PDA

View Full Version : Creative Sues Apple, Seeks Injunction


Bern
May 15, 2006, 07:00 PM
Creative have filed a cease and desist law suit against Apple, claiming Apple copied their patent for an mp3 player. Basically what they want is to stop Apple from selling iPods, iPod Nano and iPod Shuffles.

Get the full story HERE (http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/15/creative/index.php)

So I guess Creative's way of thinking is if they can't compete with their own innovations then try to get the one's who do come up with the ideas out of the way.

yankeefan24
May 15, 2006, 07:04 PM
I heard. Not going to happen anyways. But that's creative for you.

Bern
May 15, 2006, 07:06 PM
I heard. Not going to happen anyways. But that's creative for you.

I think the law suit shows the name as "Not-So-Creative vs Apple" :D

longofest
May 15, 2006, 07:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Creative has formally filed (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/15/creative/index.php&t=1147740074) a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple is in breach of their "Zen Patent." The patent, granted in August 2005, covers how files on digital music players are organized.

Creative also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission and is seeking an investigation into whether Apple violated the Tarrif Act by importing and selling iPods (iPods are manufactured overseas before being sold in the U.S. and elsewhere). If Creative is granted a cease-and-desist order against Apple, Apple would be forced to stop importing, selling, and marketing the iPod in the U.S.

EricNau
May 15, 2006, 07:44 PM
Awwwwe. How cute... Creative is jealous.

Multimedia
May 15, 2006, 07:44 PM
Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they were granted their "patent". How dumb is this? :rolleyes:

Filed in January 2001 count as the starting time of their claim to originality? If so I guess they must be hunting for some out-of-court cash settlement. Surely no court will put an end to the foreign production and global sale of iPods. It's too anti-business a decision for any court to want to order.

longofest
May 15, 2006, 07:46 PM
Thanks to all the readers who submitted this story. Couldn't give credit to just one because there were a lot of good submissions, each adding more info.

macEfan
May 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
Awwwwe. How cute... Creative is jealous.
lol, Im sure that is true... everyone seems to be trying to sue apple... but Im sure the first creative MP3 players were not hard drives based.... weren't they like 16mb multimedia cards?

weitzner
May 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
this suit is going nowhere. but i guess this stuff happpens when no one can actually outdo you...

virividox
May 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
i hope the judgment goes agaisnt creative and they have to beart costs haha

bill4588
May 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
LOL! this is funny....i would be AMAZED if they actually stop apple from selling iPods....

WildCowboy
May 15, 2006, 07:51 PM
Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they even filed their "patent". How dumb is this? :rolleyes:

Creative filed their patent in January 2001, well before Apple shipped any iPods.

QCassidy352
May 15, 2006, 07:56 PM
Creative filed their patent in January 2001, well before Apple shipped any iPods.

I haven't taken patent law yet... but is the relevant date when it is filed, or when it is granted? I'm assuming filed...

Rocketman
May 15, 2006, 07:57 PM
Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they even filed their "patent". How dumb is this? :rolleyes:


I would be curious about the specifics of your claim as well as the file management system Apple uses vs the patent claims.

I would also like to see the complaint itself. Upon reading the Apple Corps complaint and the Apple response it as totally clear Apple Corps had NO leg to stand on. Apple will receive costs since it is a UK court.

In creative they will each bear their own costs if filed in the USA.

Apple looses while also receiving extended justice on the obvious. I was recently involved in a lawsuit on the obvious and it took over 2 years for the judge to put in writing just how bogus the defendant, BATFE was.

It was entertaining when it happened :)

Rocketman

Xtremehkr
May 15, 2006, 07:57 PM
I wonder why they waited so long. My first MP3 player was a Creative Nomad III, but it was expensive and did not really hold all that much music.

It's not Apples fault that Creatives products suck.

WildCowboy
May 15, 2006, 07:58 PM
I haven't taken patent law yet... but is the relevant date when it is filed, or when it is granted?

At the latest, the relevant date is the filing date. This is true of virtually the entire world except the United States...the "first to file" system. The US operates on a "first to invent" system, so the date that would apply here is likely even before the patent was filed in January 2001.

Pokeon
May 15, 2006, 08:00 PM
Creative is just mad cause they suck.

maximumbarkly
May 15, 2006, 08:04 PM
Apple legal can handle this. Remember the "pwning" they gave TigerDirect?

The case Tigerdirect made is probably not as strong, but I can't imagine Creative winning this case.

virividox
May 15, 2006, 08:04 PM
At the latest, the relevant date is the filing date. This is true of virtually the entire world except the United States...the "first to file" system. The US operates on a "first to invent" system, so the date that would apply here is likely even before the patent was filed in January 2001.

assuming they can prove it was an invention, and that apple had not invented it themselves yet.

i actually think the first to file is a better system, as it provides for certainty of the law - obviously it has its draw backs, as industrial espionage can be used to steal an idea, then patent it before the creator can patent itthemselves. but you cant have it both ways

Zeke
May 15, 2006, 08:04 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

The important stuff:

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.

2. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory in the second display screen and playing a plurality of tracks associated with the selected subcategory.

3. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory and adding the tracks associated with the selected subcategory to a playlist.

4. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and playing at least one track associated with the selected item.

5. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and adding at least one track associated with the selected item to a playlist.

6. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises one of playing or adding to a playlist at least one track associated with a selected one of the category, subcategory, and item.

7. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track is made after the presentation of the third display screen by reverting back to one of the second and first display screens, the second display screen presented sequentially after the third display screen.

8. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 further comprising selecting one of the items displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of items associated with the selected item in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

9. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category genre is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; and the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of at least one genre type and one of the at least one genre type is selected.

10. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 9 further comprising displaying in the third display screen at least one album associated with the selected genre type and selecting one of the at least one albums displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of tracks associated with the selected album in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

11. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category artist is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of names of artists and a first artist name is selected; and the items displayed in the third display screen comprises at least one album associated with the first artist name.

12. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the track is a music track, accessing at least one track comprises accessing a track title in the third display screen, and the track is played in response to the access.

13. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein receipt of the selection in the first display screen results in an automatic transition of the first display screen into the second display screen and receipt of the selection in the second display screen results in an automatic transition of the second display screen into the third display screen.

14. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is from a top level of the hierarchy.

15. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is a category from a level at least one level below the top level of the hierarchy.

16. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of categories comprise a list of artist names, the plurality of subcategories comprise a list of album names and the plurality of items comprise a list of track names.

Such broad language is used that very clearly describes the method for organizing used in ipods (even mentions playlists which I thought the Zens didn't even have). Apple will probably have to try and state that what they did was so obvious that they didn't need a patent (like patenting breathing). Hopefully this is the case like this one:

Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.

AP_piano295
May 15, 2006, 08:05 PM
We have to many lawyers in this country.

1984
May 15, 2006, 08:06 PM
Creative filed their patent in January 2001, well before Apple shipped any iPods.

The iPod interface is based on the OS X columns view interface so if anything Creative are the ones who copied Apple.

081440
May 15, 2006, 08:09 PM
how do you patent a file tree????

Isn't that something that would by considered ovious or already invented/anybody could do that?

Can I patent my file tree in finder;) ? and then sue anyone that does the same thing in a product? :rolleyes: :p

luminosity
May 15, 2006, 08:12 PM
If they have a leg to stand on, why didn't they do this years ago?

It just smacks of "well, looks like we can't beat them with our products, so we'll have to beat them in a courtroom".

jettredmont
May 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Creative has formally filed (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/15/creative/index.php&t=1147740074) a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple is in breach of their "Zen Patent." The patent, granted in August 2005, covers how files on digital music players are organized.

Creative also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission and is seeking an investigation into whether Apple violated the Tarrif Act by importing and selling iPods (iPods are manufactured overseas before being sold in the U.S. and elsewhere). If Creative is granted a cease-and-desist order against Apple, Apple would be forced to stop importing, selling, and marketing the iPod in the U.S.

Now, can someone with more time on their hands confirm that this is the same patent Creative was hyping up, oh, about a year ago? The one about displaying a NextStep-style column-based view of files?

Wasn't the reaction at that time pretty universal (amongst legal analysts as well as us prolific BSers here) that Creative's patent wouldn't hold up against a decent prior-art discovery process?

So, what's up here? I mean, unless Creative is that desparate for a moment's news that they need to pull stupid patent tricks like this, it seems like they've got more to lose here than they could gain. I mean, if Apple challenges their patent, then it goes through prior-art discovery and gets ripped up. If they just sit on it and wave it around, they can at least say they hold a patent on the iPod interface. I dunno. Sounds like a bluff gone horribly wrong for Creative.

Or, is there more to Creative's patent than is obvious? Some vital feature which distinguishes it from prior art yet still causes it to encompass the iPod interface?

Then again, not much has gone right for Creative in the past five years. Still, it's a shame to see a once-innovative company floundering in the court system at a hail-mary attempt for a company-rescuing windfall.

WildCowboy
May 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
assuming they can prove it was an invention, and that apple had not invented it themselves yet.

i actually think the first to file is a better system, as it provides for certainty of the law - obviously it has its draw backs, as industrial espionage can be used to steal an idea, then patent it before the creator can patent itthemselves. but you cant have it both ways

Because the patent was granted, there is "presumption of validity," which means that Apple has the burden to prove that Creative's invention was not patentable for one reason or another.

The idea behind the "first to invent" system is that it helps small inventors who don't have as many resources as a large corporation who could invent later but spend big bucks to hurry through the patent application process. The US system will likely be going away in a few years if for no other reason than to continue to the worldwide patent standardization that has been going on, but the small inventors lobby is fighting it tooth and nail.

Bern
May 15, 2006, 08:16 PM
Assuming Creative do have a case, that would mean they should then sue every other mp3 player manufacturer. Come on people we're talking about a company from an area of the world notorious for copying other products. :rolleyes:

Gatorman
May 15, 2006, 08:16 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

The important stuff:

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.

2. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory in the second display screen and playing a plurality of tracks associated with the selected subcategory.

3. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory and adding the tracks associated with the selected subcategory to a playlist.

4. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and playing at least one track associated with the selected item.

5. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and adding at least one track associated with the selected item to a playlist.

6. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises one of playing or adding to a playlist at least one track associated with a selected one of the category, subcategory, and item.

7. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track is made after the presentation of the third display screen by reverting back to one of the second and first display screens, the second display screen presented sequentially after the third display screen.

8. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 further comprising selecting one of the items displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of items associated with the selected item in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

9. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category genre is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; and the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of at least one genre type and one of the at least one genre type is selected.

10. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 9 further comprising displaying in the third display screen at least one album associated with the selected genre type and selecting one of the at least one albums displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of tracks associated with the selected album in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

11. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category artist is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of names of artists and a first artist name is selected; and the items displayed in the third display screen comprises at least one album associated with the first artist name.

12. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the track is a music track, accessing at least one track comprises accessing a track title in the third display screen, and the track is played in response to the access.

13. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein receipt of the selection in the first display screen results in an automatic transition of the first display screen into the second display screen and receipt of the selection in the second display screen results in an automatic transition of the second display screen into the third display screen.

14. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is from a top level of the hierarchy.

15. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is a category from a level at least one level below the top level of the hierarchy.

16. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of categories comprise a list of artist names, the plurality of subcategories comprise a list of album names and the plurality of items comprise a list of track names.

Such broad language is used that very clearly describes the method for organizing used in ipods (even mentions playlists which I thought the Zens didn't even have). Apple will probably have to try and state that what they did was so obvious that they didn't need a patent (like patenting breathing). Hopefully this is the case like this one:

Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.


