Slashdot Mirror
Apple Settles Creative Lawsuit for $100 Million
E IS mC(Square) writes "CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music player patents for $100 million, the companies announced Wednesday.
The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players.
The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001.
Apple can get back some of the $100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
Only a patent attorney can scream loud enough!
""Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
You can almost hear him whispering "motherfuckers!" under his breath after saying this.
so does that mean Creative invented the treeview, or the database search?
cuz billions of programs out there may be affected by this.
Step 2. License offending patents to Creative for 150M.
Step 3. There is no step 3.
I suppose it's a new version of Rip. Burn. Mix.
... for an anatomical opening to expel the byproducts of digestion and sue everyone in sight with an a*****e.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My mp3 collection has been arranged like that in my filesystem since 1999. Does that mean that my file manager infringes on Creative's patent?
It did seemed to feel a bit like the calm before the storm...
Civil-Economic warfare in it's infancy.
100 million is a pretty big payout for an obvious way to navigate through music that I myself invented when I was a kid. This method is: "The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
I mean, isn't that how the stuff is organized in the record store too?
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." 100 million dollars in patent taxes lame.
.. is that the idea was patentable. I mean come on... a simple heirarchical tree interface got patented? Who cares if it was for an mp3 player - does that make any difference? We've had tree interfaces for a while - its how many of us organize our music libraries (virtual and physical).
_Vishal www.squad9.com
Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this? There was a hack for the RIO300 that did this in 2000 and people begging for the option in 1999.
The SnowBlind Alliance was the place to get you linux friendly rio software at that time and they had lots of users asking for new features.
Apple: Hmm, pocket change for being able to maintain a lead in music players and be proactive in looking to send other companies towards creative. Whats the downside?
This is a great example. The patent claims read just as described: how do you find a track to play using indexing.
Patents like this are not helping the public interest, but are simply ways for companies to lock out ideas without having to pay to develop them.
Time for the open source community to make "open patents" that are used to attack companies like creative that abuses them.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work. Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented. The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I have three fears with every line of code I write:
- It is buggy
- A better block of code already exists in SourceForge or somewhere else on the Internet
- It is stepping on one or more patents for completely obvious or barely novel ideas
I believe at this point paranoia is not only rational but optimistic and gin and tonic are my only defense since I can't afford lawyers, guns, and money.
Robert Oschler - RobotsRule.com
Puh-leez. As you can plainly see in this example, Creative is represented by the stick-man with the small ... stick, Creative's legal staff is represented by the stick-devil, and Apple is represented by the two stick-men who appear in the beginning. Any questions?
I think Despair.com said it best in their half-hearted, but sadly successful attempt in patenting the frowny-face emoticon.
If that's not screaming failure in our U.S. government, I don't know what is.
--I gots 99 problems but a new machine ain't one!
AMD! Asus! Whoot! 6 years!
"The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players. The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
WTF??
What happened to the "non obvious" requirement for a patent?
Does this patent cover other obvious menus systems? Like say an automobile supply program. You pick a year then a car manufacture then you can pick a model then you can pick an engine type and finally a carburetor.
How obvious does it have to get before the patent processors put down their rubber stamps and reject the application?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Jobs is an idiot for thinking the issue is that Creative got the patent so early.
At issue here is that merely taking centuries old data organization methods and implimenting them into an electronic gizmo is NOT worthy of a patent.
Hierarchical indexing has been around since the middle ages.
If I recall correctly from reading and a bit of training we were given at my company, this is supposed to be the guideline for validity of a patent application. I would think that if you asked just about any computer geek in 1995 to come up with a way to navigate a large music library, a hierarchy would have been the result. This is also how I used to arrange my mp3s before there were nice frontends, as a directory of Artists with subdirectories for Albums for each artist.
What's that smell? Oh, that must have been every iPod/Apple fanboy crapping their pants in unison.
The battle lines have been drawn. I can almost see people inside Apple debating the use of patents as the Nuclear Weapons of this war - mutually assured destruction - you sue me, I sue you.
