy. Apple's taking the matter to court demonstrates that quality, so taking the matter to court is a dominant strategy for Apple.

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

"Apple to stop selling iPods, as we know them, until they completely redesign the interface," business only comes into play if Apple loses the case and refuses to pay Creative its licensing fees.

Nope. Completely and utterly dead wrong.

Creative (or any other patent holder) aren't constrained to license their technology if they don't want to, they are not constrained to offer that license at a reasonable price, nor can they be so constrained by a court. They can merely insist that Apple stop producing infringing technology.

Re:Bet you...

[mstone]

Don't confuse generalities with specific cases.

Creative contacted Apple and spent months trying to negotiate a license. Even if they do win their infringement case against Apple, that behavior indicating intent to license is a matter of record. It will have to be considered as part of the four-part test recently endorsed by the supreme court in deciding whether an injunction is warranted, or whether something less will do.

There's no way in hell Creative, in this specific case, could get a blank check to shut down Apple's whole iPod business. You can haul generalities out of your own ass all day, but you can't make them correspond to actual legal practice. So let's just agree to disagree, and when Apple shuts down its entire iPod line because Creative got a ridiculously over-broad injunction, I'll be the first to say you have bragging rights on the "I told you so" circuit.

Re:Bet you...

[gowen]

Even if they do win their infringement case against Apple, that behavior indicating intent to license is a matter of record.

All that indicates is that they're not certain that they'll win. Once they've won, what's the motivation for licensing?

There's no way in hell Creative, in this specific case, could get a blank check to shut down Apple's whole iPod business.

Wow. You're a particularly lousy pretend lawyer, because that's exactly what patent law says. If I have a patent, you're not allowed sell an infringing product, unless I say you can. If Creative have already won that battle, why would Creative not enforce this? Unless they desparately need quick cash, or are afraid of the counter suit, what's their motivation?

A Creative Lawsuit is as American as Apple Pie

[digitaldc]

Creative needs to be more innovative and come up with products that sell like Apple's, otherwise they will just try creative lawsuits to make a profit.
Apple apparently has very good lawyers, people that try to sue them for a piece of the pie usually lose.
No more half-baked ideas on how to sue Apple, just get back to your core products and innovate!

Re:A Creative Lawsuit is as American as Apple Pie

[Liquorman]

Apple Pie? half-baked? How are you are able to keep your metaphors straight, while other slashdotters can only mix them in a seemingly random fashion? Well done sir!

Re:A Creative Lawsuit is as American as Apple Pie

[digitaldc]

Thanks.
I'll drink to that, Liquorman.

Re:A Creative Lawsuit is as American as Apple Pie

[tangent3]

The problem is hardly with Creative needing to be innovative and coming out with products. If you actually bother to compare their product lineups, you will find that Creative has been the more innovative of the two companies and arguably has equal or better featured products from a technical point of view. Creative released its first mp3 player around 18 months before the ipod was first released.

Creative's failure has nothing to do with lack of innovation and all to do with fuxked up marketing.

In Soviet Russia,

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sues...

I mean,

Creative sues...

crap.

Re:In Soviet Russia,

[Jugalator]

Sue Creates an Apple? :-/

Re:In Soviet Russia,

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, eachother sues everyone.

Re:In Soviet Russia,

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents Create Apples.

Mutually assured destruction

[MMC Monster]

There is a reason for defensive patents. Creative won't forget that again.

Re:Mutually assured destruction

[malkavian]

I'm surprised Creative didn't already know this, considering the huge patent portfolio they have on anything down to trivial algorithms for use in sound processing, with the intent of preventing anybody else playing in the sound card market.
Hopefully, the thing they may learn from this is NOT to sue everyone who appears defenceless, as a fair few of them, that may otherwise have let matters lie quietly, turn round and bite them hard.

The WMDs of the tech world have been found

[picz]

Patents are used as WMDs by the big tech corporations. If you have them, you can keep the others from using theirs to sue you into bankrupcy. If you don't have them, you are sitting duck.

Sometimes the doctrine fails and it looks like a patent war between desperate Creative and Apple.

Let's see if this ends as a minor WMD accident and a quick settlement in court, or if we will see a fullblown patent war between two of the big ones. /picz

Re:The WMDs of the tech world have been found

[Jay Random the Other]

'Of course I've got lawyers. They are like nuclear weapons: I've got em 'cause everyone else has. But as soon as you use them they **** everything up.'

-- Danny DeVito in Other People's Money

Re:Won't Matter

[goldaryn]

> The world is ready to dump their iPods in the garbage for this device:

But will it run Lin.. Windows Vista?

Probably because..

[Anonymous Coward]

..they got knowledge of the countersuit by snail-mail. It takes a couple of days. But it is stated in the notification when it was filed. Since they filed it the same day it means also that they were prepared for this and maybe even hoped to provoke the situation. Patent Wars, how amusing... :P

Lawyers

[simonjp]

Judging by the number of lawsuits cropping up recently, the only winners seem to be the lawyers who are lapping it up!

Re:Lawyers

[cpt kangarooski]

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

Re:Lawyers

[simonjp]

Depends if you're a lawyer or not ;-)

But I guess it doesnt help us lowly users directly if it involves pushing up prices (this may or may not happen!) as a result of rising legal costs.

Re:Lawyers

[babbling]

Yes, that's the idea behind software patents.

Re:Won't Matter

[kegger64]

"Wireless streaming of music library anywhere in the world to the device from your home server"

No service provider will allow this when there's money to be made selling the music to their customers.

How about a penalty if you loose?

[webdog314]

There needs to be something to keep this nonsense under control. A whopping fine if you sue and loose might be a decent enough incentive, and might make a few bucks for the government as well.

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[Darth Maul]

... if you loose what? What are we letting go?

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[webdog314]

That's the whole point. Right now, it's a free for all for anybody with a lawyer and a similar product/process/look/idea. If you sue another corporation and loose, all you loose are lawyers fees. If you have a seriously legit claim, then you won't loose. But companies like creative can sue a bigger entity like Apple and get three months of cheap publicity. They may even force Apple into settling just to shut them up (negative publicity is expensive too). But if you tack on a penalty (say, twice the total fees paid to your lawyers) then it would encourage companies to think twice about filing a suit five years after a product has been on the market.

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[Guysmiley777]

He was just making fun of your incorrect use of the word 'loose'. Loose != lose.

If you loose something, you let it go, "Loose a cannon barrage." Loose of course can also be used as the opposite of tight. "Your shoestring is loose."

To 'lose' a court case means that you lost the case.

English grammar are fun. :)

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[MyNameIsEarl]

Loose change?? That is all you will have left after paying the lawyers.

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[Ohreally_factor]

Maybe the penalty for loosing would be a tightening?

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[node 3]

That would stifle people fighting for their rights. Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but they are a side-effect of our right to have legitimate lawsuits.

There's a downside to every right and freedom we have. That's one of the reasons people have supported fascist and other oppressive forms of government. Any attempt you make to curtail an abuse of a right or freedom must be weighed against the harm it will cause to non-abuses of those rights and freedoms. In most cases, it's best to just accept the bad with the good.

Re:How about a penalty if you loose?

[Trillan]

How about this:

Don't make patents a profit center for the government!

Right now it is in the patent office's best interest to grant every patent. The last thing you want to do is making it the patent's office best interest to grant every patent, and the court's best interest to deny every lawsuit. Better to kill the patent system entirely (good and bad) than make it a completely senile and toothless system.

Karma baby!

[bigtangringo]

Karma, it's a beutiful thing.

Re:Karma baby!

[bigtangringo]

I suppose I probably had that typo coming ;(

Re:Karma baby!

