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."

3 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. 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.