I'm a doctor, not a lawyer....in English please. Otherwise you will force me to go into the complete biochemical metabolic pathways of Gluconeogenesis! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! :D

jmsait19
May 15, 2006, 08:16 PM
i don't get how someone can patent sorting music by artist, genre, and song. what other way is there to do it.

does kenmore have to pay royalties every time they build a fridge with separate drawers for fruits, vegetables, and meats?

it just a simple common sense way of sorting things. i think it is ridiculous that such a thing could be patented in the first place.

Steven1621
May 15, 2006, 08:18 PM
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

Mr. MacPhisto
May 15, 2006, 08:19 PM
I think Creative has got no legs to stand on here. They patented a file tree? Apple has used that organization system for a while.

Did Creative develop this media player first or just file the patent? Did they get a notion as to what Apple was doing with the iPod and file it so they could sue down the road?

It sounds to me like Creative is just bitter over their inability to grab much of the market. They surely didn't patent the integration of iTunes and the iPod. They also didn't patent the scroll wheel or the exact interface. They just described a branching organization pattern similar to many HD directories.

Too bad this will be in the US and no the UK. It'd be nice to force the loser to pay all court costs. Maybe that would prevent people from filing silly lawsuits.

ImAlwaysRight
May 15, 2006, 08:20 PM
Darn, just when I was wanting to buy an iPod, too. No more iPod for me. :( OK, just kidding ... about the no more iPod part. :D

freeny
May 15, 2006, 08:22 PM
jealousy is such a nasty emotion.

gerlitzappel
May 15, 2006, 08:26 PM
shouldn't Creative be suing Pixo?

jettredmont
May 15, 2006, 08:29 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

[...]

Such broad language is used that very clearly describes the method for organizing used in ipods (even mentions playlists which I thought the Zens didn't even have). Apple will probably have to try and state that what they did was so obvious that they didn't need a patent (like patenting breathing). Hopefully this is the case like this one:

Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.

First, you don't need to patent everything you invent. A patent offers legal protections against competitors doing the same thing, but just because you don't patent something doesn't mean someone else can jump in after you've invented something, patent it, and steal your ideas.

Second, related to the first, I agree that this is broad enough to encompass iPods. However, I think it's been pretty universally opined that there is massive prior art here and the patent itself shouldn't have withstood the initial approval stage, much less a full court challenge.

Unfortunately, patent investigators are human. Worse, they are often hopelessly over-worked humans. They make mistakes. Lots of them. Those mistakes stand, however, until they are challenged in court as Creative is doing.

Again, unless I'm missing something, this will only result in Creative's patent being torn up. Anyone see anything in there which is not covered by prior art?

Heirarchal organization: Any file system since around 1981 or so.

Metadata-based heirarchal organization: Practically any media organizer from the early-mid-90's would apply there. And the patents don't claim to predate that so far as I can tell.

Playing the track when clicked: Macintosh interface, 1984.

The only "unique" claim here is "Limited User Interface", which isn't really a highly specific term, and could just as easily describe keyboard navigation within Finder column views as iPod navigation. Seems to be a distinction of dubious value.

Again, I might be missing something. Maybe this will bring Apple down for good, who knows. We haven't had a good "Apple Death Knell" lately. But, I doubt it. It just looks like a PR stunt from a floundering company devoid of any original ideas.

Oblivious
May 15, 2006, 08:30 PM
This is absurd. America is addicted to lawyers and suing. If Creative held a better market share of portable music players in the U.S. this lawsuit would never have happened...:rolleyes:

4God
May 15, 2006, 08:31 PM
Hmmm........funny how this arrises again with the announcement of URGE. Creative and Microsoft working together to battle the competition? :rolleyes:

iPoster
May 15, 2006, 08:37 PM
Way to be sore losers, Creative!

:rolleyes:

kresh
May 15, 2006, 08:40 PM
Apple's lawyer speaking to the jury:

"Creative claims we have violated their hierarchial file display and selection methodology patent for an MP3 device. We only make one, so called, MP3 device and it's an iPod Shuffle and it does not have a display so it does not violate Creative's patent.

Apple is one of the world's oldest computer companies, the iPod and the Ipod Nano are the two smallest iterations of our computers.

See they play games, have a calendar, a clock, keep your contacts, stores/displays photos, and acts as a hard drive when connected to another computer. The iPod even plays video to a television screen. Oh, and they also play MP3's, as well as music in other formats.

We have been using a file hierarchy system in our computers since the 80's and the iPod and iPod Nano continue in that venerable tradition.

Thank you"

Creative loses. I just see it coming.

sbrhwkp3
May 15, 2006, 08:40 PM
Oh my god, get over it Creative. Your products aren't as appealing as apples, so you decide to try to sue them?


Lame... so lame. Get a life:rolleyes:

Demon Hunter
May 15, 2006, 08:42 PM
11 positives? What's wrong with you people?

lt.anonymous
May 15, 2006, 08:54 PM
prolly just want apple to own them.

madamimadam
May 15, 2006, 08:59 PM
My first MP3 player was a Creative Nomad III, but it was expensive and did not really hold all that much music.

My first MP3 player was a Creative Nomad and it was cheap because it was part of a deal Apple did before the iPod came out... it held a WOPING 32MB and cost about $100 on this special deal although I scored it for free.
:D

I tell you what... those were the days when you could listen to the same monotone album again and again and again................... yeah, no, it really sucked

appleguy
May 15, 2006, 09:03 PM
Does anyone know where creative players are made?
if this goes a head wont they have to stop importanting their own MP3 players along with every other MP3 device
what about everything eletronic

LionelEHutz
May 15, 2006, 09:06 PM
They do use computers over there, right? Have they ever heard of a file tree before?

Un-fing-believeable.

TyWahn
May 15, 2006, 09:09 PM
Creative does not want Apple to stop. They want a piece of the pie. Don't rule out getting some nut job judge that will rule in favor of Creative. It is Apple vs. everybody else.

p0intblank
May 15, 2006, 09:11 PM
Stop selling the iPod in the U.S.? HA! There is absolutely no way Apple will ever let this happen...

Creative, you lose!

dpaanlka
May 15, 2006, 09:13 PM
The iPod interface is based on the OS X columns view interface so if anything Creative are the ones who copied Apple.

iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.

sigamy
May 15, 2006, 09:23 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

The important stuff:

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.


Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.

OK, I need to file a patent for some SQL I just wrote the other day at work. I populate one list box with states then when a user selects a state, I populate another with list of counties in that state. When user selects a county I populate with list of cities in that county. Cool! My first patent.

fawlty
May 15, 2006, 09:23 PM
Prior art is of course the portable music player called Macintosh.

- portable (it had a handle)
- hierarchical interface (folders within folders)
- music player (according to Apple Corps.)

timswim78
May 15, 2006, 09:29 PM
Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they even filed their "patent". How dumb is this? :rolleyes:

It's part of business in America. Just think about the whole blackberry fiasco.

LimeiBook86
May 15, 2006, 09:30 PM
iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.
Mac OS X 10.0 Beta had a columns view, and that was before the iPod...and of course all other Mac OS X releases had column views.

Mechcozmo
May 15, 2006, 09:31 PM
The iPod interface is based on the OS X columns view interface so if anything Creative are the ones who copied Apple.

...and OS X got that from NeXT...

Remember how the first iPods worked with OS 9 as well? No OS X required. :)

Sedulous
May 15, 2006, 09:33 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

The important stuff:

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.

2. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory in the second display screen and playing a plurality of tracks associated with the selected subcategory.

Shortened for brevity...

Isn't this how all file systems work? Whether you are conscious of it or not, that is how a CD player works, a hard drive, or pretty much anything. A patent has to cover "new" inventions.

MacPhreak
May 15, 2006, 09:33 PM
iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.

OS X public beta was in 2000, and 10.0 was released in March, 2001. The iPod was released later, in October, 2001. 'Nuff said.

But that's not the deal-breaker. NeXT had column views in the early 90's, and was purchased by Apple in 1996. So, unless Creative was making MP3 players with "column" view before NeXT was around....... :)

Peace
May 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
Too bad for Creative.This may be their last gasp before dying a slow,painful MP3 player death.

As another member said.Creative could have done this a few years ago but chose to do so now that iPods are the main player..The judge will realize this.

askegg
May 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
IANAL, but here we go….
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

The important stuff:

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.
OK, so they the patent specifies a portable media player that has three level deep hierarchies. Each level having multiple options, such as albums -> list of albums -> list of tracks. Some of the iPods menus do indeed have three levels; other have four, which are clearly not covered by this patent.

2. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory in the second display screen and playing a plurality of tracks associated with the selected subcategory.
Specifics on selecting an album to play any number of tracks.

3. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory and adding the tracks associated with the selected subcategory to a playlist.
While playlists can be created in iTunes, they cannot be created on the iPod. If this law suit specifically targets the iPod, then this point does not apply.

4. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and playing at least one track associated with the selected item.
Specifics on selecting a track to play.

5. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and adding at least one track associated with the selected item to a playlist.
Again, this cannot be done on the iPod – you must use iTunes to do this.

6. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises one of playing or adding to a playlist at least one track associated with a selected one of the category, subcategory, and item.
So, we can select tracks, playlists, categories and subcategories?

7. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track is made after the presentation of the third display screen by reverting back to one of the second and first display screens, the second display screen presented sequentially after the third display screen.
So we can go back up the hierarchy by pressing buttons.

8. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 further comprising selecting one of the items displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of items associated with the selected item in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.
So we can find out more details about the track, playlist, category or subcategory.

9. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category genre is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; and the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of at least one genre type and one of the at least one genre type is selected.
So we can search the music collection by genre, which are displayed in a list.

10. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 9 further comprising displaying in the third display screen at least one album associated with the selected genre type and selecting one of the at least one albums displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of tracks associated with the selected album in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.
So the albums are listed in the genres.

11. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category artist is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of names of artists and a first artist name is selected; and the items displayed in the third display screen comprises at least one album associated with the first artist name.
So we can search via artist.

12. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the track is a music track, accessing at least one track comprises accessing a track title in the third display screen, and the track is played in response to the access.
So we can play a track.

13. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein receipt of the selection in the first display screen results in an automatic transition of the first display screen into the second display screen and receipt of the selection in the second display screen results in an automatic transition of the second display screen into the third display screen.
OK, so when I select something the portable music player changes its display. How can they patent a good design tenant – feedback?

14. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is from a top level of the hierarchy.
OK – so we can select a category that is at the top of the tree.

15. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is a category from a level at least one level below the top level of the hierarchy.
We can also place any (sub)category on the front page.

16. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of categories comprise a list of artist names, the plurality of subcategories comprise a list of album names and the plurality of items comprise a list of track names.
The hierarchy is sorted as such: Artist->Album->Tracks.

Such broad language is used that very clearly describes the method for organizing used in ipods (even mentions playlists which I thought the Zens didn't even have). Apple will probably have to try and state that what they did was so obvious that they didn't need a patent (like patenting breathing). Hopefully this is the case like this one:

Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.
This is a very general patent. If it were not for the words “portable media player” they could apply this to almost anything. I doubt this has got legs.

Wookz
May 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
Assuming Creative do have a case, that would mean they should then sue every other mp3 player manufacturer. Come on people we're talking about a company from an area of the world notorious for copying other products. :rolleyes:

As much as I think Creative makes my country look bad, you shouldn't generalize my area of the world like that.

