Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPod Faces Patent Probe

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the confusion-in-white-plastic dept.

twofish writes "The long running patent spat between Apple and the struggling Creative Technology took another turn today. Creative is claiming that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has now launched a probe into the possibility that the iPod infringes on Creative's patents. Creative has asked the ITC to issue an order stopping Apple from marketing, selling or importing iPods into the US."

6 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. not gonna happen by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative
    Creative has asked the ITC to issue an order stopping Apple from marketing, selling or importing iPods into the US

    Yeah, good luck with that one, Creative.

    For those that don't know- in civil court matters, that sort of action requires you present proof that you will suffer irreperable harm unless the court acts immediately. In other words- if your only claim is a patent violation, you're not suffering irreperable harm, because you can recover patent royalties. Proving irreperable harm has a very high standard, because it is a rather severe action. I would imagine similar standards apply at the ITC.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:not gonna happen by kansas1051 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Filing complaints with the ITC (or US customs) is a common litigation trick in patent disputes. The purpose of filing with the ITC or US customs to to circumvent the legal boundaries you describe (a showing of irreparable harm, etc) to get the ITC or US customs (now part of the DHS) to issue a "de facto" injunction without the same type of adversarial situation you find in court. For example, sometimes its possible to get customs to seize imported goods even when patent infringement is doubtful.

  2. Re:Will be moot in about 4 months. by govtpiggy · · Score: 2, Informative
    By the time any settlement is made, Apple, at worst, might have to pay Creative some lump sum for having sold their older iPods, but the new iPod will be free of conflict. The lump sum might be tied to some amount relative to the number of Jukebox's, Zen's and Muvo's Creative has sold over the last decade, which is to say, Apple might have to let go of some petty cash. Apple won't be able to serve Jello in their cafeteria in that particular week .
    Assuming a ruling in favor of Creative, not a settlement, the sum would be related to the amount of iPods sold that infringed on the patent. How many units Creative moved is irrelevant.
    --
    do you know squarepusher?
  3. Laptop + Windows + Winamp = infringement? by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's about the specific implementation

    The article doesn't specify the number of the patent at issue, so I can't just go look up the claims on uspto.gov like I usually do. But if this patent is the one I think it is (U.S. Patent 6,928,433), I deconstructed that patent nearly a year ago and found that it's worded so broadly that even Windows 9x + Winamp on a laptop would infringe.

  4. Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't seen any articles that explain in depth what the patent covers, so I can't comment on exactly how broad its scope is.

    It covers navigating songs using a three layer hierarchy on a portable music player. The example listed is organizing songs into artist folders, containing album folders, containing song files. Mplayer and a dozen other players did this years before the Creative patent was filed.

    Now, if we're talking about software which automatically parses ID3 tags and/or filenames and arranges the music accordingly, Creative might very well have been the first to do that...

    Nope, they aren't even close to being the first to do that and such a patent would not apply to the portable, but to the jukebox software.

    In any case, I'm not defending their having the patent, I'm just trying to set the record straight because a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue what this patent dispute is all about.

    I appreciate your effort to clarify the issue since there is a lot of FUD, but don't you think you should actually read up on what the patent does cover before attempting to clarify it to others?

  5. OPENSTEP on a laptop by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you can find any MP3 players that ran on NextStep and which were launched before Creative's, I think you've found some prior art!

    Here's why that's not sarcasm.