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."

11 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. I suspect an overturn of creatives patents soon by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!!
  2. Original by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  3. Dirty tactics... by scd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. 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.
  5. My Predictions... by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  6. Re:Sue Creaitive!! by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I am tempted to sue Creative for sucking"

    Because you invented "sucking" and hold the patent?

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  7. Facts...facts...who's got the facts? by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From a related BBC article:
    Creative said it had applied for the patent, dubbed the Zen Patent, on 5 January 2001 and was awarded it on 9 August. It applies to the way music tracks are organised and navigated on a player through a hierarchy using three or more successive screens. For example, this would be a sequence of screens that could display artists, then albums and then tracks. "The first portable media player based upon the user interface covered in our Zen Patent was our Nomad Jukebox MP3 player," said Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo. "The Apple iPod was only announced in October 2001, 13 months after we had been shipping the Nomad Jukebox based upon the user interface covered by our Zen Patent."
    This isn't a patent on MP3 players or buttons or anything or FUD-related nonsense, it's a patent on a specific organizational structure in the software. Of course, it happens to be very similar to how I organize directories at home, and seems like a rather intuitive concept that a lot of people would arrive at independently.
    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    1. Re:Facts...facts...who's got the facts? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a patent on MP3 players or buttons or anything or FUD-related nonsense, it's a patent on a specific organizational structure in the software.

      No, this is a patent on organizing music in a hierarchy, but on a portable, much like patents on a dutch auction, but on the internet, or patents on blue lights, but in a car. This patent was applied for 5 days before Apple released to the public iTunes and long after other music jukebox software did this same thing. Apple, and many other companies, sold laptops with speakers. In particular, look at a Linux laptop, with a speaker, running MPlayer. Creative's case hinges on proving that their patent issued years after people were doing just that, should prevent the selling of iPods (which run Linux and use it to organize and play music in the same way). It isn't even a matter of it being obvious, it is a matter of them filing for the patent years after people were already doing this by arguing that the iPod somehow differs fundamentally from other portable computing devices.

  8. Re:Patently Nonsense by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I agree and hate patents, its worth mentioning that almost everytime anyone here on /. asks what makes the iPod any better than other players, they always rave about how easy and smooth the control interface is and because of that Apple is the one who "really gets it", etc, etc. If it turns out Creative had and patented this first, it is certainly at least of value. I still would think its a stupid patent, but most iPod fans I know when asked why always rave about the "innovative" control interface and how easy it make things. Of course, now those same people will say its simple and no big deal. Go figure.

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  9. Re:Patently Nonsense by Builder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Creative have the patent on this, why does the management of music and navigation on their devices suck so hard? If they patented all this goodness, why didn't they implement it ?

  10. 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.