Back to topic, I hope Creative don't win this and give up the idea that they can have some share in the mp3 player market. They should just stick to their sound cards.

monke
May 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
How about a counter-sue from Apple?

Creative's interface is almost exact to the iPod's. (See Below)

There's two examples, want another, sure.

Creative named one of their MP3 players the Nano Plus.

They're suing the company they should be thanking for giving them design and product names.

Play Ultimate
May 15, 2006, 09:36 PM
Apple's lawyer speaking to the jury:

"Creative claims we have violated their hierarchial file display and selection methodology patent for an MP3 device. We only make one, so called, MP3 device and it's an iPod Shuffle and it does not have a display so it does not violate Creative's patent.

Apple is one of the world's oldest computer companies, the iPod and the Ipod Nano are the two smallest iterations of our computers.

See they play games, have a calendar, a clock, keep your contacts, stores/displays photos, and acts as a hard drive when connected to another computer. The iPod even plays video to a television screen. Oh, and they also play MP3's, as well as music in other formats.

We have been using a file hierarchy system in our computers since the 80's and the iPod and iPod Nano continue in that venerable tradition.

Thank you"

Creative loses. I just see it coming.

Exactly my thought. The iPod (prior to Gen5) could be used as a mobile bootable hard disk. How is that not a computer function vs. a MP3 player?
Speaking of Patents: Often times they are awarded with minimal checking and it only becomes relevant and thoroughly checked in court.

vccavtech
May 15, 2006, 09:38 PM
i hope the judgment goes agaisnt creative and they have to beart costs haha
i bet you the judge has an ipod! if so, guess who has a better chance of winning

SiliconAddict
May 15, 2006, 09:38 PM
Those who cannot compete, sue.

LimeiBook86
May 15, 2006, 09:39 PM
Again, this cannot be done on the iPod – you must use iTunes to do this.

What about the On-The-Go playlists? :confused:

SiliconAddict
May 15, 2006, 09:42 PM
i bet you the judge has an ipod! if so, guess who has a better chance of winning


the overall maturity level of the boards just dropped 30%. :rolleyes: Do you REALLY think a judge is going to base his or her decision on the wares they own?

Peace
May 15, 2006, 09:43 PM
The good thing is the last time a company sued Apple for this type of thing a new iPod came out a week later.

So now we know what the insider industrial spies know ;)

MacPhreak
May 15, 2006, 09:43 PM
I just looked at Creative's sight for the first time in my life. All I can say is: Seriously, WTF? There are 25, yes, TWENTY-FIVE different models of MP3 players. How is anyone supposted to pick one? I never truely appreciated Apple's model line-up. Small, medium, and large. Easy as pie.

I guess I'm getting old, but I've got better things to do with my time then sort through 25 models to find the right one.

bigwig
May 15, 2006, 09:43 PM
Unfortunately, patent investigators are human. Worse, they are often hopelessly over-worked humans. They make mistakes. Lots of them. Those mistakes stand, however, until they are challenged in court as Creative is doing.
The US patent system is far, far worse than what you describe: computer science degrees aren't acceptable credentials for patent examiners. You have, at best, non-CS electrical engineers (computers are electrical, right?) examining what are essentially software patents, and they are quite frankly clueless as to the state and history of the software art. They aren't merely "making mistakes", they're patently unqualified for the job. To make matters worse, patents are written in an absurd legalese (see above) that's difficult for an experienced software engineer to decipher. Anybody else has no chance, but they're likely to grant the patent anyway because they don't want to appear ignorant.

askegg
May 15, 2006, 09:44 PM
What about the On-The-Go playlists? :confused:
Opps - just looked at my iPod. You know, I have never used that function! Thanks :)

scan300
May 15, 2006, 09:44 PM
iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.

1st ipod launched Oct 2001
OSX 10.0 launched March 2001 had column views (Public beta circulated in Sept 2000 also had column views)

mikemodena
May 15, 2006, 09:50 PM
I don't think Creative will win, but if they did it would cripple Apple.

plinkoman
May 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
i think i'm going to sue creative for being completely ****ing retarded. :cool:

CubaTBird
May 15, 2006, 09:54 PM
i had one of these once.. big and bulky let me tell you. ;)

beefstu01
May 15, 2006, 10:02 PM
The US patent system is far, far worse than what you describe: computer science degrees aren't acceptable credentials for patent examiners. You have, at best, non-CS electrical engineers (computers are electrical, right?) examining what are essentially software patents, and they are quite frankly clueless as to the state and history of the software art. They aren't merely "making mistakes", they're patently unqualified for the job. To make matters worse, patents are written in an absurd legalese (see above) that's difficult for an experienced software engineer to decipher. Anybody else has no chance, but they're likely to grant the patent anyway because they don't want to appear ignorant.

Now you watch yourself. There are plenty of EE's that are much better software developers than CS majors. In reality, CS is just a subset of EE, a level of abstraction or two above what electrical engineers usually deal with, but it's often the case that people from both disciplines will work on the the same stuff together. EE's have a lot more software experience than you may think. We don't only deal with silicon, you know. Electrical engineering is way too broad of a field for you to make generalizations like that.

(Gotta defend the major)

termite
May 15, 2006, 10:08 PM
Today the Supreme Court ruled (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060515/ts_alt_afp/usitpatentebaycourt) that injunctions will no longer be automatic. Creative will have to actually win the case before they will be allowed to break Apple's kneecaps.

Mwahahahaha!

amateurmacfreak
May 15, 2006, 10:10 PM
The idea of no iPods just makes me so unhappy. :( :mad:
But I doubt Creative will win.... riiiiight?

thejadedmonkey
May 15, 2006, 10:15 PM
Couldn't the Newton play MP3's...?
No? Well it should've been able to play em. And I'm sure somebody wrote a program for it that had column views... and then Apple should countersue Creative for being non creative (and false advertising :p).

booksacool1
May 15, 2006, 10:20 PM
This is so incredibly stupid. “automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata.”
That shound't even be a patent, its so blindingly obvious.
Imagine if someone said you weren't allowed to organise your family photos by the date the camera gave it as this constituted 'metadata' and your camera company hadn't liscenced that organising system.
The only point in metadata is really to organise things, next someone will try and patent the concept of 'metadata' i bet.

Creative needs a broken nose for this...

MacFan782040
May 15, 2006, 10:22 PM
Creative is such a bunch of whiney babies.

MacFan782040
May 15, 2006, 10:24 PM
Oh, and I laugh everytime I go to This (http://creative.com/products/welcome.asp?category=213&) page... look at how many different kinds of players they have and how confusing it is. hahaha. And naming one a "Nano Plus"??? wtf is up with that? :confused: :mad:

HiRez
May 15, 2006, 10:27 PM
how do you patent a file tree????

Isn't that something that would by considered ovious or already invented/anybody could do that? Yes, the entire thing seems to describe pretty well the NSBrowser object, which is pretty much what is used on the iPod (and Finder), which NeXT invented well before Creative even existed, and which would now be owned by Apple. Whether NeXT or Apple ever patented it I don't know, but I'd be kind of surprised if they hadn't because Apple is constantly patenting all sorts of things, I think mostly to prevent bogus money-grab lawsuits just like this one.

BlackLilyNinja
May 15, 2006, 10:29 PM
the guy who filed the patent did so AFTER the first iPod was released yes?

he patented a unix/nextstep file organization display already in use by Nextstep yes?

Creative is backed by Microsoft yes?

Dude now works for microsoft?


this is stupid... i hate lawyers of rich people.

so much money is wasted doing this. I hated apple's actions for suing the isp of that rumors site almost as much as this. Same as the Apple vs Apple... that was a wealthy label putting a stranglehold on Jobs because they had the finances to do it. They forced Jobs and Apple Computer into that non music business agreement.

unfortunately... this is how things are done. When it all comes down to it the only way to get a piece of the pie is to make sure there are no competitors. Because when someone is doing something successful... everyone else wants it to be themselves. So ... corporations all suck.

Super Dave
May 15, 2006, 10:48 PM
I totally agree that Next had column view before Creative did, but I'm pretty sure there was a dos program on my friend's 386 or was it a 286 back in the 80s that had the same dang thing! Good luck with this UNcreative.

David:cool:

beatle888
May 15, 2006, 10:52 PM
Creative is trying to make it so Apple cant sell ANY iPods in the US?

I will NEVER buy a creative product just on this greedy, cheesy cry baby act alone. just cause they suck they want to ruin it for the rest of us? *******s.

dllavaneras
May 15, 2006, 11:04 PM
LOL! this is funny....i would be AMAZED if they actually stop apple from selling iPods....

The best thing about this is that there's a 90% chance that the judge has an iPod :D

zv470
May 15, 2006, 11:07 PM
Fcu k That :rolleyes: I'm sick of these law suits.

plinden
May 15, 2006, 11:08 PM
And naming one a "Nano Plus"??? wtf is up with that? :confused: :mad:
Creative had a Nano (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/10/will-apple-face-trademark-infringement-with-creative-over-the/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/10/will-apple-face-trademark-infringement-with-creative-over-the/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/10/will-apple-face-trademark-infringement-with-creative-over-the/) before the iPod Nano was announced.

nagromme
May 15, 2006, 11:11 PM
NeXT was certainly the basis for the navigation on OS X and iPod, but they did not have the first GUI column view. That honor goes to...

SmallTalk, circa 1974:
http://media.arstechnica.com/images/gui/7-AltoST-small.jpg

Source: A History of the GUI:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/

Morpheus_
May 15, 2006, 11:12 PM
The Tariff Act? You've got to be kidding me... exactly which law do they think Apple broke anyway? "The Tariff Act" is about as generic as "didn't pay your taxes."

boncellis
May 15, 2006, 11:14 PM
Trust the system, this will all be resolved. I'll go on record as saying there is no way Apple will have a C&D order entered prohibiting them from selling iPods in the US unless somehow there are narcotics smuggled inside of them.

It's unfortunate too, because I used to like Creative. They had kind of a cool way of operating from what I had read--for instance, instead of killing a 3d party app that helped organize and navigate files on their players they gave money to the small time programmers to improve the end user experience. I thought that was classy. I don't remember the name of the program off hand, I believe it was "red" something, anyone know?

calvin2006
May 15, 2006, 11:16 PM
If they did get an injunction against Apple, that would make me LESS likely to buy a Creative player (if it were possible for me to be less likely to buy a non-Apple player)....

FoxyKaye
May 15, 2006, 11:24 PM
Everrrbody suddenly wants a piece of the ol' Apple pie. Can't make their own pies, gotta go get some Apple. Good grief - where were these folks when Bush stole the presidency back in 2000?

madamimadam
May 15, 2006, 11:29 PM
where were these folks when Bush stole the presidency back in 2000?

They were there but they weren't allowed through your terrible parliamentary structure. At least you don't have to live with the fact that people seriously voted your leader in and support the removal of their rights.

Wes Jordan
May 15, 2006, 11:32 PM
I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

The important stuff:

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.

2. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory in the second display screen and playing a plurality of tracks associated with the selected subcategory.

3. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting a subcategory and adding the tracks associated with the selected subcategory to a playlist.

4. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and playing at least one track associated with the selected item.

5. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises selecting an item in the third display screen and adding at least one track associated with the selected item to a playlist.

6. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track comprises one of playing or adding to a playlist at least one track associated with a selected one of the category, subcategory, and item.

7. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track is made after the presentation of the third display screen by reverting back to one of the second and first display screens, the second display screen presented sequentially after the third display screen.

8. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 further comprising selecting one of the items displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of items associated with the selected item in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

9. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category genre is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; and the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of at least one genre type and one of the at least one genre type is selected.

10. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 9 further comprising displaying in the third display screen at least one album associated with the selected genre type and selecting one of the at least one albums displayed in the third display screen and presenting a listing of tracks associated with the selected album in a fourth sequentially presented display screen.

11. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category artist is selected in the first display screen from available categories that include at least artist, album, and genre; the subcategories listed in the second display screen comprise a listing of names of artists and a first artist name is selected; and the items displayed in the third display screen comprises at least one album associated with the first artist name.

12. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the track is a music track, accessing at least one track comprises accessing a track title in the third display screen, and the track is played in response to the access.

13. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein receipt of the selection in the first display screen results in an automatic transition of the first display screen into the second display screen and receipt of the selection in the second display screen results in an automatic transition of the second display screen into the third display screen.

14. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is from a top level of the hierarchy.

15. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the category selected in the first display screen is a category from a level at least one level below the top level of the hierarchy.

16. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of categories comprise a list of artist names, the plurality of subcategories comprise a list of album names and the plurality of items comprise a list of track names.

Such broad language is used that very clearly describes the method for organizing used in ipods (even mentions playlists which I thought the Zens didn't even have). Apple will probably have to try and state that what they did was so obvious that they didn't need a patent (like patenting breathing). Hopefully this is the case like this one:

Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.



Hardly do I feel that this idea is novel enough to deserve a patent. Come on Creative, spend your time and money on making a good product.

drewyboy
May 15, 2006, 11:34 PM
Assuming Creative do have a case, that would mean they should then sue every other mp3 player manufacturer. Come on people we're talking about a company from an area of the world notorious for copying other products. :rolleyes:

Just like the Apple Corps with online music encoding and downloading. For some reason, i feel that Dr. Evil is behind this all.. all those ppl around the table belong to these half-ass companies that aren't worth anything anymore, and Dr. Evil is trying to get his One-Trillion dollars finally.

jamesi
May 15, 2006, 11:45 PM
haha, i guess if i was creative and tired of losing the mp3 war i would pull this crock too

beatle888
May 15, 2006, 11:49 PM
haha, i guess if i was creative and tired of losing the mp3 war i would pull this crock too


REALLY?

madamimadam
May 15, 2006, 11:49 PM
haha, i guess if i was creative and tired of losing the mp3 war i would pull this crock too

Well, they are mostly dead already, they may as well spend their last remaining dollars suing someone and going down in a blaze
;)

scotto07
May 16, 2006, 12:03 AM
Do you REALLY think a judge is going to base his or her decision on the wares they own?

Yes because if they own one they are less likely to rule to have it "banned"

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 12:05 AM
Well, they are mostly dead already, they may as well spend their last remaining dollars suing someone and going down in a blaze
;)

going out in a blaze of glory is one thing, but a blaze of damned them and everyone that wants to buy and iPod rampage of stupidity? that would suck if thats what was at the core of my being.

Lollypop
May 16, 2006, 12:07 AM
Well, they are mostly dead already, they may as well spend their last remaining dollars suing someone and going down in a blaze
;)


Thats right, isnt Creative naerly bankrupt or something? They should have just stuck with sounds cards, they were cool, but they even managed to screw that up! <reflects back on the days of the SoundBlaster 16>

ieani
May 16, 2006, 12:13 AM
I'm a doctor, not a lawyer....in English please. Otherwise you will force me to go into the complete biochemical metabolic pathways of Gluconeogenesis! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! :D

The synthesis of glucose, correct?

70355
May 16, 2006, 12:23 AM
11 positives? What's wrong with you people?
It's almost as annoying as a board full of half-wits jumping to conclusions over an issue they know little about.

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 12:26 AM
NeXT was certainly the basis for the navigation on OS X and iPod, but they did not have the first GUI column view. That honor goes to...

SmallTalk, circa 1974:
http://media.arstechnica.com/images/gui/7-AltoST-small.jpg

Source: A History of the GUI:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/

Uuuuhhh, your history might be a BIT OFF, hyarcical menus in the Mac WAY COOL BEFORE NeXT EVER showed up :eek:

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 12:29 AM
SOMETHING STRANGE AND CERTAINLY :eek: ILLEGAL :eek: IS GOING ON :eek: RIGHT NOW :eek:


There are NO after hours quotes available in APPLE's stock RIGHT NOW, if APPLE THINKS THIS IS that SERIOUS ...


... ITs SERIOUS :eek: :eek: :eek:

madamimadam
May 16, 2006, 12:30 AM
Uuuuhhh, your history might be a BIT OFF, hyarcical menus in the Mac WAY COOL BEFORE NeXT EVER showed up :eek:

Hierarchal file system and column viewing are VERY different concepts

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 12:35 AM
NeXT was certainly the basis for the navigation on OS X and iPod, but they did not have the first GUI column view. That honor goes to...

SmallTalk, circa 1974...As I recall the column view idea made it into sketches of the Lisa GUI design but was later rejected as being too complicated for the average person. When those engineers left Apple for NeXT they got a second chance to put it back into the GUI. But because some people at NeXT still felt it was too complicated to stand on it's own, they added a path of icons directly above the columns to help people keep track of where they were.

So no, neither Apple nor NeXT hold the patent on this technique of browsing data.

As for the idea of organizing music by genre, album, artist and track... prior art can come from anyone who made a relational database of their music collection... which I think is one of those "hello world" type of examples used in teaching people to make databases.

As for using the metadata within MP3 files for the data to organize those files... that would fall under the control of the Moving Picture Experts Group as MP3 is their file format (it is part of MPEG-1). The fact that the data is their means that it was meant to be used... Creative can't corner the market on using data that was meant to be used by everyone.

Basically... this is a sad case.

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 12:38 AM
RacerX is back. someones gonna get their ass kicked...just watch.

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 12:40 AM
As I recall the column view idea made it into sketches of the Lisa GUI design but was later rejected as being too complicated for the average person. When those engineers left Apple for NeXT they got a second chance to put it back into the GUI. But because some people at NeXT still felt it was too complicated to stand on it's own, they added a path of icons directly above the columns to help people keep track of where they were.

So no, neither Apple nor NeXT hold the patent on this technique of browsing data.

As for the idea of organizing music by genre, album, artist and track... prior art can come from anyone who made a relational database of their music collection... which I think is one of those "hello world" type of examples used in teaching people to make databases.

As for using the metadata within MP3 files for the data to organize those files... that would fall under the control of the Moving Picture Experts Group as MP3 is their file format (it is part of MPEG-1). The fact that the data is their means that it was meant to be used... Creative can't corner the market on using data that was meant to be used by everyone.

Basically... this is a sad case.


NO, Apple has ALREADY told us the answer in this ...

... Realtime quotes on its stock would be available now if there was NOTHING to this case :eek: :eek: :eek:


AND WHAT ABOUT THEIR LONG TIME LEGAL DIRECTOR BEING LAYED OFF LAST WEEK !?!?!?!?!

AND this CRAZY string of Rumors for the last few weeks, YOU KNOW APPLE DOES MOST OF THESE LEAKs INTENTIONALLY TO KEEP THE STOCK PRICE UP, now Sony is releasing BLUE RAY in its laptops, this happens, and WHO KNOWS what MS has up its sleeve with xBox.

What if MS has a tiny xBox player that can double as a music player ...

... GOODBYE HUGE iPod sales !!!

Walmart music sales online coming in June is NOT A RUMOR !

Richard Bleiche
May 16, 2006, 12:40 AM
Zeke et al: Look at the image in the patent. It also specifies "a method of...."

Well if you look at the image, their "method of" is a Windows 'Tree' with [+] 's and [–] 's for expansion of the tree and buttons on the right side of the screen. Definitely not similar to the graphical interface on the iPod.

RJB


[QUOTE=Zeke]I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

elgruga
May 16, 2006, 12:46 AM
Apple - $60 billion market cap
Creative - $1/2 billion market cap
Crush them, Apple.......

I seem to remember that iTunes came from MacAmp was it? Didnt that essentially mean that iTunes file hierarchy system is about 2 to 3 years before Creatives insanely generalised patent?

BTW, can I patent " a distinct number and order of letters in the alphabet, based on a familial hierarchical naming system going back over 200 years"?
If so, 'ElGruga' is mine, all mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iMeowbot
May 16, 2006, 12:48 AM
shouldn't Creative be suing Pixo?
Pixo no longer exists, and the iPod software was developed under contract to Apple anyway (so Apple own it).

madamimadam
May 16, 2006, 12:48 AM
I seem to remember that iTunes came from MacAmp was it? Didnt that essentially mean that iTunes file hierarchy system is about 2 to 3 years before Creatives insanely generalised patent?

No, Apple bought SoundJam

I used to LOVE that program.. had skins AND karaoke

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 12:51 AM
NO, Apple has ALREADY told us the answer in this ...

... Realtime quotes on its stock would be available now if there was NOTHING to this case :eek: :eek: :eek:


AND WHAT ABOUT THEIR LONG TIME LEGAL DIRECTOR BEING LAYED OFF LAST WEEK !?!?!?!?!

AND this CRAZY string of Rumors for the last few weeks, YOU KNOW APPLE DOES MOST OF THESE LEAKs INTENTIONALLY TO KEEP THE STOCK PRICE UP, now Sony is releasing BLUE RAY in its laptops, this happens, and WHO KNOWS what MS has up its sleeve with xBox.

What if MS has a tiny xBox player that can double as a music player ...

... GOODBYE HUGE iPod sales !!!

Walmart music sales online coming in June is NOT A RUMOR !


how do you get through the day?



i thought i was bad.

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 12:56 AM
RacerX is back. someones gonna get their ass kicked...just watch.LOL :p

I guess you meant something like this...


NO, Apple has ALREADY told us the answer in this ...

... Realtime quotes on its stock would be available now if there was NOTHING to this case If initial stock reaction was a legitimate judge of the out come of a case, then the SCO Group (who stock jumped from $4 to almost $30 when they sued IBM over Linux) would be on their way to a major win... as it currently stands in discovery, the judge just ask SCO (who was under orders to provide prove of their claims with specificity) if this was all they had when IBM pointed out that SCO has failed to show any infringement.

A stock ticker has absolutely no baring here.

If you want to follow knee-jerk public reaction to all this... that is your choice. I, on the other hand, would like to look at the merits of the case.

:rolleyes: or lack of merits in this case. :D



beatle888, was that what you were thinking of?
:eek:

wnurse
May 16, 2006, 12:58 AM
If they have a leg to stand on, why didn't they do this years ago?

It just smacks of "well, looks like we can't beat them with our products, so we'll have to beat them in a courtroom".

I'm not really for creative but the date of the suit has nothing to do with the merit of the case. I'm sure i pointed this out before in another discussion thread but a company does not have to file a lawsuit immediately after it discovers an infringement on its patent. They could have secretly been in talks with apple to license their patents and apple balked. They could have been doing research to determine damages.. there is a host of reasons why they waited.. they do not have to explain why they waited. I see this in so many forums.. people saying.. well X company could have sued y years ago so that must mean their suit is not valid (just ask RIM (makers of blackberry) how that thinking went).

iMeowbot
May 16, 2006, 12:58 AM
I seem to remember that iTunes came from MacAmp was it? Didnt that essentially mean that iTunes file hierarchy system is about 2 to 3 years before Creatives insanely generalised patent?