And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces ... really.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Personally, I think the devil is in the details we weren't told. Such as Apple validates Creatives patent and makes a deal where it won't be granted to Microsoft.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
The patent police have commenced random inspections of CD collections.
If you sort your CDs alphabetically by artist and album you will be sued for copyright infringement. You have been warned!
It's good to see companies which patent and sue about trivial ideas get sued themselves. Remember the trash can patent?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
That's going to wipe out the profit margin on sales of 20-30 ipods!
Well, that's it. I'll never buy another creative product again. As if just making shitty sound cards wasn't enough. I've always hoped that the latest greatest sound card would be decent, I shell out the $300 or so for the one with hte front panel (to plug my midi gear etc into) and i'm totally let down. Shitty drivers, crackling sound whenever internet traffic is high (yah, go figure...)/rant...
UGH
Fuck them. That was the straw.
The Zen sucked, and really, how much different can you make an interface on a handheld music player?
And the shoddy business practise of waiting until the iPod is nice and successfull before laying down the legal gauntlet just makes me sick.
I've swore by creative's products since day 1, and now I say 'Fuck you, Creative. You just blew it.'
Maybe I'm overreacting, but hey. Fuck them.
This is not the greatest
Meh, just stop worrying.
...
If the lawyers start sending you letter just ignore them.
If by some crazy twist of fate you do actually get hauled up in court simply state you thought the whole thing was a joke your dumbass roommate from college was pulling, because how could something so fucking obvious that "I" managed to think it up could possibly be patented? Really, you're having a laugh aren't you?
By the way, should you be sending some *real* criminals to prison Your Honour?
Tell you what, you can have *all* of the proceeds from the sale of my GPL software, OK?
Seriously though, maybe we just need mass civil disobedience when it comes to patents - or maybe I'm just being naive
Can I patent taking a poop... cuz I'll probably make trillions.
... who holds the patent on using the WM_PAINT message to detect when a portion of an application's window needs to be redrawn. Clearly, someone other than Apple owns this patent, and is refusing to license it to them, because the Windows version of iTunes has been plagued with gaping areas of blackness since its first release.
I mean, come on... does nobody at Apple own a copy of the freaking Petzold book?
</rant>
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
yeah, I have nothing more to say. And I'm even mac-hostile.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=275275
I think the thing that people are forgetting here is that by settling Apple is pretty much making Creative defend this patent, essentially outsourcing the litigation - they pay nothing for that. If Creative does not defend the patent, or loses any case setting new precedent, Apple could conceivably sue to get the $100 million back.
Plus, they get back money, as stated above, for the 'Made for iPod' program that Creative is now a part of, and the iPod ecology is enhanced. They have taken on a partner here.
This is a win for Apple thinking long term. Good chess playing.
So, if Creative licenses its IP to other manufacturers, Apple gets a slice of the pie. If Creative sues manufacturers who refuse to license, it's got the Apple precedent to tilt things in its favour. Maybe a slice of that pie is part of the unannounced terms, too.
If I were Creative, I'd be miffed that, having joined the Microsoft Playforsure camp, Microsoft then went on to develop its own PMP. In fact, I'd be tempted to piddle in Microsoft's pot by getting MS to pay a hefty licensing fee or suing it, as needs dictated.
MS will be more likely to license (i.e. "pay money to make the problem go away") knowing that the market leader has stumped up.
Apple's motivation is far more likely that they see more benefit to paying this extortion and being, well, along with Creative of course, the only ones allowed to use a hierarchical interface for selecting music...
Sheesh, talk about ridiculous...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
for them in the long run rather rocking the patent boat. maybe it is in the interest of a big corporation with a portfolio around music playback to have a patent system at hand which it can use. the guy says it "they were fortunate". we also hear him say "next time it'll be us".
This comment is not off-topic, it is FREAKIN' HILARIOUS!
Please mod parent, +1 Funny
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Even Sony has one of these. The Sony Bean MP3 player has a menu feature exactly as a tree, and I don't see them getting sued (I would want to though...).
I wonder if your fear #3 is grounds for challenging current patent law.