[geoffrobinson]

So you're a fan of Carson Daly too?

patent whining .....

[nblender]

The patent process is broken. But not the way I keep seeing described. A bunch of years ago I had an idea for a computer server add-on. It was a better way of solving a problem that Dell/HP/IBM weren't addressing at the time. We designed and built these things and over a couple of years, sold about 3000 of them. We even got slashdotted. We applied for a patent because we were afraid we'd be scooped. It took 4 years before the patent was approved and granted. By that time, Dell/HP/IBM and some smaller players all made their own version of our product and we went out of business. Now our technology features prominently on their web pages. We sent a few "you're violating our patent. Lets discuss licensing." letters, and received "oh yeah? We see your patent and raise you 1000 lawyers" responses and now we haven't got two nickles to rub together.

Now, with this new development, even if we did find a few nickles, since we're no longer an active business, we can't even go after these people because there's no rubber mallet to beat them with anymore ....

So don't bother innovating folks. You'll just get eaten alive.

Re:patent whining .....

[pastafazou]

So sell your patent to someone who has the resources to sue HP/IBM/Dell.

Re:patent whining .....

[elysian1]

Have you tried talking to a law firm that works on contingency fee? If your patent is truly valid, and these guys are infringing, I can't imagine there isn't a lawyer out there that won't take your case for a percentage of whatever you win in court.

Re:patent whining .....

[Megane]

Now, with this new development, even if we did find a few nickles, since we're no longer an active business, we can't even go after these people because there's no rubber mallet to beat them with anymore ....

That's when you take the consolation prize and sell out to the patent trolls for a few million.

Re:patent whining .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps.

Is this what we want - innovative people caught up in the courts? And even on contingency, my guess is that there are still some serious costs besides lawyers.

Is this what he's going to want - to be caught up in the courts for 5 years trying to get paid for work done years ago, knowing that it may or may not pay out? It's a business decision about how their time is best spent.

Time favors the deep pockets.

Re:patent whining .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, with this new development, even if we did find a few nickles, since we're no longer an active business, we can't even go after these people because there's no rubber mallet to beat them with anymore ....

Couldn't you sell your patent to an IP-licensing company? You'd get whatever cash lump sum, and they'd sue everyone for 5 * that amount. Profit all round.

Apple is acting like Microsoft

[griffse]

Looks like Apple is trying to crush any smaller competitors. If the iPod is better they should just allow the competition. That would, of course, not be the American way these days. Someone should have patented the couch several years ago, it would be easier to choose when you buy furniture.

Re:Apple is acting like Microsoft

[10Ghz]

Creative is scum. they have played the lawsuit-game to crush smaller companies with better products (Aureal...). I for one would just LOVE to see Creative spanked in similar way.

What we have here is one company (Creative) that is unable to compete with their products against competitor, so they resort to lawsuits instead.

Re:Apple is acting like Microsoft

[falcon5768]

Um they DID. The iPod is doing so well Creative can't compete. First they tried to blackmail them into paying them royalties for a patent Apple knew Creative couldnt back up, then they fired at Apple to force Apple to pay them for something that in all honesty should not have been patentable BY Creative (there is prior art out the ass on it) Apple is simply firing back at them for it. The truth is all that would happen if Creative won would be Creative would leave the market all together and live off the money Apple paid them for royalties. The other outcome though would be Creative would lose and likely leave the market having exhausted all their money on suing Apple. With Apple doing this Creative will just likely settle realizing that Apple has them beat.

Re:Apple is acting like Microsoft

[pastafazou]

No, Apple saw Creative one lawsuit, and raised them three more. It's called IP/patent poker, and it's all the rage right now. It's set to take over Texas Hold 'em as the most popular form of poker.

Re:Apple is acting like Microsoft

[libra-dragon]

Good points. I think Apple will actually be in better shape with Creative being awarded the patent. Apple has the defensive IP to deter Creative from winning any substantial battle. The other competition doesn't posess the "bend-Creative-over-the-barrel" IP, so they lose. Apple could license Creative's patent at zero cost and write in some contractual clause that makes Creative responsible for prosecuting other violators --at Creative's cost.

just don't look

[SlashSquatch]

Hey, Springfield! Are you suffering from the heartbreak of...Monster-itis? Then take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka!

To stop those monsters, one-two-three,
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free.
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...

Re:just don't look

[cpt kangarooski]

It sounds good, but what if I'm in Tennessee?

Re:just don't look

[Anonymous Coward]

Guarantee void in Tennessee!

I wish we had video of the 'discussions',

[pupdog311]

Just so we could see Steve sitting there going 'You REALLY don't want to do that'... Or is that just the Hollywood-script-in-my-head version?

Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[FatSean]

Creative's BS soundcard driver install process, and Apple's general loutishness drove me away from both companies. Why would I support someone who made me jump though hoops just to get the 'drivers only' installed for my soundcard? Why would I buy an over-priced, under-featured music player just because the 'interface is awesome!'? It's not so awesome...not the Apple Price Premium awesome, that's for sure.

This should be fun to watch.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[Ender Ryan]

I haven't installed a Creative soundcard in ages... Care to explain the process just a bit? I'd be mighty pissed indeed if I had to jump through hoops just to install DRIVERS for a product I paid money for.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[iocat]

The problem isn't just installing the drivers, the problem is installing just the drivers (have fun parsing that, non-native english speakers). Creative makes you install all this other crap, even if you merely want the drivers, by themselves.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[WinterSolstice]

To me this is pretty funny - I find the whole MP3 player market to be like this, and it amuses me to see people defend Apple or Creative on this one. The comment "general loutishness" I think applies equally to both companies. Apple *loves* to sue people for perceived slights, Creative has an argument that is weak at best, and neither of them are doing this the "right way" by simply being market competitive.

I personally hate Creative's players, but I'm not really a huge iPod fan either. I like the shuffle a lot, and I have the SLVR phone (the first phone player I ever actually liked). Creative pissed me off on their players with a cludgy unpleasent interface, and Apple pissed me off on the SLVR with the stupid "100 song" limit. I have 512MB of storage on the stupid thing, and I can only utilize about 300MB of it for music due to that arbitrary decision.

So - hell with them both. With any luck both will fall.

-WS

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[LunaticTippy]

Interesting. Reminds me of another company's media player. Any chance they could both lose?

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[plazman30]

The price of both the iPod line and the creatve line are almost identical. The big reason to choose Apple is longevityof the company, available third party add-ons, and the UI. Apple wins on all three.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[drinkypoo]

There's another problem with creative drivers, or at least there has traditionally been, and it stops me from buying creative products that don't come with drivers in the OS: You cannot download drivers for most of their sound cards, you must download driver updates. This is seriously fucking stupid for several reasons:

1. If I lose my driver CD, I have to pay creative for another one, or find someone else out there on the 'net who is willing to infringe copyright by mailing me a copy of theirs.
2. I can't just double-click one installer to install the driver. I have to install the driver, then install the driver update. I probably have to reboot in the middle, too, to make sure that anything that RunOnce's isn't going to get stepped on by something else in the same list.

This is plain stupid. They might have changed by now, though. There's NO REASON for it, except that you can download a driver from them to use with Windows 98 in a vmware machine - except you can STILL download that driver (AFAIK) from Creative UK.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[mikael_j]

I parsed your comment as:

1. It's easy to install the drivers.
2. It's hard as hell to install just the drivers without a ton of crap.
3. Non-native speakers of english don't understand english grammar because we're all idiots(?)