It was SoundJam, but it doesn't matter. Claim 1 of the Creative patent spells out that the scope is very narrow, only for the application of this kind of menu to a portable media player. iTunes isn't a portable media player, so it's a different animal as far as this patent goes.

DamnDJ
May 16, 2006, 12:59 AM
If you can't beat them in the market with products, try to beat them in court with lawyers.

Again, the American solution to life's problems is suing the things that hurt your feelings. Get a grip.

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 01:01 AM
I seem to remember that iTunes came from MacAmp was it? Didnt that essentially mean that iTunes file hierarchy system is about 2 to 3 years before Creatives insanely generalised patent?You're thinking of SoundJam MP, which was out years before the earliest references within Creative's patent (which as I recall was an article in 1999).

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 01:01 AM
I found a reatime quote, the RT quotes for Apple on YAHOO were down previously, but JUST NOW they have show up again !!! Yahoo says up 0.14 but the links USUALLY don't work so it does NOT seem to be working propperly !!!

Freerealtime quotes on the other hand says DOWN 0.18 (0.27), I think they END at 8:00 p.m. so THAT would be correct ...

http://quotes.freerealtime.com/dl/frt/M?IM=quotes&symbol=AAPL&type=Quote


Oh well, either way its NOT MUCH :confused:


YOU DON"T think Apple loosing its legal director of MANY YEARS is a BIG DEAL --> you don't know about investing :eek: :eek: :eek:

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 01:03 AM
beatle888, was that what you were thinking of?
:eek:


I saw that coming a mile away, down to the post and member. but thats just the beginning. it gets better.:p

its funny cause i was going to quote that same post to warn him.

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 01:07 AM
Claim 1 of the Creative patent spells out that the scope is very narrow, only for the application of this kind of menu to a portable media player.That is one of the reasons I wouldn't think this type of patent is enforceable (or should have even been granted).

If this type of thing was patentable then Apple could have cornered the market on handheld devices with the Newton using some very basic aspects of how it worked.


... of course that was back in the early 90's before IP craziness. :eek:

wnurse
May 16, 2006, 01:08 AM
how do you patent a file tree????

Isn't that something that would by considered ovious or already invented/anybody could do that?

Can I patent my file tree in finder;) ? and then sue anyone that does the same thing in a product? :rolleyes: :p

Actually, Creative is not suing over the technology behind the user interface, they are suing over the user interface. To give an idea of the difference. The MacOS is based on a file system that was already invented and it's core technology is unix based. That does not mean that any company can just come along and make a clone of macOS and claim that they have a right to because the underlying technology was already there. All mp3 players use the same file structure yet the user interfaces are different.

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 01:12 AM
NeXT was certainly the basis for the navigation on OS X and iPod, but they did not have the first GUI column view. That honor goes to...

SmallTalk, circa 1974:
http://media.arstechnica.com/images/gui/7-AltoST-small.jpg

Source: A History of the GUI:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/


OH man :eek: I thought I invented the twisty thingy in figure 1 :confused:

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 01:18 AM
LOL :p

I guess you meant something like this...


If initial stock reaction was a legitimate judge of the out come of a case, then the SCO Group (who stock jumped from $4 to almost $30 when they sued IBM over Linux) would be on their way to a major win... as it currently stands in discovery, the judge just ask SCO (who was under orders to provide prove of their claims with specificity) if this was all they had when IBM pointed out that SCO has failed to show any infringement.

A stock ticker has absolutely no baring here.

If you want to follow knee-jerk public reaction to all this... that is your choice. I, on the other hand, would like to look at the merits of the case.

:rolleyes: or lack of merits in this case. :D



beatle888, was that what you were thinking of?
:eek:

Uuuuu :confused: I have a question for CAN YOU READ :eek:

I SAID, "Its not much of a change !"

AND I was getting MORE EXCITED by the apparent stock price manipulation leading up to this, I know that is a streeeeech, but the last few weeks have been VERRRRRY unusual ...

... and YOU did NOT read or did not read careful so YOU missed my point :eek: THUS you did not make YOUR point :eek:


SO I WAS THE ONE THAT DID THE BUTT KICKING :D

Stiivi
May 16, 2006, 01:23 AM
iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.

Well, then ... the column view (browser view) has been in NeXTSTEP (1) since 1989. Apple acquired NeXT in the mid-90s.

Moreover! Filtering data using a column view is also quite old. It has been used in data-warehousing as way of drilling (2). In the music player it is nothing more, nothing less: it is drilling-down through your song database.

(1) http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/vpc/images/nextstep.jpg

(2) http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/drill_down.html

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 01:26 AM
Uuuuu :confused: I have a question for CAN YOU READ :eek:

I SAID, "Its not much of a change !"

AND I was getting MORE EXCITED by the apparent stock price manipulation leading up to this, I know that is a streeeeech, but the last few weeks have been VERRRRRY unusual ...

... and YOU did NOT read or did not read careful so YOU missed my point :eek: THUS you did not make YOUR point :eek:


SO I WAS THE ONE THAT DID THE BUTT KICKING :D


HAhahahaha!


ding ding ding ding ding ding ding...."Ladies and gentlemen, In this corner we have...."


hey yac, i think he was just sorta messing around, no big deal.

iRepublican
May 16, 2006, 01:28 AM
It's almost as annoying as a board full of half-wits jumping to conclusions over an issue they know little about.

:D

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 01:29 AM
YOU DON"T think Apple loosing its legal director of MANY YEARS is a BIG DEAL --> you don't know about investing :eek: :eek: :eek:I know that stocks rise and fall based on the fears of people ignorant of what is actually happening and the spread of FUD... which is why I know enough not to invest. Besides, Apple is a corporation... and though I like Apple products, I'm suspicious about any corporation.

Uuuuu :confused: I have a question for CAN YOU READ :eek: Only what was posted before I've started writing. Anything else would require mind reading... and your mind is just not that interesting (though it does seem to be an open book :D ).

SO I WAS THE ONE THAT DID THE BUTT KICKING :DIf what you're posting is considered butt kicking, then you get the prize.

I saw that coming a mile away, down to the post and member. but thats just the beginning. it gets better.Well, I'm bowing out... too many high emotions here, I like well thought out arguments (when I haven't been working all day ;) ) and this isn't that fun (specially with someone whose caps lock seems to be getting stuck).

Maybe someone from Creative will post! That would be interesting.

:rolleyes: I'll have to check in tomorrow to see.

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 01:29 AM
HAhahahaha!


ding ding ding ding ding ding ding...."Ladies and gentlemen, In this corner we have...."


hey yac, i think he was just sorta messing around, no big deal.


YOu know me I am ALWAYS messin ;)

truz
May 16, 2006, 01:33 AM
I honestly don't think there will be any issues with apple and there ipods. If worse comes to worse they would have to change a few things on there product (apple would) so they can pay the fine and continue to sell ipods with better looking interface :D

Then we have to go buy 2x the new ipods to help support apple and there lawsuit ;)

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 01:37 AM
Maybe someone from Creative will post! That would be interesting.

:rolleyes: I'll have to check in tomorrow to see.


that would be. someone posted a creative email address here if you want it.

take it easy. always fun to be on the boards when you stop by.

beatle888
May 16, 2006, 01:43 AM
YOu know me I am ALWAYS messin ;)


you did take it rather well. rare for these boards..:)

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 01:43 AM
Uuuu major changes to the bottom of Apple's front page :eek: ...

"Important Safety Recall of rechargeable batteries for 12-inch iBook G4, 12-inch and 15-inch PowerBook G4."

And Apple stores now have a popup at the bottom.


OK so here is my prediction then of WHAT THIS IS ABOUT ...

Apple will announce a new MACiBOOK tomorrow and it will have a Blue Ray burner in it JUST LIKE xBox !?!?!?!?

It will be VERY VERY popular.

That is why Sony announced the Vaio with BR today, and this news came out today because BAD news is always announced be for good news SO THAT IT IS FORGOTTEN.

But this will be the FIRST store wide roll out announcement, which was sort of predicted last week.

If they don't do it this week they will do it NeXT week :eek: :confused: :eek:


http://www.apple.com/jp/retail/nagoyasakae/week/20060514.html

smacsteve
May 16, 2006, 01:49 AM
lol, Im sure that is true... everyone seems to be trying to sue apple... but Im sure the first creative MP3 players were not hard drives based.... weren't they like 16mb multimedia cards?

Although I don't think Creative has a case and I think there description is so broad stroked that it could apply to just about every MP3 player on the market! This is a joke and should be thrown out of the court with the judge laughing!

mozmac
May 16, 2006, 02:00 AM
I'm so sick and tired of people failing to beat Apple with their products, so they try to beat them in the court room. SHUT UP AND JUST MAKE A PRODUCT THAT'S BETTER! If you can't, then do something else.

mrweirdo
May 16, 2006, 02:07 AM
hrm I can safely say I don’t even care about this suit :P sounds kind of stupid if u ask me

With that said I still prefer my creative zen micro I got over an ipod. Its does what its designed to do which is be an mp3 player. I could care less about an mp3 player being able to play videos, etc because that’s what a portable laptop is for. I just see the screens on ipods being to small to watch movies on. I Only wish it had a larger HD. One major thing that annoys me about the ipod is the fact that batteries aren’t replaceable as opposed to most of the creative players(however that seems to be changing lately). I tend to be the type to keep my gadgets around as long as possible along with constant use. also at the time I got my micro I had a friend with a ipod and my micro seemed to produce much more realistic sound playing the same mp3s on both players with my Sennheiser headphones.

With that said I think creative is really starting to shoot them in the foot recently with newer modules. For one they are starting to go to internal batteries as well. Also they use closed source firmware while apple is more open. I'm sure in terms of sound quality the ipod has equaled or even surpassed the creative players. No doubt that the itunes works way better then Creative’s junk software with wmp. Heck I dont even use it I just drag and drop my music onto the player using playsforsure which basically makes it look like a removable drive(not the best method lots of areas for screw ups mainly in id3 tags)The only advantage I see creative having now is the fact that their products are priced lower then ipods. Creative has definitely lost it lately and it looks like this might be there last effort to get some market share back when instead they should actually be focusing on improving their product.

liketom
May 16, 2006, 02:10 AM
this will get kicked out due to the time it has taken them to sue

2001 - 2006 mmm let me see how about sueing when the original ipod was around and then maybe they might of had a case

but no.. we will wait until apple have sold every man women and child an ipod then try to sue


Creative a?? whats so creative about that:D

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 02:18 AM
THAT is the way its done they wait to see how the patent does, if its popular THEN they can justify sueing :mad:


:eek: I FIGURED IT OUT :eek: I FIGURED IT OUT :eek: I FIGURED IT OUT :eek:


They could NOT decide when EXACTLY to release the new MACiBOOK <-- they decided to THREAD THE NEEDLE :eek:

They waited until just after graduation so that people that might buy the PRO for their kids for graduation WOULD and now with the new MACiBOOKi will be so HOT and CHEAP, hopefully many will still buy it a week late :eek: :)

The 18th will be the wireless video iPod :eek:

Blue Velvet
May 16, 2006, 02:23 AM
Creative know they haven't a hope of getting a settlement. Lawsuits, injunctions and the like are usually designed to tie people and companies down and force them to waste time and resources defending themselves.

This is about trying to slow the juggernaut.

JFreak
May 16, 2006, 02:37 AM
Everrrbody suddenly wants a piece of the ol' Apple pie. Can't make their own pies, gotta go get some Apple.