Patent law doesn't need changing, as it already bars 'obvious to someone in the field' ideas, which is what the parent poster was complaining about. We need more people to take a stand against patents that clearly aren't valid. If more people/companies challenged the 'fork and knife' patents, fewer companies would abuse them.
Patent fees should also be based off the assets of the applicant; ie, if I want to patent something, it should cost me enough to make me not just do it willy-nilly, and if Apple, Creative, etc wants to- well, then they should have to pay a bill that makes THEM think twice, too. The challenge, of course, will be figuring out how to keep shell companies (already used for patent holding) from getting around it.
The former (challenging more patents) is unlikely to happen, given that these days the only people who can afford to do so are often publicly held companies, and are under shareholder pressure to go for the absolute cheapest route, or the "known expense" versus the "unknown." Someone at Apple most likely decided that the (fairly small) risk of Creative getting a percentage off all iPod sales past and future, was not worth a known cost of $100M.
Please help metamoderate.
Steve Jobs is gonna be fuckin ya hard to get some extra money to make up for his losses.
Are you gonna be his bitch?
I think it's more than just the "hierarchical organization of music" that is being disputed. There are also glaring similarities between the interfaces on the two systems. For example... http://www.grumet.net/weblog/archives/images/mini- v-zen.jpg (not my photo)
Given that Apple has about 853m shares outstanding, $100m dollars works out to be $0.12 per share, or 0.18% of their stock price ($67). This shouldn't be a big deal for Apple.
Apple should have agreed to license Fairplay to Creative so that their devices could play music from the iTMS. In fact, they should offer to do so for every company that is not currently making a device that rhymes with "boon". I've posted an open letter to Apple which discusses the need to cut Microsoft off from their ability to buy their way into the digital music market. You can read it here.
The world's blankiest blank.
Patent 6928433
The key claim is the following, plus 15 variations on the theme.
What is claimed is:
1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy, the method comprising: selecting a category in the first display screen of the portable media player; displaying the subcategories belonging to the selected category in a listing presented in the second display screen; selecting a subcategory in the second display screen; displaying the items belonging to the selected subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen; and accessing at least one track based on a selection made in one of the display screens.
It really is as daft as it sounds.
"The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players. The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
How unethical and shameless Creative to apply such a patent? How unethical and shameless to grant such a patent? The patent controller should have rejected right away.
This is what Singapore companies can invent!!! Creative disgraced whole of Singapore. I request the Singapore government to nullify the application of this unethical patent within its territory to make the world wake up and say no to unethical patents.
See what is the comment from Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, its Creative got it first! Instead he should have condemned this unethical patent. Why can't he? It's pot call kettle black theory.
Unethical patents is a big menace to the whole world. Please take immediate action to nullify unethical patents before people killing each other.
China and India can make a big difference to world. Please nullify the application unethical patent within its territories.
Don't be fooled... If Apple had owned the patent, they'd be gouging Creative twice as hard.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
My brother's studying to be a patent lawyer, and all he has to say for shit like this is that the system just isn't used to software patents yet, whereas every other kind of patent's been around for decades and all people involved in the patent system finally figured out how to fucking do things. But honestly, every time I hear that from him, I can't help but think in the back of my head "Uh, so, that still doesn't account for common fucking sense. Where'd all that go?"
I guess the judge is just one of those retarded fuckers that has his wife organize every last fucking thing for him. That's the only way I can possibly think of to explain it, that he's never, every used a file cabinet, a computer, or even organized his own fucking sock drawer. I can imagine other patents coming up on slashdot having more too them, and that knee-jerk reactions don't do them justice, that there might be more to the story.... but on this one, that is fucking impossible. There is absolutely nothing about the iPod's interface that anyone should have ever been able to patent, and that should be fucking obvious to anyone working in the patent system. Anyone who approved this patent and the judge in the case should be fired.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Looks like CREAF is on track to lose ~$118 mil this year. Coincidence? Suddenly they are only losing $18mil..
The whole purpose was to legitimize the patent in order to slow down competitor number 3, 4 and 5.
...Of course that ALL look alike though.