BTW, I've experienced the hell that is Creative drivers, another classic move by them was to rename the driver for a piece of hardware to something other than "driver", and they then called that software something else on their website than on the CD that came with the hardware. That was a fun afternoon...

/Mikael

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[Ender Ryan]

Wow. Just... wow.

That's so ludicrous I don't know what else to say. What is wrong with them?

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[JebusIsLord]

Not convinced on the UI, to be honest.

First some background: I happily owned a 20GB Nomad Jukebox 3 for years, and as it finally died right before Christmas, it has been replaced by a 30GB iPod Video.

The interface is essentially the same (Nomad had a scroll wheel. Newer models have a touch slider), but the Creative players have a handy "right-click"-style menu where you can do things like "add track to play list" for instance. The iPod interface, in the pursuit of simplicity, does not have any such feature, so you can't generate a playlist on the fly for instance. Ignoring the context menu (which was accessed on the JB3 by simply pressing the scroll wheel), the interfaces are essentially identical and my mother could use either.

I do really like my new iPod though. I can appreciate engineering excellence as well as anyone, and it is a fine, fine piece of plastic.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[JebusIsLord]

I have to disagree a bit on the UI.

I currently use a 30GB iPod Video, which just replaced my old 20GB Nomad Jukebox 3. The interfaces are essentially identical, but the creative players have a handy "right-click" context menu (accessed by pressing the wheel) that lets you do things like "add track to current playlist", "save playlist" etc. which I used frequently and miss a lot. Sure, Apple went for pure simplicity, but I find the Nomads are just as easy to use, and include some useful power features as well.

Having said that, the iPod is a fine, fine piece of engineered plastic.

Re:Pffft...that's why I bought an iRiver.

[beren12]

Don't be a troll, of course you can make an "On the Go" playlist. Apple even calls it that. Read any docs or reviews on the product and you'll discover that holding the center button down adds a song/album/etc. to a new playlist. You can even remove songs from the playlist.

Bull

[Lord Duran]

Apple would not have sued had Creative stayed silent. Creative should mind their own business and not blame their losses on patent infringement.

Re:Bull

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Agreed. I wonder why this isn't so obvious to everyone.

Re:Won't Matter

[/ASCII]

Numerous attempts have been made to make mp3-playing phones, cellphone pda:s, cell phones that are gaming devices and a million other convergence devices. There are hundreds of 'camera phones' but none of them take decent pictures. The best way to get a good phone with a good mp3-player is STILL to tape a Nano to your razr.

Convergence devices suck. They have always sucked. There is always a new convergence device around the corner that reportedly won't suck. But it will. Get over it.

Tomorrow....

[phlegmofdiscontent]

...The RIAA sues Apple (because the RIAA has been suing left & right and because Apple seems to be a target lately). They don't even need a reason, they could probably say "Just because...". Then Apple counter-sues the RIAA "because they're doodieheads".

Re:Tomorrow....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. Now give me back the minute I wasted reading your worthless post and posting this response.

Re:Patent nuclear war

[DickBreath]

Play with patent fire & you're going to get burnt.

Patent nuclear war. (Nookular war)

Maybe we will get to witness mutually assured destruction?

Will it spread to become a global war? Every company with a related patent sues Apple and/or Creative. Apple and/or Creative countersues for some other patent. A third wave of companies see the second wave of companies attempting to profit from patent infringement suits, and realize that the second wave companies infringe on one of their patents. Therefore a third wave of patent holders sues the second wave. Countersuits follow. Etc, etc.

But seriously, something like this could be the best possible outcome. Let the natural consequences of a screwed up system penalize all of those who try to take advantage of it.

Maybe someone would wake up and realize that there is a problem here. Congresscritter thinking to itself: "First they took my blackberry, now my iPod. Something is wrong here.".

Re:And you say...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hahahahahaha,

It reminds me of those drunks waiting in front of the liquor store before it opens in the morning, or the heroin addicts fiending for their methadone in front of the clinic.

Thank you, thank you. I live for comments like this one - its an even better 'hit' then getting the +1 funny mod I crave so much.

Btw - how can you 'fiend' for methadone? I am geniunly curious to know what you meant.

I would also like to point out to you that you read /. often enough to know how often I post here! Everything you wrote about me applies to you!

*Blows Johnny-Boy a Kiss*

Re:Won't Matter

[TomHandy]

You know, no matter how many times I keep hearing people say that music-playing cellphones are the future and dedicated music players will become extinct, I just don't buy it. Personally, I'm not breathlessly waiting for some system where I can stream the music from my home computer; this would require that my cellphone is in an area where it gets service, and there are still places where that isn't the case, and it would require leaving my computer on all the time. Why exactly is this more convenient than having my music stored on my local music player? Battery life is also iffy enough as it is, what's it going to be like when streaming it over a wireless network connection?

I don't mean to be completely dismissive of it, as I'm sure that if someone did a really great device it might do most of what you say. But even if they do, which phone company is even going to want to offer this? They seem a lot more obsessed with charging $2-3 a song to download over the air.

Re:Won't Matter

[Mr. Underbridge]

iPod sales are plummeting.

Where the hell did you get that?

Sick of Sue-Happiness

[kstatefan40]

Is anyone else sick of all this crap?

The reason Creative is in trouble is because the Ipods sell TONS more, because kids see an Ipod, and they want an Ipod themselves. They don't want a 'cheaper' Creative model. Hell, my Palm does 10x more than an Ipod, and I still hear "Well, my Ipod is cooler!"

Kids do not care about functionality or price, they care about what is cool. Trust me on this - I see it every day.

Honestly, I'm just sick of companies wasting money suing each other. Maybe if they would waste the money in their business, we wouldn't have all the outsourcing we do today. Does that make sense? I think it does.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[simonjp]

But does your palm have 80GB of memory :P
My PDA does more than iPods - and has a bigger screen than the video. Pity about the battery life though!

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[mausmalone]

I think the only thing that makes me sick about your comment is that kids today have iPods. Man, I couldn't afford my own GameBoy when I was a kid.... and I wasn't that young when they came out.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[xmorg]

Too right on that.

cant we just all get along and support ogg?

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[quasipunk guy]

The iPod's biggest innovation wasn't being "cool" or anything superficial like that -- though excellent industrial design played a huge role in its success. The iPod was simply the first MP3 player that was a pleasure to use. I had a first gen iPod (read: pre cool factor) and while it wasn't capacious enough to hold my music collection, the scroll wheel (a huge innovation that's probably taken for granted nowadays) made the iPod an unobtrusive, easy to use, practical device.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this problem is, of course, for somebody to patent coolness.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all kids care about cool.
I'm a kid and I'm reading slashdot.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing as wrong as being over jealous over the childhood of other's family.

Just because there's poor people in china doesn't mean you want to be as poor, right ? so shut the fuck up when in the same country some people are more rich and happy than you were.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

Only cool kids care about cool.

Re:Sick of Sue-Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to agree with you, about Palms being better for music and photos. But you know what? I was wrong. iPods sound MUCH better than Palm devices and can hold many times more music or spoken word. It is also much easier to put music onto one using iTunes.

When history will be made

[oztiks]

The day a large corporation falls at the hands to a patent infringement case will be a day to remember.

At the moment its just like this big school yard fight and they give each others black eyes by hurling stones in the playground. Though, at the end of the day its the lawyers who are making the real money... the corporations just get the satisfaction of temporarily wounding a competitor.

The real loss is when companys get downsized as a result to these legal games and hardworking employees cop it in the ass.

Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.

[guidryp]

This is the same Creative that used patent extortion against ID software. These guys are one step removed from SCO. I launched my personal boycott of creative products that day.
http://3dgpu.com/archives/2004/07/28/john-carmack- on-creative-patentn/

Anyone using dubious patents to extort as a buisness model deserves to get crushed. I wish ID had played hardball against these slimeballs.

