Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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.
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
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.
You say you want a revolution....
...the patent lawyers win again...
Fact number 2: At no time during the discussions were Creative proactively suing Apple.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
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?
... 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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
There is a reason for defensive patents. Creative won't forget that again.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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.
/picz
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.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
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.
Judging by the number of lawsuits cropping up recently, the only winners seem to be the lawyers who are lapping it up!
, , , , , karma elon
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.
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.
Where the hell did you get that?
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.
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Since when is it the patent holder's responsibility to warn others that they are infringing on their patents?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
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.
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I know... God forbid they spent their time innovating instead of patenting. Don't they know how the world works now??
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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...
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.
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.
Nice to see a response from Apple. What did Creative expect when they sued one of the most notoriously litigious companies in the US?
"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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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
GPL Deconstructed
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?