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.`"
.. 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
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.
"Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this?"
Occam's razor, my friend. Which is more likely to you:
Whenever the subject comes up, various Slashdotters come up with lots of (sometimes laughable) claims of prior art. If only the patent were as simple as Slashdotters made it out to be.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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
Writing software for a Mac and/or Linux is a very different proposition from fabricating hardware for a niche music player.
As expensive as software development is, it doesn't really compare with tooling a factory for making hardware that works with a specific MP3 player, then programming the firmware for said device.
The iPod has been using pretty much the same dock connector for a couple years now, so if you make a gadget for the iPod dock connector there's damn near 50 million potential customers out there.
Creative has clawed it's way to be the biggest of "the rest of them" with the Zen (at least in terms of last year's sales), but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody came out with a statistic that said there were more iRivers out there than Zens. If you are going to go after the "not an iPod" market, your best bet is to make generic gadgets which plug into the headphone jack of any player, and don't rely on the manufacturer-specific features on one niche player.
The iPod is far from perfect. It needs more RAM, and still lacks gapless MP3 playback (a major buzz-kill), but with its market dominance and it's dock connector with standardized pin-outs, it's no surprise that it's what most manufacturers are building accessories for.
If I'm the CEO of "SuperCoolOggAndMP3Players, inc.", I'd be talking to Apple about licensing the iPod dock for my player. It probably would not be a cheap deal, but it would give me a leg up over Creative and all the other also-rans out there, including the upcoming players from Microsoft.
Then again... being a sore loser, rolling on the ground kicking and screaming, and extorting $100,000,000 out of a company would probably make Creative more money than their iRivers ever would. Maybe frivolous corporate lawsuits are the future of "competition".
Maybe I'm overreacting, but hey. Fuck them.
No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them.
Good for you, and I will join you. Bad Corp, No Dollar.
Bless Apple Computers
Even if everyone stops spending money on Creative products, and it won't matter. Sure, they'd have to trim down their product line to nothing, eventually, but a shell company and lawyers can subsist for a long time on nothing other than infringement lawsuits. Kind of like a cockroach living off the oil in your fingerprint, if you think about it.
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.
Since this case was settled, it doesn't mean anything. It just means Creative was willing to drop the lawsuit for $100 million.
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.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent
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.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
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.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
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.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
It's good to see companies which patent and sue about trivial ideas get sued themselves. Remember the trash can patent?
Is it?
It's not like that money comes from nowhere or means nothing.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
Consider that nonsense like this is a direct disincentive to both innovation and copetition.
What you're saying is like saying that it's nice that heroin dealer got shot by herion dealer B. Is this really a good thing?
Life is too short to proofread.
don't be a prick. the text of the patent could be directly interpreted as "selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album" as the parent posted. just because you dug up the verbose text doesn't change what it is.
and yes, it's a pretty fucking obvious way to categorize and navigate through digitally stored music.
just about every ripper i've used has an option to create artist then album directories to contain the actual song files - so just putting a folder of ripped tunes behind a web server infringes on creative's patent? that's BS, completely fucking obvious, and never should have been granted as a patent.
the question now is, who has the patent on doing this with video?
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
A thousand perhaps?
The money didn't vanish, it moved. That same $100m should be able to employ equally as many people at Creative, or less better people or more worse people or whatever. For all you know that money was lining some bank account somewhere, which will now be $100m shorter with little affect on employees, whereas Creative will use it to create a thousand jobs (like perhaps a better Linux team)
I see it as the old, fair and friendly neighborhood heroin dealer shot the new fast talkin' "tough guy" heroin dealer (honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil).
I like Apple, honest. I think Creative did an unethical thing with this lawsuit; and I agree with your reamark about it discouraging competition and innovation.
Now ask me if I think Apple did an ethical thing by flying into Creative's camp, pissing on their tent, and taking Creative's fair? share of Rio's MP3 player market. Hmm?
I have to assume Apple wouldn't visciously steal Creative's market share if "business" hadn't demanded that they take that opportunity. I also have to assume that Creative dislikes patents as much as you and I.
I'll bet most athletes, at times, dislike the fact that if they have less points than their opponent, they lose. They may have worked harder. They may have deserved it more. They may have wantedit SO much more. Their eighteen kids may be dying and only wishing to see their mother/father win, whereas their opponent's looking for their eighteenth win.
(point being, everybody has to play by the unfair rules, and $100m never just "vanishes" in a lawsuit between two giants, unless of course it's to a lawyer)
He's not being a prick - to see what is being patented you have to look at the claims, it really doesn't matter what it says in the text. He looked at the claims to find out what was being patented - that's always the first thing you should do. I agree that this is stupid, but the problem is the patent system, not this patent. Under the current system this patent is perfectly 'reasonable'.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Lawyers don't produce anything and are only necessary because we can't just all get along.
Like the police: If everyone were law abiding we wouldn't need police and jails and courts and all the other fine expenses that go along with enforcing the laws.
For me, this is one of the things that is much overlooked in Intellectual Monopoly law: what is the cost of running this system to society?
Even assuming that patents do increase innovation (I don't believe they do) they also cause a drain of production resources in terms of legal costs, both to file and then to protect. This cost (along with other social costs, like increased prices of drugs etc) needs to be deducted from any gains that a patent system gives (and since I don't believe there are any gains to begin with, I think we have an overall loss...but that's just mho)
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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.