Off-topic, but... :) Imagine Apple releasing Excel-competitor called "Pie" :D :D :D

bloodycape
May 16, 2006, 02:44 AM
Creative was once creative? (http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.2062)
"As reported, the interface defined by Creative's Zen patent allows for browsing of music in a hierarchical structure, using categories like Artist, Album, and Genre. They beat Apple to the patent by about a year and a half, but regardless, this method of interface is used in most MP3 players today. It certainly seems like Creative is shooting for the stars by attempting to halt iPod production and sales, but hey, aren't most big-name lawsuits always this brash?"

Chundles
May 16, 2006, 03:02 AM
Dear Creative,

Please find enclosed the sum offer of settlement on behalf of the iPod users of the world in response to your claim of patent infringement.

http://www.shoplet.com/office/limages/PKCC4693.JPG

If these don't comfort you I offer simply a few word of advice:

"Your stuff doesn't sell because your stuff isn't that good."

Sincerely Yours,
Chundles
3 iPods and counting.

liketom
May 16, 2006, 03:08 AM
Dear Creative,

Please find enclosed the sum offer of settlement on behalf of the iPod users of the world in response to your claim of patent infringement.

http://www.shoplet.com/office/limages/PKCC4693.JPG

If these don't comfort you I offer simply a few word of advice:

"Your stuff doesn't sell because your stuff isn't that good."

Sincerely Yours,
Chundles
3 iPods and counting.

Creative just could be getting excited about all that money they could be getting :D

hence the tissues:rolleyes:

Machead III
May 16, 2006, 03:24 AM
This'd be like the U.S. accusing China of human rights abuse.

Creative about about the least creative Mp3 manufacturer on the planet.

Buzbe
May 16, 2006, 03:41 AM
Creative filed their patent in January 2001, well before Apple shipped any iPods.

If apple prove they came up with the management system independent of creative then they shouldnt have a problem. The patent only covers the idea if its copied - not if its built independently - without knowledge of the patent or idea

irobot2003
May 16, 2006, 03:46 AM
Indeed, the heirarchy is shown in it's entirety... unlike the iPod interface where only one level is shown at any given time. Also, as someone else noted, the scheme is less flexible than the iPod approach and is specifically limited to 3 display modes. The Creative interface in the patent actually bears more resemblance to the current iTines interface than the iPod. A UI patent is a design patent... look and feel details are essential. The other issue is that the iPod is no longer strictly an audio player... I think if Apple has some reasonably good lawyers they should be ok.

From another post it's pretty obvious that Creative is copying the iPod interface, I wonder if came about because Apple threatened Creative about that...

Zeke et al: Look at the image in the patent. It also specifies "a method of...."

Well if you look at the image, their "method of" is a Windows 'Tree' with [+] 's and [–] 's for expansion of the tree and buttons on the right side of the screen. Definitely not similar to the graphical interface on the iPod.

RJB

AlmostThere
May 16, 2006, 03:47 AM
Well, then ... the column view (browser view) has been in NeXTSTEP (1) since 1989. Apple acquired NeXT in the mid-90s.

Moreover! Filtering data using a column view is also quite old. It has been used in data-warehousing as way of drilling (2). In the music player it is nothing more, nothing less: it is drilling-down through your song database.

(1) http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/vpc/images/nextstep.jpg

(2) http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/drill_down.html

A patent can also refer to the novel use of existing technology - applying such a method in a new domain (media player) could well qualify.

And the point you make about filtering the data is important - not the column view. Unless someone is going to how me something really cool I didn't know about my Mac, I can't use column view to perform this sort of filtering - it works on Files and Directories in the file system, not meta-data contained in / describing the files (I don't about the actual implementation details of the SmallTalk object browser but this remains a different application).

Ironically, the more I read this thread, the more I am beginning to think Creative might have a case - it is different from a simple column view, it is a novel application of filtering data that solves a specific problem.

I wouldn't have thought that Apple copied Creative but patent law does not allow for simultaneous or independent invention. But the laws we have are the laws we have until we change them.

Pistol Pete
May 16, 2006, 03:55 AM
how much are they worth? apple will just pull some change out and buy them haha...

but seriously...damn.

pimentoLoaf
May 16, 2006, 04:13 AM
The other half of the lawsuit equation -- Section 337 of the Tariff Code (http://www.itds.treas.gov/Sec337.htm).

jonharris200
May 16, 2006, 04:14 AM
i bet you the judge has an ipod! if so, guess who has a better chance of winning
I hope justice hasn't quite sunk that far down yet. :rolleyes:

synp
May 16, 2006, 04:27 AM
If they have a leg to stand on, why didn't they do this years ago?

It just smacks of "well, looks like we can't beat them with our products, so we'll have to beat them in a courtroom".

If they prevail, Apple may change their interface to something not covered by the patent. Apple will be forced to pay for each iPod that's already out there. The longer they wait, the more "paying" iPods are out there.

I don't know about the US, but in some countries waiting too long may be taken as evidence that they don't mind the infringement. I'm sure Creative's lawyers would time it correctly.

synp
May 16, 2006, 04:34 AM
The US patent system is far, far worse than what you describe: computer science degrees aren't acceptable credentials for patent examiners. You have, at best, non-CS electrical engineers (computers are electrical, right?) examining what are essentially software patents, and they are quite frankly clueless as to the state and history of the software art. They aren't merely "making mistakes", they're patently unqualified for the job. To make matters worse, patents are written in an absurd legalese (see above) that's difficult for an experienced software engineer to decipher. Anybody else has no chance, but they're likely to grant the patent anyway because they don't want to appear ignorant.

The expertise of the patent examiners is beside the point. The big issue is incentives. If creative file a patent application and the patent examiner rejects it, then Creative sues the patent office. The examiner gets deposed, has to testify, and generally wastes his time. It's far far easier for the patent examiner to just check that the application looks OK, is well-formatted and uses the correct language, and they accept them.

After the patent has been accepted, if there are any legal complications, it's somebody else's problem - Apple gets sued rather than the patent office. That's the way they like it.

This is the reason why companies like BT manage to patent the hyperlink. That's also the reason why 90% of patents are deemed unenforceable the first time they're challenged in court.

steve_hill4
May 16, 2006, 05:05 AM
iPod shipped well before any versin of OS X with column views did.
Well, NeXTSTEP, (1988), relied heavily on column view and since OS X was an evolution of NeXTSTEP......

steve_hill4
May 16, 2006, 05:11 AM
11 positives? What's wrong with you people?
Hoping that Creative will lose, forced into bankrupcy and fade away into the ether?

Seriously, I think a lot around here want to see this expose Creative for a bunch of greedy, unimaginitive suits. Creative were and are a good sound card company. They branched out by buying up an mp3 player company in 2000, entered the market a little too early with some bad products, got overtaken by Apple, now decided they are too far behind and losing too much money so they'll try to eliminate the competition.

In many ways, I hope Apple have also filed some patents regarding the use of touch sensitive devices built into mp3 players, (touch/scroll/click wheel), and they can stop the manufacture of most others on the market until a redesign.

I also hope any lawyer/judge asks why just Apple and not all other manufacturers if they are genuinely trying to protect their intellectual property.

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 05:18 AM
And the point you make about filtering the data is important - not the column view. Unless someone is going to how me something really cool I didn't know about my Mac, I can't use column view to perform this sort of filtering - it works on Files and Directories in the file system, not meta-data contained in / describing the files (I don't about the actual implementation details of the SmallTalk object browser but this remains a different application).That is because your only experience with this is in the Finder... lets look at other examples (which predate 1999 so that they qualify as prior art).

NetInfo Manager
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/quiz/prior_art_01.jpg

Project Builder
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/quiz/prior_art_02.jpg


Ironically, the more I read this thread, the more I am beginning to think Creative might have a case - it is different from a simple column view, it is a novel application of filtering data that solves a specific problem.The problem is that using column view to filter data isn't a novel idea at all. I know that the idea has been in use at NeXT and within the NeXT community since 1989 (and I'm not talking about as a file viewer, I'm talking about data structures).

Need other examples of this in action... addresses from NeXT Mail and Rhapsody MailViewer, DarkForrest from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP and Nisus Thesaurus from Mac OS X.

Nisus Thesaurus
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/quiz/nisus_impl.jpg

Using column view for organizing and presenting data is neither unique to Creative or a new and novel application of the presentation.

When I say they have nothing... I really mean they have nothing. They should never have been awarded this patent, and the real break down in the system is the fact that patents are not being properly refereed (due in large part to the flood of patents over the last few years).

mattyturner
May 16, 2006, 05:32 AM
This is really bad for Creative, this reminds me of AMD suing Intel not long ago. As others have said, why are they just suing Apple, plenty of other people make MP3 players with broadly similar interface.

Creative will not win and they'll just have more egg on their face.

hvfsl
May 16, 2006, 05:33 AM
This is just Creative's way. They sued Aureal Audio back in the 90s (who made better sound cards than Creative, some of the Aureal tec is still better than what Creative use). Aureal ran into financial trouble so Creative bought them and then just sat on the tec so now one else could use it.

SPUY767
May 16, 2006, 05:36 AM
This reminds me of Howard Stern:

"I invented files and folders robin. . ."

"You tell 'em Fred!"

kresh
May 16, 2006, 05:40 AM
By the time it takes 2 years to go to trial and the 2 to 3 year appeal process, Apple will have developed something radically different.

The rapid advance in the technology of this product class is going to outrun the outcome of this case. My only concern would be if the court awarded a license fee per iPod that was sold between x to y time period.

Hopefully Creative won't survive that long.

SPUY767
May 16, 2006, 05:58 AM
the overall maturity level of the boards just dropped 30%. :rolleyes: Do you REALLY think a judge is going to base his or her decision on the wares they own?

No, but they will think about their pocketbooks. My bet is that the judge will be a heavy investor. Given that I can't think of a single mutual fund that has creative as a stock, but I can think of plenty that hold Apple, and the chances that he has Aooke stock might be pretty good, don't fool yourself into thinking that won't be in the back of his mind. In a case this obvious, something like protecting one's finances will take a front seat, believe me.

iAlan
May 16, 2006, 06:26 AM
How is Creative's stock price on this announcement?
If they loose where will it go then?

Not a good strategy to keep your company afloat...

iJawn108
May 16, 2006, 06:43 AM
How lame, they copy the iPods... uhh everything it fails to be the most sucessful player and than they hire their lawyers to find any little loophole they can use against apple.

SPUY767
May 16, 2006, 07:08 AM
I just had an epiphany! Creative should sue NewEgg.com! Check out NewEgg's drill down feature! It's exactly what is described by Creative's patent with the exception of columns. Or, on second though, they shouls shut the *#$(&^($&@#(&$&@_#$(@#&$(*!@&#)!@^#()!@#$ up!

MrCrowbar
May 16, 2006, 07:08 AM
FYI, all stores are down:

http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon.gif

gleepskip
May 16, 2006, 07:11 AM
I love it when the stores go down. :) :D

Hey, I wonder if the 5th Avenue store will close when new product arrives and they have to remerchandise the store?

It's supposed to be a 24x7 store, right?

Another question: Will the 5th Ave cube remain as it is (glass only) or will Apple use the space for posters or other merchandising?

MrCrowbar
May 16, 2006, 07:16 AM
I love it when the stores go down. :) :D

Hey, I wonder if the 5th Avenue store will close when new product arrives and they have to remerchandise the store?

It's supposed to be a 24x7 store, right?

Another question: Will the 5th Ave cube remain as it is (glass only) or will Apple use the space for posters or other merchandising?