CHOICE 1: Get the patent squashed, anyone can copy.
CHOICE 2: Settle in order to legitmize the patent, share the toll booth.
This is most likely a move to keep sandisk at bay with that new look alike.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Just what I needed, MORE CUSH for Creative to slack off with. Now I won't get my linux X-Fi drivers till 2008!
This is probably a cost-cutting measure for Apple. 100 mil is a ton of cash to you or I, but when from Apples perspective... Not to mention how much a multi-year long legal fight would end up costing. Jobs simply paid off the bill early and skipped out on paying the bloodsuckers anymore.
"patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options"
Let me get this straight: Creative got a patent on a menu.
wow. I am in awe of their technical prowess.
All these patent disputes remind me of the short story Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson.
_ 1.htm
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744__
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Patent suits are expensive but 9-figure legal bills are the stuff of contingency fees or a few legendary events like the IBM antitrust suit. On the other hand, add in the interference to business while the suit drags on and a patent suit might cost a lot more than just the lawyers's bills.
The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album.
Didn't Xerox do that with their GUI? Don't most copiers and printers today do this with either a few button presses or a few screen presses? Select paper size button brings up a hierarchal menu for both different sizes, then the next logical step is orientation of the paper/text. No matter what, it's rather PLAINLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH COLLEGE-LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS. Why the fuck is Apple paying Xerox again? This method of organization has been around since the library's card-catalog.?
And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy. Go read some of my rather venomous posts against Apple.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"...using menus in any way, shape or form. But on, like, an electronic thingee! Which is the clever bit, and makes it patentable. Really."
The GP is either a troll or has absolutely no idea how to read and interpret a patent.
In the software industry, developers actively avoid patent searches - because they are all stupid (with a few exceptions like RSA), and to avoid triple damages from stupid patent lawsuits. This is an answer to why software patents are bad - but patents in other industries might be ok. If you are building an oil refinery, experimentation is expensive. Licensing a patent for a method that is already worked out makes sense. (Computer simulations might reduce this cost - but ultimately you have to build it to be sure it really works.) Software experimentation is free apart from time - and takes far less time than a patent search.
so, can Apple get $100M from other OS makes who use a Heirarchial File System for their disk drives? Or is the patent system illogical?
IANAL - I think what the court looks at when determining whether a patent is novel or not is what the current state of the art is in a given product segment - i.e. music players. Music players did not have a hierarchical menu system prior to the Creative patent so this application in that product segment *is* novel. Computers and photocopiers did have hierarchical menu systems perhaps but not music players. If the courts did not restrict their examination to a particular product segement then the first person to patent the idea of a hierarchical menu in digital products would be able to stop the whole world from doing anything other than linear menus in *any* product. This would do massive damage to all innovation.
It was an MP3 player on my laptop.
The settlement terms basically prove it. Regardless of whether Creative's patents were valid or not, Apple just performed a legal jujitsu. It basically allows Apple to use Creative to fight its battles. One, the settlement strengthens the validity of Creative's patents. Creative is now free to go after the likes Sandisk (which has overtaken it in marketshare in the last year) and iRiver. Most importantly, it allows Creative to throw a wrench into Zune's imminent launch. I bet Microsoft never saw this coming. If Creative was a starving pit bull that was going after Apple out of anger, Apple just whipped out a nice juicy steak at the last second, made friends, and is now about to sic Creative the Well-Fed Pit Bull on Sandisk and Microsoft. There's no doubt Apple's lawyers read Creative's lawyer the riot act. Patent battles are super expensive, and with Creative having to simultaneously sue Apple as well as defend against the counter-suit, the whole process would probably take 5 years or more and cost tens of millions of dollars. With Creative's sales shrinking quarter to quarter, it would be hard for the company to keep paying the lawyers over such an extended period of time. Last quarter's results kind of proved that. But I think what really made Creative see the writing on the wall is the sudden appearance of Zune. Zune is the classic Microsoft move of screwing its partners over once they've outlived their usefulness (or in this case, proved totally useless). Creative maybe would have been willing to stick it out were it not for Zune, but with Zune competing directly with Creative's own products, they must have realized the company would be dead and bankrupt in a year, and once the money is gone, so long lawyers! I'm willing to bet that virtually all the terms of this settlement were proposed by Apple. It makes Creative look like a winner when Creative will now be fighting battles on Apple's behalf. It also shows that Apple is serious about not letting the iPod give any ground in terms of marketshare. And it wouldn't surprise me if Creative's "Made for iPod" products quickly ends up outselling Creative's players. And unlike the music players, the accessories will probably be hugely profitable for Creative, which will just make Creative Apple's bitch in reality instead of just symbolically. I can't wait for the next headline, though: "Creative Sues to Stop Microsoft Zune." Steve Jobs IS the new Godfather!