Re:Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.

[mausmalone]

Wait... am I reading that right? Did Creative really have the balls to patent the z-fail algorithm and sue John Carmack? An algorithm more commonly known as "Carmack's Reverse?" I don't see why they gave in... this would've taken one whopping day in court for Carmack to kick them to the curb.

Re:Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.

[shark72]

What is your point... that the algorithm is so obvious that it should not have been patentable?

If so, it raises the question of why it needs to be called "Carmack's reverse" if it's so blindingly obvious.

I have no doubt that Carmack was very, very clever to have thought of it. Trouble is, somebody else thought of it first.

Re:Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17525

Re:Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.

[GaryPatterson]

A couple of developers (Bilodeau and Songy) developed this technique around the same time as John Carmack and Sim Dietrich from nVidia. It was a fairly logical idea after all, an elegant solution.

Bilodeau and Songy filed a patent from their company, which was granted but their company was bought up by Creative. And we know what Creative then did.

It was never an id-only technique, or something stolen from them. The USPTO should have found that Carmack and Dietrich were presenting the algorithm publicly, but the attitude there seems to be to allow patents through and let the courts sort it out.

(rant)
I have real problems with the idea of patenting software algorithms. Designs, maybe, but methods? Sometimes there are only so many ways a task can be achieved. If you don't hold the patents, you can't develop. That's like patenting metallurgical techniques, so that a company can be the only supplier of girders in the world. The design of a girder could be patented, but not the means by which it's made.
(end rant)

id could have gone to court, but who wants to see all their profits eaten up by lawyers? It would be a trial over several months, with discovery phases, evidence presented and all that. A single-day trial is a fantasy in patent law, as far as I can see.

Re:Won't Matter

[10Ghz]

I think you are off-base here. Yes, there are zillion cameraphones out there. Yes, their image-quality is not as good as on "real" cameras (but they are getting better). But that's not the point. Their purpose is not to replace cameras as such (although someone might decide not to buy a camera if he has a cameraphone). Their purpose is that the user will always have a camera with him. People don't usually walk around with cameras, but they have their phones with them all the time. Cameraphones are meant for those ad-hoc situations when you need to snap a picture. If you are attending a wedding, then you will propably use a proper camera instead.

And I do have one of those "cellphone-pda's" (Nokia 9300 Communicator). And I love the thing. Only marginally bigger than a phone, fits well in to my pocket, web-browser, push email, calendar, text-editor, ssh-client, QWERTY-keyboard... And it's also a very good phone! I just love the speakerphone on this thing :).

Can one of your "web 2.0 geniuses".....

[Churla]

Can one of you Web 2.0 coding geniuses build an app which would give os a nive graphical representation of who is suing who? One where you can mouse over the arrow between the circles representing companies to see what the suit is over?

It would help make some sense of this, and we could look for patterns to bet on who would sue who next.

At this point I'm betting just in time for presedential elections in 2008 it will be bad enough that some candidate can use "I will reform patent law" as a campaign promise.

Re:Can one of your "web 2.0 geniuses".....

[Trillan]

That would be pretty cool. I bet dot could do it.

I'm confused

[Tim C]

Since when is it the patent holder's responsibility to warn others that they are infringing on their patents?

Re:I'm confused

[neonfrog]

Since when is it the patent holder's responsibility to warn others that they are infringing on their patents?

Um, all the time?

You need to actively defend your patents. No one more than you can tell if someone is infringing. Do you expect the overburdened patent office to review every new competing product for you -- you know, all those ones that AREN'T trying to compete on patents (they've filed for ZERO) but instead are beating you up on price using your patented methodology? Do I sound bitter from experience? Hmm ...

The first thing you do is notify them, usually through a lawyer. That is you and not the gub'mint doing the notifying. When they are non-responsive you up the ante legally. It is still you pushing the issue. Remember, a lawyer is your agent and their job is to THREATEN legal action initially. Lawyers don't actually enforce, you know. That's cops (or feds) and they need a pointy stick (big ticket obvious infringement in the million$) before they'll move on your behalf. Do I sound bitter from experience? Hmm ...

If you never noticed the infringement happening ... well, there is no USPTO infringement fairy that will bless you with +5 protections, send out the federal Mafia to "collect," and present you with a fat check all Ed-McMahon-ny. It's all you. You are the driving force. You decide how much you want to spend defending the patent, or you walk away and lose it. Walk away ONCE and you can never really go after anyone else for that patent ever again.

Is this the ultimate correct legal path? I don't know. Is it the way things usually work? Yup. It is cheaper and faster to negotiate outside of a real legal battle. Why go expensive and nuclear if you can get licensing first? The whole point of the patent is to make money off it, and not lose all your ability to do business by defending it, after all.

Re:I'm confused

[Tim C]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - Creative are moaning that when they first started talking to Apple about Apple's infringement of their patent, Apple didn't mention the patents that they are now counter-suing about.

That is what I was referring to - that Apple had no obligation to do so.

Obviously if someone is infringing on a patent you hold, you have to take action yourself, but that doesn't necessarily constitute warning them about it. You could just go straight into suing them, as Apple have essnetially done here (which is hardly a warning).

Where's the pun?

[Megane]

How could you pass up the obvious pun, "Cry me an iRiver"? Shame on you.

Re:Won't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Where the hell did you get that?"

Welcome to Earth.

Not only have iPod sales dropped quarter over quarter for the first time ever, they almost dropped IN HALF. Can you say 'saturation point'?

And on top of that shocking result Apple warned about next quarters numbers in the last quarterly report. I guess you didn't bother to read or listen to it.

The days of size/colour/capacity tweaks fueling iPod growth are coming to an end.

Re:Won't Matter

[dogmatixpsych]

Even if what you say is true at all, Apple would just release their own iTunes cell phone and they'd take over the market.

Creative Online Store

[Scigirl451]

Now I see why I was unable to order an new MP3 player on the Creative site when I tried to use my XboxLive Diamond card discount. All of the players were marked *Out of Stock* and that did seem rather odd. Too bad. I adore my Micro Zen and think that its sound quality and ease of use are wonderful and I had wanted to get both a little Flash player and a large hard disk model. Guess I'll have to wait and see how things go on the battlefield...

Re:Creative Online Store

[2nd Post!]

Want to know irony?

Creative announced the Micro Zen after Apple released the iPod mini, by about 10 months:
iPod mini in January of 2004
Zen Micro in October of 2004

They also released their first "small" DAP after the iPod:
"full sized" Nomad Jukebox in 2000
iPod in October of 2001
Zen in 2002

Everything good about the Zens and Nomads exist because Apple did it first :)

This just in

[SQLz]

Ipod and Nomad prices jump $25 due to idiotic stupidity. Film at 11.

oh my lord...

[revlayle]

I like creative's players....

....*BUT* after working in their north american web development/eCommerce team for almost 2 years, I can tell you this: management is a mess, pay is bad, and they will try anything to sway competitors and market share.

ever since sound cards have become commodity, Creative has slipped in revenues (for the most part). their products are decent enough (IMO) and affordable, but I think their whole legal and marketing team needs to be axed.

the counter suit from apple? i am certainly NO apple fanboy, but if you play with fire (creative), expect to get burned.

Re:oh my lord...

[Scynet85]

Slighly off-topic, but the problem with soundcards is that unlike what seems to be every other PC component out there, sound cards that are 5 years old are still perfectly good. Processing sound doesn't require so much power that you have to get a new card every year, and even the amount of line in/out/whatever jacks you can add is limited.