LOL. Guess it would be lame just ringing new stuff on the shelves while custumors are shopping. I'd love to see a stickie note with "We'll be back soon." at the frint door when they put up the new products. :D

Store discussion on http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2414149&posted=1#post2414149

goosnarrggh
May 16, 2006, 07:17 AM
I think Creative has got no legs to stand on here. They patented a file tree? Apple has used that organization system for a while.

It's more than a patent for a filesystem.

If you read the abstract, it seems clear that it's a patent for an overlapping hierarchy of categories that exist based on a database that goes beyond the physical layout of the files. The novel idea, apparently, is that a single media track can exist as the endpoint of several different top-level categories.

eg. you can reach a song by starting at the top level with the Artist name, then browsing down to the Album name, and then reaching the list of individual tracks by that artist on that album. Or, you can start with the music genre at the top level, then browse down to the individual Artist, and then get a listing of all relevant tracks. Or, you can start by looking for an Album name, and view all songs on that album regardless of the Artist responsible for the track. (Think compilation album here...)

Would this way of organising tracks necessarily have seemed obvious to somebody back in 2001 before any Nomads or iPods had yet been sold?

At the very least, though, it seems clear to me that the iPod Shuffle certainly doesn't fall under the reach of this patent.

PCMacUser
May 16, 2006, 07:19 AM
How lame, they copy the iPods... uhh everything it fails to be the most sucessful player and than they hire their lawyers to find any little loophole they can use against apple.
They're all corrupt greedy companies - Apple included. All they want is your money. And they'll get it at any cost!
ENDPROC

AlmostThere
May 16, 2006, 07:23 AM
That is because your only experience with this is in the Finder... lets look at other examples (which predate 1999 so that they qualify as prior art).

(images cut)

The problem is that using column view to filter data isn't a novel idea at all. I know that the idea has been in use at NeXT and within the NeXT community since 1989 (and I'm not talking about as a file viewer, I'm talking about data structures).

Need other examples of this in action... addresses from NeXT Mail and Rhapsody MailViewer, DarkForrest from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP and Nisus Thesaurus from Mac OS X.


Thank you for that full reply.

I agree that the thesaurus example is similar to media browsing, although the class browser and netinfo are not because, from the examples posted, I do not see how they allow parallel or upwards movement up the hierarchy (while moving left to right on the display). For example, a class browser would need to allow navigation down an inheritance path to a child (left to right) and then up to parents (left to right). Just to clarify - this makes a lot more sense in terms of multiple inheritance.

[second edit]Does the thesaurus predate this patent? OS X is 2001, no?
In fact going further, many of these programmes are simply appear to be using a column view as a hierarchical representation of the hierarchical data structures. The point about the media is that, for example, an Album is a choice at several different levels of the tree. That is the similarity that needs to be made - the data is inherently flat (unlike a class hierarchy which isn't).


Using column view for organizing and presenting data is neither unique to Creative or a new and novel application of the presentation.

I don't think you have demonstrated this, in terms of showing prior art.

The problem with a media player is presenting and navigating a hierarchy with the limited screen resources of a mobile device. This is what needs to be demonstrated as prior art, not assorted examples from a computer screen where multiple columns are used.

IMHO, this is the difference in the actual application when compared with the many small screen devices that were around in the 90s (and even today) where many still try and apply the window / menu / icon displays that everybody is familiar with.

This is not to say that prior art of this application does not exist, but just a significant difference in my opinion between the examples I have seen in this thread and the use on a media player.

[edit: clarified grammar / language in second half]

JFreak
May 16, 2006, 07:27 AM
They're all corrupt greedy companies - Apple included. All they want is your money. And they'll get it at any cost!

Yes, they're evil. Apple is the most evil of them all, because they make so tempting products that I'm almost forced to buy something every year. I'm not going to make it full 12 months without giving them my hard-earned money! Evil.

MrCrowbar
May 16, 2006, 07:39 AM
MACBOOK IS THERE:

http://www.apple.com/macbook/

http://images.apple.com/macbook/images/indextop20060516.gif

50548
May 16, 2006, 07:47 AM
It's here YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.apple.com

It's DAMN AMAZING!!! GO APPLE GO!!

I want a BLACK ONE!!! YEAH!

johnmcboston
May 16, 2006, 07:48 AM
Would this way of organising tracks necessarily have seemed obvious to somebody back in 2001 before any Nomads or iPods had yet been sold?


Yes - it's called sorting. We've been doing such multi-indexing in databases for decades. Why is it something new because it's done on a music player? Hey, why don't I patent sorting, then I can sue everyone.

sigh.

50548
May 16, 2006, 07:58 AM
Oh yeah, MacBooks have Intel GMAs...let the whining begin!! :p

swano
May 16, 2006, 08:01 AM
I would like to sue apple on the basis that it's ipods are white or black in colour. I've been wearing white and black clothes since I was born in 1977. Sound insain....YUP....maybe creative should get Lars Ulrich in on this..he seems to always be around to ruin a good thing.

beatleandrew
May 16, 2006, 08:02 AM
Oh yeah, MacBooks have Intel GMAs...let the whining begin!! :p
Just to add my whine, the've been very cheeky about the available RAM options:
512MB 667 DDR2 - 2x256MB SO-DIMMs
1GB 667 DDR2 - 2x512MB SO-DIMMs [+ £70.01]
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs [+ £350.01]

You can't buy a single 1GB SO-DIMM and buy a second for half the price elsewhere.

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 09:13 AM
This'd be like the U.S. accusing China of human rights abuse.

Creative about about the least creative Mp3 manufacturer on the planet.


OH so YOU mean kind of like comparing teasing someone to feeding then just one small meal a day.

Apple BY AFRAID :eek:


By the way, I AM CERTAIN CREATIVE HAS A GREAT CASE AND YOU GUYS ARE ALL BLOWING SMOKE :eek: :eek: :eek:

yac_moda
May 16, 2006, 09:28 AM
THAT is the way its done they wait to see how the patent does, if its popular THEN they can justify sueing.


I FIGURED IT OUT :eek: I FIGURED IT OUT :eek: I FIGURED IT OUT


They could NOT decide when EXACTLY to release the new MACiBOOK <-- they decided to THREAD THE NEEDLE.

They waited until just after graduation so that people that might buy the PRO for their kids for graduation WOULD and now with the new MACiBOOKi will be so HOT and CHEAP, hopefully many will still buy it a week late.

The 18th will be the wireless video iPod


:eek: HOTDOG I GOT IT RIGHT :eek: but no Blue Ray ...

THE BLACK HAS A PREMIUM on it kind of LAME !!!

DANG, I don't understand Apple's stock movement AT ALL its as though this Creative thing has taken affect and there was NO MacBook BOUNCE none.


BY THE WAY GUYS I don't agree with those of YOU who like it when BIG companies walk all over the intellectual rights of small companies, and live carelessly, a mirror of some people's lives :eek:

If Apple screwed Creative, even if they didn't know about it because they NEVER BOTHERED TO CHECK, then they deserve THE PUNISHMENT the courts GIVE THEM :mad:

THE METHOD of course of deriving the Metadata is IN CODE so there is NO WAY for any of YOU to KNOW exactly how it is done :eek:



They are still selling iPods, right now, I just checked !

840quadra
May 16, 2006, 10:04 AM
As others have stated earlier, how about using some "Creativity" and come up with and patent something that is actually "New", not something that was invented by someone else? Whoever the individual was that granted them their patent must have been either a former employee, bribed, or incompatant.

Anyway,

I am wondering if Apple was to choose to use their old, tried and true, Apple menues as their defense, if they would gain any ground. One could argue that their iPod filesystem is simply a portable version of the tried and True Apple Menu. Since the screen on the iPod is so small it would only be able to show one menu at a time to give the user readable sub catagories, and list items. If so, they have had this since 1984 (and earlier with the Lisa), and would hopefully be covered from this lame suit.


Lisa Menu (note in the center of the picture)
http://lisa.sunder.net/mirrors/Simon/Lisa/LisaLegacy/ScreenDump.gif


MacOS Menu
Note 2 examples show sub-menues with subcategories only relevant to the parent. This is similar to the iPod interface if you were to look at it as a menu, not a column view of lists.

http://www.nmsu.edu/~CandN/DOCS/Macintosh/Apple.menu.gif

http://www.htg.net/images/macppp_05.gif
Note "Control Panels > List of Control Panels"

http://its.uwrf.edu/support/labs-tecs/mac/images/ocr-applemenu.gif
Note "Applications > Publishing > List of publishing programs"

If apple was to use this as part of their defense, and it was to be admitted to the case, they have years of "Prior Art".

ClimbingTheLog
May 16, 2006, 10:24 AM
i think i'm going to sue creative for being completely ****ing retarded. :cool:

Have prior art, do ya? :D

It was SoundJam, but it doesn't matter. Claim 1 of the Creative patent spells out that the scope is very narrow, only for the application of this kind of menu to a portable media player. iTunes isn't a portable media player, so it's a different animal as far as this patent goes.

I used my Mac laptop with iTunes as a portable media player before I got my iPod in 2002. I believe some folks went so far as to mount them in their car as permanent installations. Both devices contained an operating system, a cpu or two, a music player app. Later the iPod gained games, calendar, and notes apps. The major difference is that the iPod doesn't have a mechanism for third party application developers to target the platform.

nagromme
May 16, 2006, 11:15 AM
Uuuuhhh, your history might be a BIT OFF, hyarcical menus in the Mac WAY COOL BEFORE NeXT EVER showed up :eek:
I never mentioned about hierarchical menus, I was talking specifically about Column View. See the top of the screenshot I posted. Very much like NeXT, OS X, or iPod.

irobot2003
May 16, 2006, 12:06 PM
If you look at the patent and read it carefully you'll see that Creative patented a very particular type of tree-view... the various genres at the top, instances of the genre at the next level and tracks at the third level... all visible at once. The iPod approach is actually better suited to a small screen. With regard to multiple inheritence, with a typical OS file system browser that is achieved with links or aliases.

Actually I noticed following one of the links that Microsoft has a patent in this area as well, and Apple wasn't allowed to patent certain iPod UI elements because of it (although I guess they're still fighting that).
Thank you for that full reply.

I agree that the thesaurus example is similar to media browsing, although the class browser and netinfo are not because, from the examples posted, I do not see how they allow parallel or upwards movement up the hierarchy (while moving left to right on the display). For example, a class browser would need to allow navigation down an inheritance path to a child (left to right) and then up to parents (left to right). Just to clarify - this makes a lot more sense in terms of multiple inheritance.

[second edit]Does the thesaurus predate this patent? OS X is 2001, no?
In fact going further, many of these programmes are simply appear to be using a column view as a hierarchical representation of the hierarchical data structures. The point about the media is that, for example, an Album is a choice at several different levels of the tree. That is the similarity that needs to be made - the data is inherently flat (unlike a class hierarchy which isn't).


I don't think you have demonstrated this, in terms of showing prior art.

The problem with a media player is presenting and navigating a hierarchy with the limited screen resources of a mobile device. This is what needs to be demonstrated as prior art, not assorted examples from a computer screen where multiple columns are used.

IMHO, this is the difference in the actual application when compared with the many small screen devices that were around in the 90s (and even today) where many still try and apply the window / menu / icon displays that everybody is familiar with.

This is not to say that prior art of this application does not exist, but just a significant difference in my opinion between the examples I have seen in this thread and the use on a media player.