Off to the shop for a Zen... :(
Fat chance of Apple ever using a fair euro/dollar ratio for sales in europe now
Adapted from my blog. I know this is blasphemous, but there isn't enough litigation over patents. By this I mean actual court cases, there are plenty of threats. Only 1.5% of all patents are litigated, and only .1% are litigated to trial (of that .1%, over 50% are invalidated). This is far too little. Let me explain.
We know the level of litigation is too little because of positive externalities associated with litigation. If the accusor loses, invalidating a patent benefits everyone, not just the firm that sues for the invalidation. If the accusor wins, clarity in validity also benefits others. So there is a free riding problem with litigation (especially since it is so costly).
Lets say I hold a patent on tennis shoes and I expect to make a million dollars from that patent. If another shoe maker named Nike sues me over the patent, how much would I be willing to spend to defend the patent? $999,999. How much would Nike be willing to spend to invalidate the patent? Invalidating the patent doesn't give Nike a monopoly, so assuming in a competitive model there are no (or lower than monopoly) profits for Nike. So Nike would be willing to spend less to invalidate the patent than I would to keep the patent valid. Thus it may in Nike's best interest to just license a completely ludicrous patent. That seems to be what happened here.
Not only is this litigation costly, but anyone found infringing on a patent in court pays TRIPLE the claimed damages! That is high stakes indeed. To add to this problem, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proof, that the patent is invalid or that they didn't violate the patent. The wording for proof is "clear and convincing evidence," that is strong wording. So it shouldn't be surprising to find that 95% of all defendants settle without going to court.
A good way to produce more clarifying litigation is to create incentives to litigate. One idea (which I think is a bad one) is to allow the government to challenge patents. A better idea is to offer a bounty on invalidated patents. One problem with the bounty idea is that mostly worthless patents would be invalidated this way, but if you limited the bounty to licensed patents, you could eliminate a lot of this problem. The bounty could be grant the patent to the challenger for a few years, or be a flat rate payment. Lastly, there are public interest groups already doing great work towards this end (such as the EFF and Public Patent Foundation), by funding them with incentives or grants we could improve the situation.
Another fix is to force firms to litigation. By capping the dollar value of settling, firms my opt for a court remedy rather than an out of court secret agreement. Limiting settling and other forms of collusion makes more information public, which can benefit more people.
The third option for getting more litigation is to reduce costs of litigation. Removing the 3X payout, decreasing the time in court, and changing the wording from "clear and convincing evidence" to something less strong. Even shifting some of the burden of proof towards the accusor would speed things along. One other option to make litigation more affordable is to penalize accusers for refuted claims--since the general practice is to claim as much as possible and see what sticks (see SCO for an example).
It is a crying shame that Apple just paid off the patent trolls here. Had they put up the $100 million into a legal fund and gotten this rediculous patent invalidated, it would have benefitted society. Who knows who else will get hit with this silly patent claim now? It isn't Apple's job to benefit society, but as long as we keep feeding the trolls, we'll have to keep paying.
The other option is fighting the patent and make it invalid, it would take 4-5 years and then anybody can use this interface on there players. What's the win for Apple in this?
Now MS will have to license it or develop a new interface, that wont be easy. Apple also has a chance to win back future license fees and Creative will step into the made For iPod program for its speakers, its a win/win situation.