Re:oh my lord...

[Audigy]

*peer*

Re:Creative is cheaper? Huh?

[drhamad]

I don't know exactly what player you're referencing, but for example, the Creative Zen Vision:M 30GB and the Apple iPod 30GB are both $299 (ignoring Apple edu & corporate discounts, even). And that's not even getting into the software side of the equation.

Re:Won't Matter

[z-kungfu]

they pulled it out of their ass...

Grammar Nazi Called

[Anonymous Coward]

Whom's your daddy?

related tech question ...

[dJOEK]

Is it still possible to use a Creative MP3 player with itunes?

i remember, back in the day before the ipod, my Nomad II 128 worked sweetly with iTunes, showing an icon and all.

And on a side note, why doesn't apple just buy creative? or at least their mp3 player department...

Re:related tech question ...

[robertjw]

And on a side note, why doesn't apple just buy creative? or at least their mp3 player department...

Two reasons. First, why? Creative doesn't have a significant market share. Probably cheaper to take them to court. Second, there would probably be a bunch of legal hoops to jump through from those pesky anti-trust people.

Re:related tech question ...

[Trillan]

Besides this patent stupidity, what does Creative have that Apple would want?

Re:And you say...

[Ohreally_factor]

Btw - how can you 'fiend' for methadone? I am geniunly curious to know what you meant.

It's drug slang, based on the phrase "drug fiend". "I was fiending for some doritos" = "I desired some doritos with the same fervor that a drug addict needs drugs". It implies that the subject is going thru withdrawals and needs the object to avoid being sick. See also "jones" and "jonesing".

I think it's funny that the anonymous writer has brought the use of the slang term back to the realm of hard drug use after the term has become more generalized to refer to any object of desire or need.

Re:And you say...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Oh right! Cheers for that. I had a feeling that *might* have been it - but the A.C. was a little frothy at the mouth, so I wasn't sure.

I obviously need to start watching more TV or something...

Out of your league

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron

"Opiate withdrawal is caused by stopping, or dramatically reducing, opiate use after heavy and prolonged use (several weeks or more).

Opiates include heroin, morphine, codeine, Oxycontin, Dilaudid, methadone"

It produces the same withdrawal symptoms as the other opiates, and if taken in high enough doses, produces similar effects. On other, shorter, easier for you to understand words, they fiend for it the same way they fiend for everything else.

"I would also like to point out to you that you read /. often enough to know how often I post here! Everything you wrote about me applies to you!"

I would like to point out that once again, you've said something galatically stupid.

Your history One click, one time, one minute. Wow, you sure make it easy to show that you're a buffoon.

I await your guaranteed to be moronic reply, mostly because I know your life is so empty that you can't resist responding when someone exposes your pitiable existence for what it is.

Re:Out of your league

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Out of your league

Against you? When you post such informative comments as this one?

Opiates include heroin, morphine, codeine, Oxycontin, Dilaudid, methadone"

Errr, I asked what fiend had to do with anything - and the ohreally factor has allready replied.

I guess I'm just not as 'with it' on US drug lingo as you are.

Oh and you're so cute, describing me as moronic when you didn't even read my 'fiend' question correctly. Blows johnny another kiss! :-x

Creative is stupid

[UtSupra]

They should have foreseen this. I did! They are going to lose as hard as Apple wants them to. For now, Apple is being kind.

Re:Creative is stupid

[boomerny]

agreed. Apple is letting Creative live for now because they are number 2(however distant), and don't want the gov claiming monopoly.

Promoting Innovation

[BigNumber]

I love how patents are supposed to promote innovation. Now instead of spending money on research and development, companies are spending money on lawyers and patent settlements.

Good for lawyers, bad for innovation.

does apple have no shame?

[bitt3n]

apple is shameless. first they sue apple computer on some groundless concern over confusing names, and NOW they sue CREATIVE when Apple doesn't even MAKE mp3 players?? They should take advice from the Beatles and "Let it Be".

Re:does apple have no shame?

[fuzzdawg]

Are you retarded?

Apple Computer, maker of the iPod music player, is suing Creative Technology, raising the stakes in the legal dispute over competing devices.

Apple Computer, not the Apple music label, is suing Creative, .

Re:does apple have no shame?

[Anonymous Coward]

That whooshing noise you may have heard was the joke going over your head.

Re:does apple have no shame?

[bitt3n]

Apple Computer, not the Apple music label, is suing Creative.

I stand corrected! But why would a mp3 maker sue a talent agency? After all, Creative, or as they are known outside the industry, Creative Artists Agency, are the very people who manage the fine careers of such thespians as Angelina Jolie and TOM CRUISE. Do they really want to go up against a guy whose religion is basically a legal team that worships a volcano?

Re:does apple have no shame?

[fribhey]

i'm pretty sure you are the only retarded person here.

too bad you can't just buy a sense of humor.

Re:Won't Matter

[/ASCII]

Yes, cameraphones fill a need, that's why they are popular. My point is that compared to regular cameras, they suck. And while some people swear by their cellphone-pda devices, those people are a tiny minority. The Nokia communicator has existed for something like a decade, and it is still a small niche product. There are both better pdas and better cellphones than the Communicator.

I disagree

[DaFallus]

That really sucks for you. I have a Zen Micro and I have had zero trouble with it. In my opinion the sound quality is just as good as an ipod, if not better, and I was able to get a second (removable) battery plus an extended warranty and still pay less than I would have for an ipod mini by itself. Plus I enjoy being the only person at work who doesn't have a trendy ipod. I'm not saying the ipod isn't a good product, but it seems like everyone and their grandmother is going out and buying one just to be hip.

Re:I disagree

[ericdano]

Yeah, and we all know that having an extra battery to listen to your slowjams is important. NOT.

Re:I disagree

[Moofie]

"Plus I enjoy being the only person at work who doesn't have a trendy ipod"

Because doing what other people AREN'T doing is way, WAY cooler than doing what they ARE doing.

Your behavior is still dictated by the herd if you insist on always walking in exactly the opposite direction from the herd.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but at least you facing everyone head on instead of just following the A$$ in front of you. lmao :)

Re:I disagree

[Prog_Burner]

And I'm not saying that the Creative that I have isn't great, I really like the sound quality, the way it navigates and the price that is better than an ipod, that was a big part of buying it.
What I don't feel good about is at 4 or 5 months in, having a player that cuts out when it's in my pocket while I'm walking around. As the post below says, I can fix it with a soldering iron, but why should I have to fix it myself? If it's not up to having a pair of headphones plugged into it (primary purpose) and being shoved in my pocket, then maybe they should replace it, that would give me a much better feeling than fixing it myself and voiding the already crappy warranty.
Maybe I'll have an even worse experience with an ipod, who knows? I won't be buying it because it's "trendy" I'll buy it because maybe it'll work the way I want it to.

Re:I disagree

[vivek7006]

Your behavior is still dictated by the herd if you insist on always walking in exactly the opposite direction from the herd.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist.

Re:I disagree

[Moofie]

That's a tough one. Do the terrorists have good dental coverage?

Re:I disagree

[kestasjk]

So.. always walk perpendicular to herd?

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

No! No! No!

First you normalize the herd, then you do a statistical analysis of the behavior mode in multiple domains: physical, spatial, psycholgical, emotional, intellectual. Then you syncretize the community views about the purpose of the herd as a dynamic organism structure in a changing environment in tabular form. After that you create an objective model of herd behavior in six colors (one color per domain, and a sixth to represent cumulative effects)and use a Kalman Filter to simulate the herd 'plant' and impact the 'plant' with various random events along each domain to create a predictive model of herd behavior in the cumulative domain. Then your professor tells you you can't solve analog problems using a digital model and gives you an F.

