Slashdot Mirror
iPod Faces Patent Probe
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."
"filebrowsing is filebrowsing on an electronics device with data storage weather its a fully fledged pc, a pda, or an mp3 player."
:P
No, it is not. You don't even have the same HID across the devices you mentioned, let alone the same requirements for the end-user. Searching for a song on an iPod != searching for an image on your desktop. Somebody with an iq greater than your shoesize to realize that Apple's wheel is not a mouse or a touch screen or even a chair in front of a desk.
"the proposed and struck down patent on "hyperlinking" applied to all devices and software which used the internet, not just computers."
Yes, that would be an overly broad patent. It happens sometimes. I'm not suggesting that Creative's or Apple's isn't. I'm saying you still have to be careful with the prior art. I understand a little more clearly where you're coming from now, so I'll modify the wording of my point a bit: You need to find prior art that would be considered 'infringement' on this patent. I wasn't thinking so much about unfairly granted overly-broad patents when I wrote it originally. Apologies for the confusion.
"but they are, and the problem is people like your patent lawyer who lack the technological literacy to see a patent on something obvious right in front of their face, and who grant those obvious and broad patents."
Patent lawyers don't grant patents, they apply for them.
Seriously, though, 'overly broad' and 'obvious patents' are two seperate discussions. I agree with you on the overly broad bit, that sucks. A company I worked at ages ago was burned that way. Obvious, though, is in the eye of the beholder. Not only are you speaking in hindsight, but you're also viewing the components in a different way than others would. I'll give you an example: A man and a woman are nearly identical, anatomically speaking. Yet, many people consider them almost opposites. It just depends on how you view it.
File browsing is file broswing, but data has an infinite number of uses.
"Derp de derp."
"but i wasn't talking about searching, i was talking about file browsing, and --in the case of filebrowsing--yes it is.. it is funcionally the same, it uses the same processes and has the same interface, save the computer has a larger screen."
Before I reply: Are you talking about Creative's patent or browsing for music on MP3 devices in general?
I have a feeling I'm starting to see where our disagreement is coming from, I may owe you an apology.
"Derp de derp."