You parrot about details but can't be bothered to expose them to us. Don't waste your supreme wisdom and smack our common sense.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
aren't the I've been sorting my music like this for ages gang kinda missing the point.
you have
Music > Nancy Sinatra > One More Time > roadblock
Music > Nine inch nails > Still > the fragile
Music > Nirvana > Nevermind > smells like teen spirit
etc.
now from your root folder, Music, how do you show all for genre "Alternative" , your Hierarchal file system can't , that's what the patent's for.
Granted, it's still bloody obvious, but it's a bit more involved than a Hierarchal file system
I have owned two Rio's - these were not made by Creative, but by a now defunct company called Sonic Blue. Just my 2 centavos.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
I mean, the hierarchical menu based upon any series of choices is totally obvious. The only thing valuable about it is that it is *proven* through the popularity of the iPod to be a good choice amongst the millions of ways you *could* have done it.
It's almost like they're patenting the success of something obvious, if it wasn't successful, there'd be no lawsuit and people would say "that's a dumb patent, OBVIOUSLY you should be able to select artist, then album, then song..."
Loading...
It's only funny if you say it to yourself in a Samuel L Jackson voice. Or outloud, that works too but your coworkers may think you're a bit weird.
I hate all these motherfuckin scrooges on this motherfuckin forum! How is that?
Borrowing from Creative reminds me (yet again) about Apple "borrowing" from Xerox - the idea of an Icon driven GUI.
Wow, I should patent something completely obvious too. $100 million for a hierarchical menu on an iPod?
Seriously when are we going to fix the patent laws in this country? This is just plain stupid.
Take care,
Brian
--
http://www.holdemtoolshed.com/
What are arguably the two most creative forces in the 20th century- one revolutionized computers, the other rock music- are now going to work together, due sharing a company name. Hopefully together they comquer the out-moded 20th century mechanisms of distributing music, and come up with great solution for the 21st for getting music into hands of fans and compensating the musicians.
Apple has plenty of money to settle this lawsuit. Music
1. Creative gets awarded silly patent.
2. Apple uses something that falls under the patent.
3. Creative sues Apple.
4. Apple fights back.
5. Apple fights back.
6. Apple fights back.
7. Microsoft announces Zune, which uses something that falls under the same patent.
8. Apple settles for $100 million and sets a precedent.
9. Creative uses the precedent to sue Microsoft.
*sigh* Yet another patent that fails the "non-obvious" test... ranks right up there with Amazon's One-Click in my book.
Apple comes out looking good. Instead of wasting time with courts, they offer Creative $100M to STFU. This is a patent on a blatantly obvious navigation method and Creative ends up looking like the cry-baby schmuck. They clearly need the money, otherwise they would never have bothered with going after Apple. Apple says "whatever, here's your f*ing money, losers", and moves on to release the latest & greatest iPod and Creative's lame MP3 player, that no one will STILL know about, finally dies off.
I hope they make good use of this $100M...they sure need it.
Has anybody considered that Apple doesn't want the patent to be thrown out? Since they settled out of court, they now have permission from Creative to use the organizational system, and they don't have to worry about any up-and-coming players using the same system. The best part about it is that Apple doesn't have to do a damn thing, because Creative will be the one policing the patent.
So clearly, this isn't quite as simple as "inventing the treeview" or the "inventing the database search". However, it is pretty simple...and certainly obvious to a reasonably skilled practitioner of the art. Off the top of my head, I can think of three or four innovations that would make it actually interesting.
This can hardly be classed as an instance of an offensive patent (patenting something but not intending to build it) because Creative had actually implemented the algorithms and data structures as well as the hardware required for the patent to be embodied in something. In fact, the patent pretty much well requires it to be embedded in a portable music player.
However, if I put this in software on my laptop, which is not a portable music player per se, is the patent violated? The iPod can hold files, calendars, notes, music files, video files...is it "just" a portable music player? This is where these patents get problematic for the Joe Average programmer who wants to earn a few bits to rub together for his efforts. How do you know that some algorithm you're using (usually revealed through a UI) hasn't already been patented? Programming (and by extension Software) is both science and art. You used to be unable to get patents for algorithms. Picasso said, "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal." Uh, not anymore, Pablo.