THEN you go out and buy the iPod.

Re:Won't Matter

[rihteri]

There are already cell phones with hard drives for you music. No need for wireless streaming, that's just an option you don't have on an ipod. Also, why the troll moderation for the grandparent?

Hey Creative! It's the marketing stupid!

[sean000]

Winning a patent won't help Creative corner the mp3 player market, but I suppose it might get them a nice settlement and a share of Apple's profits. Apple owns the mp3 player market because of excellent design and marketing. Me? I'm actually a Creative user. I still use the Jukebox III I bought several years back. At the time it was much cheaper than the iPod, had more storage than the iPod, two battery bays, easily replaceable batteries, and better sound quality. Of course it was bulkier, heavier, and... it's kind of frumpy looking since it appears that Creative simply took the chassis from one of their portable CD players and installed a hard drive and some mp3 player innards. The desktop software also kind of sucked. I invested another 30 or 40 bucks for the NotMad Explorer, but my overall investment was still much less than the iPod of the day. I've been quite happy with it. I don't mind the bulk since it sits in my shoulder bag. Battery life is great. It's rugged as all get out (it has been dropped). It sounds great too. Meanwhile Apple cornered the market with a much more attractive design, easier controls, better software, and kick-ass marketing. Apple's cult status among creative folks has also helped. I know many poor artists and actors who could have purchased a much cheaper mp3 player, but they shelled out more for the iPod because it is sexier. And there is nothing wrong with that... every iPod has been a fantastic looking device. And if you use something every day, why not use something that looks and feels good? My fiancee also has a Creative Zen Xtra, which she loves. It's definitely more stylish than my old Jukebox 3, but it was the start of Creative moving towards an iPod rip-off sort of look. If Creative wants to hold on, or even slightly increase, their piddly market share: They need to invest in some hotshot designers and better marketing. The technology and actual user interface are secondary. It just has to play music, sound good, look good; and it has to be marketed well. Then again, perhaps that boat has already sailed. The iPod may suffer slightly from a "gee, everyone's got one" backlash, but it was also an instant classic.

Re:Hey Creative! It's the marketing stupid!

[yippiekiyeh]

On a side note, you know it's got to be sexy when it is on display at the MOMA

Re:Won't Matter

[iainl]

"Can you say 'saturation point'?"

Why yes, I can. However, I can also say "The previous quarter was the one with Thanksgiving and Christmas in, and the one in which they sold more players than the other three quarters of 2005 put together" and so calm down again.

Meanwhile, cellphones continue to be absolutely hideous for music playing due to their interface.

And the lesson for the rest of us is

[Vicegrip]

This kind of litigation is all the innovation we can expect patents to deliver these days.

Re:Won't Matter

[GaryPatterson]

And yet the nameless troll can't name the mystery product, and even if they could, there's a big leap from predicting the death of the iPod to it actually happening.

More pointless trolling. More anonymous cowards.

Re:Won't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"and so calm down again."

Gee, thanks for setting everyone straight!

I guess when the CFO of Apple states that iPod sales will continue to be weak in the upcoming quarters after sales have dropped in half he really needs to calm the fuck down because some random Apple fanboy on Slashdot is spewing some damage control.

Apple knows there is a serious problem with iPod sales.
Wallstreet knows there is a serious problem with iPod sales.
But, hey, Apple fanboys are in lalaland!

did you read that patent?

[YesIAmAScript]

Abstract:

The present invention relates to systems and/or methods that generate playlist(s) for a library or collection of media items via selecting a plurality of seed items, at least one of which is an undesirable seed item. Some of the seed items are desirable indicating that a user prefers additional media items similar to the desirable seed items and others are undesirable indicating that the user prefers additional media items dissimilar to the undesirable seed items. Additionally, the seed items can be weighted to establish a relative importance of the seed items. The invention compares media items in the collection with the seed items and determines which media items are added into the playlist by computation of similarity metrics or values. The playlist can be regenerated by adding desirable seed items to the playlist and removing media items from the playlist (e.g., undesirable seed items)."

Why would Apple be worried about that? This patent applies to giving weights to stuff you like and don't like and having the device autogenerate playlists. It's basically a knockoff of TiVo's thumbs up and down.

iPod doesn't auto select stuff you might like for you. Even iTunes doesn't.

So why would Apple worry about that patent?

Re:Won't Matter

[Mr. Underbridge]

Not only have iPod sales dropped quarter over quarter for the first time ever, they almost dropped IN HALF. Can you say 'saturation point'?

It was also the first time they didn't introduce a new product during that respective quarter. When you pay superficial attention to simple statistics, your analysis falls flat.

And on top of that shocking result Apple warned about next quarters numbers in the last quarterly report. I guess you didn't bother to read or listen to it.

You're right. Being a Mac owner and not a brainless zealot (or an Apple shareholder), it wasn't worth my time.

Re:Creative is cheaper? Huh?

[defaria]

I purchased a Creative Zen Touch 40 Gig for ~$200 whereas the iPod 30 Gig was $300. 10 more gig - $100 cheaper.

Turnabout is "Fairplay"

[Warlock7]

Nice to see a response from Apple. What did Creative expect when they sued one of the most notoriously litigious companies in the US?

From a talk by the USPTO comissioner

[SuperKendall]

I was just at a talk given by the USPTO comissioner - a lot of the talk was given to how they are addressing the problem you describe.

Basically a big problem was that for quite a few years, the USPTO funds were being partially diverted to other programs (like social security). So they were not really able to do a lot during that time to address a growing backlog of patent applications.

Now they are fully funded and hiring around 1000 patent examiners a year, with a new program to help train them that's a little like a patent university. This will not shrink the backlog this year, but it will stop the rate of growth the backlog is seeing to some extent and eventually allow them to catch up.

Another big problem is that right now you can re-file a patent as many times as you like, with no changes at all... currently (and these figures are from the talk) 30% of the backlog is refiled patents with no new claims! So they are going to try and institute a system whereby you get one refile after the first one, but after that if you want to refile again you have to show a panel that the patent has been changed enough to be worthy of refiling.

There were a number of independant inventors in the audience and one asked what the USPTO could do to help defend little guys from bigger companies stomping them with lawyers as you experienced. The answer was that he realised the problem but that the USPTO was not a legislative arm of the government and the only way they could help was to make sure a patent was as strong as it could be so it would hold up in court. He did say they would like to see programs to help smaller inventors so someday perhaps we might see a government program for that (though personally I am not sure about another goverment program for anything, but perhaps this is a case where it is wrranted for the health of our patent system and IP space).

Re:From a talk by the USPTO comissioner

[DragonWriter]

I was just at a talk given by the USPTO comissioner - a lot of the talk was given to how they are addressing the problem you describe. Basically a big problem was that for quite a few years, the USPTO funds were being partially diverted to other programs (like social security). So they were not really able to do a lot during that time to address a growing backlog of patent applications.

Um, that example is clearly false: Social Security is not only completely self-funding, but its surplus is borrowed to fund lots of the regular operation of the government. US PTO funds are not being stolen to fund SS.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Against you?"

Yes.

"When you post such informative comments as this one?"

Yeah, about that, Anonymous Coward isn't a username. I know it's in the same location as a user name, but don't let that confuse you again. There's more than one AC. Glad I could help with that, you'd look foolish if you made that mistake again.

"Oh and you're so cute, describing me as moronic when you didn't even read my 'fiend' question correctly."

