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."
A patent on a music player navigation menu?!
I guess it is completely non-obvious and innovative that a portable music player would need a menu to navigate through its songs.
I must be brilliant because that requirement seemed pretty obvious to me.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
...sue 'em!
-h-
creatives patent is a prime example of the EFF concept of "stupid patent".
How about I patent a method of aerobic circulation by which oxygen is drawn into an organ which passes it to the bloodstream!
seriously hundreds of posts about this in half a dozen dupe stories have pointed out so many examples of prior art it's insane.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Because with God as their witness, no one else ever thought of a portable, digital music player. It is *SO* non-obvious that it takes a special kind of certified genius to come up with ideas like a scroll wheel, buttons, earphones, and -- wait for it -- a round front panel. I mean, it is like Apple was ripping off Einstein or Newton or something. How DARE they actually know how to market a product!
My guess is Steve Jobs will file a patent on a rectally inserted portable music player. Just to make sure the guys at Creative are aware of this, he'd be glad to demonstrate how it works on their entire legal dept over at Creative.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why do I get the feeling that Creative doesn't give a damn about the patents, but is doing this only for the chance that Apple will be prohibited from selling iPods for some time?
Sounds like some dirty tactics to me.
Creative sues Sony, stating their line of CD Walkmen infringe on Creative's patented "play, pause, stop, rwd, and fwd" button technology.
IANAL, but isn't this is a normal step for the ITC to take if you're in a big patent dispute? It seems to me Creative is trumpeting it as a minor victory press releases, while the ITC is just following their normal procedure in gathering facts for the judge. Am I wrong?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
Most likely scenario (80% chance): Creative gets nowhere with this. They lose the case and it quickly becomes a non-issue after briefly causing a few people to worry and Apple's stock price takes a dip, then rebounds.
Next most likely scenario (15% chance): Apple settles with Creative for an "undisclosed sum" and this becomes a non-issue after briefly causing a few people to worry and Apple's stock price takes a dip, then rebounds.
Next most likely scenario (4.999% chance): Apple buys Creative and this becomes a non-issue after briefly causing a few people to worry and Apple's stock price takes a dip, then rebounds.
Very unlikely scenario (less than 0.001% chance): The sun explodes, causing a dip in Apple's stock price.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"I am tempted to sue Creative for sucking"
Because you invented "sucking" and hold the patent?
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I know some people who owe you big time royalties.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I am expecting that with the anticipated release of a true video iPod towards that last quarter of this year, things will change pretty dramatically on the iPod landscape.
Expected is a wide screen iPod with touchscreen access.
This kind of system will require a significantly different UI structure. For instance, gone will be the touch wheel and buttons, instead some integrated touch screen UI is be required to navigate and browse music and movies on the new iPod.
Also, Apple has dropped the chip used the current generations of iPods. By switching to a new processor, chances are this will allow for more powerful UI and features which would be expected with a touch screen device.
Apple has also patented such things as touch screen keyboards and multi-touch touchscreen capabilities.
Its my opinion that Apple will most likely skirt around this issue by releasing an iPod with a significantly different UI (yet somehow keeping it familiar) that will simply render this lawsuit moot.
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 .
This is, of course, as valid as any Apple news that exists on the web today which is all based on rumors, speculation, and other meaningless drivel.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Its more popular than beer with the college kids. Frat boys will have to start back binge drinking again if they stop selling iPods.
ACK
The menu in iPod is identical to the list view in NeXTStep by NeXT , now part of Apple, and predating anything Creative did with its player menus.
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.
Here's why that's not sarcasm.
Did anyone notice in the actual ITC Filing that they sent in along with the complaint a Creative Zen, an iPod and a nano to "actually see the similarities"? Heck, I'll bet that the judge will throw the case out after he sees exactly how much the Zen sucks.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.