I'm not saying that it's a reasonable patent, I'm just saying, let's see what the patent really is and talk about what we don't like. Do we like the patent system but hate the way software is gets tr
Out of curiosity, did Apple just set the price for licensing the technology for the navigation interface?
So, if any other company ends up with a similar way of navigating through the menus, can Creative say "we will license our technology for $100 million...That is the price that Apple paid, so that is what we charge. Either pay us or we will get an injunction so you can't release your product."
Only a couple companies can pay that kind of money. This certainly looks like the OS wars between the 95% MS and 5% others market.
While you have made it clear that you fancy yourself an expert on the patent process, your stance on the merit of the system is less clear. It should be obvious to an expert such as yourself that the real objection so many silly little Slashdotters continually voice isn't with the verbage of suspect patent claims, but rather with the patent system itself. Because you state something 20 times and 20 times people disagree with you doesn't necessarily mean that in every case they failed to understand you, they just disagree with you.
Personally, I abhor the patent system. I further contend that despite my inability to quote patent law line and verse I do recognize a grossly flawed system when I see one. As a citizen of The United States of America my 1/300,000,000th opinion, while small, does count. I have an equal say in how the government is run as any other citizen. It is my opinion that a patent system should only be in place to help insure that a small entity is able to see the fruition of their ideas without being gobbled up by enormous entities before the first unit is produced.
It is my opinion that the current patent system operates in opposition to this idea. Rather than helping small entities see a reward for their ideas, I feel the current patent system is a tool for corporations to horde technology so that they may reap all the spoils. I suspect that most, if not all, the ignorant Slashdotters who you felt were unable to grasp your expert translation of patent law really had no problem understanding that what was done was legal, but rather are stating their opinion that such action should not be legal.
Although I have done almost zero research on the Amazon "One Click" patent, I imagine it is crafted precisely to the letter of the patent law. However, I take strong objection to the existence of any such law that would grant an entity exclusive right to such an obvious process, for a term of 20 years none the less. It's infuriating. Especially when you consider all the underlying technology that makes such a simple process even possible.
There are tens of thousands of man hours of work that created the infastructure for One Click, yet Amazon feels their blatantly obvious idea somehow supercedes all that work.
I contend that the only entities that wouldn't be better off should the entire patent system be shut down are the giant corporations. Corporations don't need patent protection. They can bring ideas to market faster than any other entity on Earth. The quality of their product should be their only protection.
The world has outgrown patents as it would be nearly impossible in this day and age to structure the process to help those that need and deserve help while preventing abuse by those that don't. Also, and perhaps more poignantly, original ideas are a thing of the past, and therefore most new twists on an old way of doing things aren't worthy of exclusivity.
Since the patent process exists to serve the interest of giant corporations, and giant corporations own the politicians that are supposed to represent the people at large, there isn't much chance of seeing the patent process being overhauled, much less abandoned any time soon. Therefore the only remotly satisfying course of action most of us have is to moan and groan when the patent atrocity of the day scrolls across the front page of Slashdot.
Don't like it? Neither do I.
The two examples are so vastly different that a comparison is has no logical meaning. By the same road, you could've named cars or candles or whatever; shit, you could've picked the pharmacy inventory systems with robotic controls.
However, there are rules of simplicity that the courts are required to follow before granting a patent. A program which any first-year CS student can write, and often will, to sort various items is the essence of simplicity.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
You have to be kidding
My Subject line got lost. I said, "They patented the Tree Control?" I was thinking about what could possess Apple to actually pay Creative over the tree control. What it does do, is raise the bar for any manufacturer or programmer that wants to create a music device or program because they would probably end up paying creative an ungodly amount of money, which they might not be able to afford. So in affect, Apple caving in stifles competition. Apple can afford to pay this, but who else can?
Apologies... I believe I become a might bit dyslexic when faced with less than adequate sleep.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
That had already been done in UNIX.