Hmm that's funny, let's see what Ohreally factor said

"It implies that the subject is going thru withdrawals and needs the object to avoid being sick. See also "jones" and "jonesing".

Now let's see what I said

"Opiate withdrawal..."

Did you miss that?

So, you're wrong once again. It's like the sun coming up, I post a response, you say something wrong and stupid, almost reflexively.

You don't have to say something inane every time, you could shut up and save yourself the humiliation.

And as one more bit of evidence of how wretched your existence is, it took you all of 10 minutes to respond, just like I said you would.

Re:Yes

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And as one more bit of evidence of how wretched your existence is, it took you all of 10 minutes to respond, just like I said you would.

OMG! AC is a psychic!

P.S. Thanks for enlightening me as to how the AC system at slashdot works! That was really helpful - I had no idea!!!1!!!1

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"OMG! AC is a psychic!"

Not at all. I just know that your life is empty and meaningless without this place, so you reply to any response that doesn't slurp you.

And I was right.

Re:Yes

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Not at all. I just know that your life is empty and meaningless without this place, so you reply to any response that doesn't slurp you.

Is slurp like brown nosing? I am really fascinated! You keep on coming out with this valley girl kind of talk!

Oh - and I only reply to you your writing style is so distinctive (and your complete obtuseness in the face of any sarcasm)

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh - and I only reply to you your writing style is so distinctive"

And that other guy who asked if you were fiending.

And now me too I bet.

Brain...Hurting...

[Anonymous Coward]

definately

definitely = definite + ly

There is no "a" - I don't understand why so many people get this one wrong. It's an easy one - I don't think I've ever seen anyone spell definite as "definate", but add an "ly" and people get crazy.

Re:Brain...Hurting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother.

Kick the Yapping Dog

[Kenshin]

Even if they had settled, Creative likely would have started making noise again in another six months over something faintly related.

I imagine Steve Jobs is thinking along the lines of "If the dog won't stop barking at you, give it a swift kick."

(Not that I condone kicking dogs.)
((But I would like to kick little yappy dogs.))

they had it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely hope the Creative patent trolls get a good spanking on this

Re:Won't Matter

[Kadin2048]

What's funnier is Apple used to allow that (computer to computer, not computer to portable device, though) but had to pull the feature because of the problems it raised regarding piracy; it was about the same time they started into negotiations with the record labels over iTMS, I think.

You could boot up iTunes on any computer, hit Connect (from the Advanced menu, I believe) type in your home computer's address, and instantly you'd have access to your music library remotely. It was quite brilliant at the time, I used to use it to listen to music on my PowerBook without taking up its hard drive.

I suspect any other 'worldwide streaming' feature that didn't come with gobs and gobs of mandatory DRM would probably meet a similar fate.

Paten granted last August

[eclectic4]

Does the fact that the patent was only granted to Creative last August have any bearing on this case, especially since the iPod and it's hierachal usage has been in the market for 5 years?

Re:Paten granted last August

[Anonymous Coward]

What matters is when the patent was submitted. With that being said, I don't know when the patent was submitted and am too lazy to look it up; sorry.

Re:Won't Matter

[mstone]

Dude.. everyone knows that the consumer electronics market shows seasonal variations. That's why analysts use year-over-year statistics rather than quarter-over-quarter.

The fact that the iPod has shown consistent Q/Q growth showed that the market was still in the process of discovering the product. The only 'saturation point' we've reached is in mindshare: there's nobody left who hasn't heard of an 'iPod' by now.

This does not signify the end of the iPod market. It marks the fact that the iPod market now, officially, exists. Now it's time to pay attention to Apple's Y/Y iPod sales growth, which, BTW, is phenomenal.

"Cold War" is apt

[Kelson]

What we're seeing is a perfect example of the patent equivalent of mutually assured destruction.

In fact, this counter-suit should surprise no one. Since one of the major reasons that companies who actually make stuff (as opposed to the patent trolls who collect patents so they can make money through lawsuits) build up patent portfolios is for deterrent value. Sue me for violating your patent, and I'll sue you for violating my patent.

The only question is, if Apple didn't bring up their own patents in discussion with Creative, why did they sacrifice the deterrent value in favor of surprise retaliation?

Re:Won't Matter

[Jesus_666]

No flash card support. Doesn't do OGG. Jack of all trades, master of none. Lame.

I would pay for the following devices:
- rugged cellphone with SMS support (ideal device: Nokia 6210, even though it's suffering from feature creep)
- flash card-based MP3 player that does OGG (probably ideal device: Nex Black)
- compact, rugged Notebook (ideal device: 12" G4 iBook/13" Macbook)
- a Nokia 6210 USB interface

Everything else (except for the GPS, which I don't need) can be done by hooking up the 6210 to the iBook/MacBook. Yes, that doesn't do streaming that well, but streaming is overrated - after all it'd mean that you'd have to keep the connection. If you have enough money to maintain a several-hour wireless connection from your server to your music player you can as well invest in a subnotebook, a USB card reader and one or two huge external harddrive. Your music is with you, no streming needed.


BTW, I know exactly no one who uses their mobile as an MP3 player. USB sticks is what it's all about. And iPod Shuffles.

Details?

[argent]

Care to elaborate on what this idea was?

You have it all sorted.

[jotaeleemeese]

You walk with the herd: the herd is telling you where to go.

YOu walk agains the herd: ditto.

YOu ignore the herd: I supposse the same, isn't that ture genius?

You should read a bit of philosohpy, in a way every obejct in the UNiverse affects you behaviour (butterflies, hurricanes and all that).

So thanks for pointing the obvious.

Re:You have it all sorted.

[Moofie]

...come again?

Re:You have it all sorted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't add random capitol letters to their sentences, but you are clearly smart enough to ignore what the herd is doing.

that's because...

[tfcdesign]

Apple's been sued by every yahoo under the sun and is smarter at these things. BTW Creative, you can't patent an index.

Re:that's because...

[Kedavra]

Apple Sued By Yahoo And Sun?

Somebody stop the madness!

Patents should be abolished.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you are really innovating, your only reward should be to have the advantage to reach a market first. Once your thing is out in the open the game is on and anybody should be able to copy it.

If the contraption is really innovative, then replication should be non trivial, thus permitting the inventor to benefit for longer or to literally sell the invention.

If the contraption is a piece of crap (Amazon: I am looking at your one-click nonsense) then everybody and his dog will copy it because it would be too obvious.

Probe me wrong, why do we need patents?

Oh wait, to give jobs to the bureaucracy that leeches from the system. My bad....

Re:Patents should be abolished.

[PopBus]

If you are really innovating, your only reward should be to have the advantage to reach a market first. Once your thing is out in the open the game is on and anybody should be able to copy it.

If the contraption is really innovative, then replication should be non trivial, thus permitting the inventor to benefit for longer or to literally sell the invention.

If the contraption is a piece of crap (Amazon: I am looking at your one-click nonsense) then everybody and his dog will copy it because it would be too obvious.

Probe me wrong, why do we need patents?

Oh wait, to give jobs to the bureaucracy that leeches from the system. My bad....

Many inventions which are vital to the world are often trivial to reproduce but cost millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time to actually invent (drug technology falls in this arena).. The alternative to the granting of patent protection is that such inventions would never exist in the first place because nobody in their right minds would invest money in such development.. In your world, I hope you never get cancer, because there wouldn't be 10% of the available treatment or research done that has been done because drug companies are protected by patents..

The purpose of Patents is to make sure that innovation actually happens and innovative products actually become available to the public domain.. They do this by making an avenue where inventors can publish the details of their inventions, get 20 years to control their inventions and profit from their hard work, and then have the details become public domain.. In a time when there was no patent law, inventors had no way to safely share or even produce their work, because they would be undercut by people who didn't need to pile all the time and money in the act of actuall inventing it.

As much as patents are designed to place a disadvantage to consumers, in reality consumers would be worse off if inventions couldn't be patented.. 20 years of catering to those who actually do the work to invent something is a good trade-off against the thought of such things not ever being invented in the first place.

While the resulting litigation is a pain to those who do a lot of R&D, it is their ultimate responsibility to ensure that what they are working on is not already protected - details of patents are publicly available.. If you don't take time to look and act accordingly, you deserve to get your ass handed to you in a lawsuit.

Apple gets Creative

[Anonymous Coward]

get it, a pun, the lowest form of humor

Pong: *humor only, no content here, move along*

[JoshuaJarman]

This is better then Tennis ;-)

Too bad no one patented the idea of suing to hurt your competition...they would have made a killing. lol

Dinasaur News: Scientists discover that Dinasaurs went extinct because they sued themselves into extinction.
Instead of evolving, the large outdated dinasaurs opted to lock themselves into ever more restrictive and limiting genetic patent wars. They could no longer make any genetic evolution, because all improvments were patented.
Dinasaur News: In other news, Open Source Mamals off to a small but promising start. These crazy warm blooded creatures just spread their DNA freely. How do they ever expect to dominate the world?

May have wrong department

[SuperKendall]

Honestly I do not remember exactly which areas funds were diverted to, just that USPTO funds were being reallocated for other things for a number of years.

Herd mentality?

[2nd Post!]

So is that why you own a MacBook running Ubuntu, instead of what everyone else does, which is run Windows XP on a Dell?

Re:Won't Matter

[10Ghz]

"My point is that compared to regular cameras, they suck."

And compared to cell-phones, cameras are crappy phones. So what is your point? Just because cameraphones have cameras does not mean that they should be compared to proper cameras, and then judged to "suck" because real camera takes better pictures. No-one is suggesting that cameraphones are real alternatives to real cameras. I fail to see how you can compare a frigging cell-phone to camera, when the two serve wildly different purpose, with camera or without!

Does my Digital Ixus suck, because there are some professional cameras out there that take better pictures?

"And while some people swear by their cellphone-pda devices, those people are a tiny minority."

Well, smartphones have lots of PDA-functionality (calendar, email, installable apps etc. etc.) and their sales are skyrocketing. Just about all phones these days are PDA-phones in one way or the other.

"There are both better pdas and better cellphones than the Communicator."

Maybe, and I would need to carry two devices with me then, instead of one compact device.

you forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

about TONS more!

Creative
-suing and killing aureal
-them failing to bring ASIO to the SB Live as they had promised (and that's ignoring that the card effectively made systems using KT133 chipsets BSOD every 5 minutes)
-AC3 passthru was also broken on that card (paid like 350$ for a SB Live 5.1 Platinum, you'd think it would work!) during all of windows 2000's lifetime (well, until XP came out anyways). So much for 5.1!
-them buying some tech (don't recall exactly) that made the nforce audio be so great (and not do anything with it) - i.e. DD live, just so they can't/don't include it anymore
-still not caring about real-world useful features like dolby digital live
-lying about their specs (well, being overly optimistic at least)
-using stupid proprietary plugs for their digital speaker sets - either like a 1/8" plug but with an extra ring (good luck finding that anywhere), or a 9 pin minidin, which is only found for sale on 2 websites (or one company will make you an extension cable for the price the speaker set cost ya). The cables are affully short too. Want an extension? Call creative [an international call for me - during business hours], to be on hold, and be told to "just buy one at radio shack"!!! But... NOBODY SELLS THE FUCKING THING! Go look for those idiot proprietary plugs at Radio Shack. If you find one there, I'll give you 1000$. They *DON'T* sell weird shit like that - in fact, NOBODY does! How fucking stupid. I'm still pissed by it.
-And about those speaker sets (still cost me 450$CDN +15% tax; DTT3500), you're stuck with their proprietary interconnects, that somehow use 3 spdifs in a cable to carry 5.1 instead of just 1. Using a normal spdif out from another card tends to give just stereo sound. And if you were planning on using the audio out from a X-Fi, then good luck, that spdif out is also your microphone input or something (unless you buy the super overpriced and overhyped POS with a breakout box). Oh, and did I mention that the amp was DOA too?
-Driver hell. When XP was released, we were expected to install Win98 drivers on it (VXD based while XP uses the WDM ones), nearly crashing your PC (tons of errors), and then applying a patch. And now the only way to get full drivers is PAYING for them...

So I paid almost 1000$ with tax for the card and speakers. Then I was forced to replace the motherboard for one with a different chipset that would work with the card. Yet still have issues with AC3 passthru, and never got the promised ASIO capabilities. Never managed to buy extension cables for the speakers either.

Fuck creative. They can pound sand. You'd give me a X-Fi, I'd put the ol' sledgehammer to it.

There are better mp3 players than creative's. And there are tons of better sound cards too (M-Audio, bluegears, auzentech, etc). Nobody deserves to buy this junk. I hope onboard audio improves enough that Creative goes bankrupt - the sooner the better!

In A.D. 2006 war was beginning...

[arose]

[nt]

Better Creative then a 9 year old girl

[ThePopeLayton]

At least apple has raised their sights on who they want to drag into a legal battle.

Re:oh my lord... (more slightly off topic)

[revlayle]

This is very true... I have used the same SB Live 5.1 to mix music with for the last 5-6 years without any problem. I looked at getting an Audigy at one time and finally thought, "Why? My current sound card sounds just fine and the mic-inputs record pretty darn clean!" People would argue the, 24-bit capabilites of newer cards, but for my pusposes all my music is composed completely with softsynths and samples and sequencing, if i want to mix to 24-bit that is the function of the software. And CD music is only 44.1khz / 16 bit / stereo anyways.

Re:And you say...

[Ohreally_factor]

I obviously need to start watching more TV or something...

Why? Are you fiending? =)

No, you just need to hang out with people who are a bad influence, until you become a bad influence yourself. =)

Sig reply

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Slashdot, where people take aggregate behavior personally.

Oblig South Park

[initialE]

Don't you kids know anything? If you've been served, and you dance back at them, then it's on!

Creative Labs is more evil than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

FAR more evil. Eveil like Gary Condit.

Creative Labs doesn't give a fuck who they have to kill. It's kind of strange because Stillwater, OK isn't all that aggressive. The university is moderately liberal, but they didn't teach Creative Labs any new tricks.

So, in summary:

Fuck Creative Labs. I hope Apple buys them out and starts putting EAX on the fucking iPod.

Re:And you say...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Why? Are you fiending? =)

Nope, just so I can understand the sort of valley girl lingo that the AC I replied to was using :-)

Re:Creative is cheaper? Huh?

[tatersalad]

drhamad- I don't know exactly what player you're referencing, but for example, the Creative Zen Vision:M 30GB and the Apple iPod 30GB are both $299 (ignoring Apple edu & corporate discounts, even). And that's not even getting into the software side of the equation.

In several reviews I have read from multiple magazines and websites, the Vision:M continually comes out on top against the 30Gig Ipod in terms of battery life and the quality of the screen. Also, the Creative is a hair less likely to scratch, and while that doen't matter to me, it does to some.

Re:And you say...

[Dis*abstraction]

"*Blows Johnny-Boy a Kiss*"

Holy, holy shit. Assuming you're wrong about the AC being "Johnny," this makes TWO people you've mistaken for him. Delusional much? Ghosts in the dark? Leap at shadows?

There is no conspiracy here. Again, please seek help.