[edit: clarified grammar / language in second half]

RacerX
May 16, 2006, 12:24 PM
I agree that the thesaurus example is similar to media browsing, although the class browser and netinfo are not because, from the examples posted, I do not see how they allow parallel or upwards movement up the hierarchy (while moving left to right on the display). For example, a class browser would need to allow navigation down an inheritance path to a child (left to right) and then up to parents (left to right). Just to clarify - this makes a lot more sense in terms of multiple inheritance.Actually, in the examples I gave you can go much further than you can with iTunes/iPod as far as navigating a data structure.

You are going to need to post (step by step) what it is you think that Creative does (that Apple infringes) that these examples don't.

As for illustrating what could be done using my examples... you can find an excellent description of the column view method use in Project Builder here (http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/802-2110/6i63kq4tj?a=view#06.Navigating_the_OpenStep_API_with_Head-6) (which shows the true ability of the column view system for navigating data which I have not seen used to this extent in a music player... software or hardware based).

[second edit]Does the thesaurus predate this patent? OS X is 2001, no?
In fact going further, many of these programmes are simply appear to be using a column view as a hierarchical representation of the hierarchical data structures. The point about the media is that, for example, an Album is a choice at several different levels of the tree. That is the similarity that needs to be made - the data is inherently flat (unlike a class hierarchy which isn't).The structure used by Apple follows Genre, Artist, Album and Track (though never displayed in the column view) within iTunes and within the iPod (except the iPod shuffle which has no navigation).

Further, the tools (APIs) for what was done in Mac OS X predate Mac OS X (and Apple's ownership of what became Mac OS X). And Mac OS X for most developers goes back to 1999 and was publicly available in 2000 (Mac OS X DP1 and DP2 were released in 1999 along with Mac OS X Server 1.0, Mac OS X DP3, DP4 and PB were released in 2000).


The problem with a media player is presenting and navigating a hierarchy with the limited screen resources of a mobile device. This is what needs to be demonstrated as prior art, not assorted examples from a computer screen where multiple columns are used.And this is why I brought up the earlier example of the Newton in the thread (which you read according to your first post). If this type of functionality was patentable, then Apple would at the very least be making a ton of money on licenses from makers of PDAs.

In fact browsing applications on a Newton is similar to browsing songs on an MP3 player... the Newton categorizes applications and you can either view the full list or look at lists by category. Not as many levels, but the difference would be like patenting a four widget menu bar because there is four widgets together rather than three like in the Mac OS and Windows.

IMHO, this is the difference in the actual application when compared with the many small screen devices that were around in the 90s (and even today) where many still try and apply the window / menu / icon displays that everybody is familiar with. So what you are saying is that because they used a list view on a handheld device rather than an icon view they came up with a new and novel way of displaying information? Are you being serious here or is this part an attempt at humor? It is hard to tell because this seems out of left field from the perspective of both topic and patent claims.

I'll let you clarify before I try to address this part any further.

e-coli
May 16, 2006, 12:26 PM
WOW! The Tariff Act suit is just plain...dirty?...genius? Wow.

zap2
May 16, 2006, 01:15 PM
Why would Apple have to stop selling iPod shuffles? They don't use the system of the other iPods which they are sueing over

milatchi
May 16, 2006, 01:37 PM
Creative's audio cards are terrible compared to others, M-Audio and Turtle Beach. Their MP3 players are either big and clunky or small, ugly, and unintuitive. Maybe they'll lose and get what they deserve.

MrCommunistGen
May 16, 2006, 01:38 PM
Apple legal can handle this. Remember the "pwning" they gave TigerDirect?

The case Tigerdirect made is probably not as strong, but I can't imagine Creative winning this case.

That's why I'm worried... the world often doesn't make sense and DEFINATELY isn't fair...

-mcg

QPlot
May 16, 2006, 01:39 PM
i don't get how someone can patent sorting music by artist, genre, and song. what other way is there to do it.

does kenmore have to pay royalties every time they build a fridge with separate drawers for fruits, vegetables, and meats?

it just a simple common sense way of sorting things. i think it is ridiculous that such a thing could be patented in the first place.

that's the scary part, I guess.:D

70355
May 16, 2006, 02:51 PM
I would like to sue apple on the basis that it's ipods are white or black in colour. I've been wearing white and black clothes since I was born in 1977.
How clever. You're only the 50th person to use this false analogy.

iMeowbot
May 16, 2006, 03:19 PM
I used my Mac laptop with iTunes as a portable media player before I got my iPod in 2002. I believe some folks went so far as to mount them in their car as permanent installations. Both devices contained an operating system, a cpu or two, a music player app. Later the iPod gained games, calendar, and notes apps. The major difference is that the iPod doesn't have a mechanism for third party application developers to target the platform.
Yes, things can be used for substitutes for other things, but that doesn't turn them into those other things.

A dinner plate can be used as a shovel, but it's still a dinner plate. If someone discovers that coating dinner plates with irradiated mayonnaise makes them easier to clean and gets a patent on that, that doesn't preclude the patentability of using the very same irradiated mayonnaise as a coating on shovels that makes them easier to cut into soil. In neither case is irradiated mayonnaise itself being patented, that idea belongs to the joint venture between Hellman's and Lawrence Livermore.

AlmostThere
May 16, 2006, 05:46 PM
The structure used by Apple follows Genre, Artist, Album and Track (though never displayed in the column view) within iTunes and within the iPod (except the iPod shuffle which has no navigation).
In the terms of the patent, the levels Apple uses overlap, i.e.
Music->Artist->Album->Song and
Music -> Album -> Song
The patent states "One aspect of the invention includes an overlapping hierarchy of categories ... Thus, a song title can be accessed in multiple different ways by starting with different categories." which looks pretty similar to the method mentioned.

So what you are saying is that because they used a list view on a handheld device rather than an icon view they came up with a new and novel way of displaying information? Are you being serious here or is this part an attempt at humor? It is hard to tell because this seems out of left field from the perspective of both topic and patent claims.

I'll let you clarify before I try to address this part any further.

If I may just make one personal point clear - my own view is that no software is or should be patentable. I do not agree with the existence of the case in the first place, but we have to deal with the law as it is not as it should be.

I am suggesting that because a patent can be issued for a novel application of existing technology, even if each implementation detail Creative uses has been used before (including with respect to columns), they can claim that it has been applied to solve a new problem. Far from being left field, I view it as the principal area of concern - I believe my first statement up thread. Focusing on column views is, IMHO, somewhat disingenuous (although most informative - I have cut a few comments out above for brevity)
You are going to need to post (step by step) what it is you think that Creative does (that Apple infringes)
From Creative's point of view, they were faced with a 1" by 2" screen (values in patent), 6Gb / ~2000 music files and a limited number of buttons. They needed to find someway of making all that information accessible through such a tiny interface (only about 20% of the Newton screen, which is why I don't fully follow the comparison).

In order to achieve this they took existing technology (column view, tags, sorting / filtering algorithm and necessary data structures - possibly customised for their own needs) and applied it to the novel situation that had arisen from their new media player device.

They realised that other companies could make comparable devices and took steps to protect what was possibly a significant amount of research and development. Apple faced near enough exactly the same problem and lo and behold, came up with nearly exactly the same solution.
Using column view for organizing and presenting data is neither unique to Creative or a new and novel application of the presentation.
Then it will be simple to show a device that exists before this patent, that has the same restrictions on screen size and deals with presenting a comparable volume of data through that screen and leverages meta data in a comparable way.
And this is why I brought up the earlier example of the Newton in the thread (which you read according to your first post). If this type of functionality was patentable, then Apple would at the very least be making a ton of money on licenses from makers of PDAs.
You also pretty much answered that in your own post :)
Just because Apple didn't patent something in 1993(?) doesn't mean that they couldn't and doesn't something possibly similar in spirit isn't patentable now. Patent law has changed and, IIRC, Apple now has quite a number of UI patents relating to Dashboard, the Genie effect in the bank.

Not to mention of course, that just because you think it shouldn't be patentable - and I tend to agree - does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, they do have the patent.

Norse Son
May 16, 2006, 05:56 PM
Thanks to all the readers who submitted this story. Couldn't give credit to just one because there were a lot of good submissions, each adding more info.
Yeah, I sniffed out the story, too, and should have known it was too big a "non-story" for others not to post.

Personally, I think it's high time that Congress unlocks the dungeon doors, sweeps out the cobwebs, and gives the 190 year old patent clerks a parole... Or, barring that, at least give them the occasional newspaper, basic cable TV and a dial-up modem; so they can at least be "somewhat informed" next time they grant one of these "Back in the Paleolithic Era I created dirt, now pay up for eating it!"-patents.

I mean, how else do you explain some of these ridiculous patents that have been granted over the past few years. Heirarchical file systems have been around from the dawn of the Mac - and not just at Apple. So, how else would you organize the contents of your music collection...

Now, the genius who comes up with THAT paradigm shift deserves a patent. I just hope he works at One Infinite Loop... Hint: Think outside the box - there are at least 4 dimensions, maybe more if you count Tom Cruise's antics (easy, now, didn't mean to offend!).

mbabauer
May 16, 2006, 08:18 PM
By the way, I AM CERTAIN CREATIVE HAS A GREAT CASE AND YOU GUYS ARE ALL BLOWING SMOKE :eek: :eek: :eek:

This is an absolutely rediculous patent, if I ever saw one. I mean, common...a patent to describe how files are organized on an MP3 player? Whats next, a patent to cover how to supply power from a 115v outlet? Or, how about a patent to cover input of characters into a computer using several rows of mechanical buttons? Oh, I got one, I could patent the use of 1's and 0's to store data!

At some point, the U.S. needs to pony up and fix this patent and copyright nonsense. The problem is, most people either a) don't know WTF you are talking about when you approach the topic, or b) don't give a rats a$$ about it. Most people fall in category a, however.

At some point, the U.S. needs to pony up and fix this patent and copyright nonsense.

Forgot to mention that congress and the senate are making the problem worse, since most are in the pocket of the people who benefit most from this B.S.

Viva la RIAA! Viva la MPAA!

theROZ
May 16, 2006, 09:38 PM
didn't the CEO of Creative, in a very public manner, declare war on the Ipod about 2 years ago...? I guess if you can't beat them...sue them...

Kingsly
May 16, 2006, 10:40 PM
Whoa whoa whoa, who should be suing whom? Looks like iPod software to me.

igentz
May 16, 2006, 11:20 PM
Those Guys are SOB's if ya ask me! Jerk offs!

Bosunsfate
May 16, 2006, 11:58 PM
All I can say....is that this kind of patent law crap has got change.....

Having had to deal with similar cases in my own work there is no way this can continue.

I do wonder when Wall Street will say enough is enough...

Then again who is running things and who is making the money off this stuff.

As for Creative.....well if they were actually "creative" I'd say they'd have something.....

Bern
May 17, 2006, 04:01 AM
Perhaps someone should sue Creative for using a word as their trademark that doesn't really apply to them accept for the fact they have come up with something creative to sue Apple for.

Hey Creative hop on over to Dell and see if you can copy something of their's, Singapore already has a grip with Malaysia over water and the border crossing.

(L)
May 17, 2006, 04:14 AM
Those Guys are SOB's if ya ask me! Jerk offs!

Umm, not that I disagree, but "jerk off" is what teenage boys do to pictures of pop idols. SOB's could alternatively be called jerks, and telling someone to go away could equate to "bug off" or the like, but let's not mix the two. :D

dpaanlka
May 17, 2006, 05:12 AM
Creative have filed a cease and desist law suit against Apple

Wow I can't wait to see how this turns out. Really makes me think a lot less of Creative. They used to be a great company too in like the early 90s.

jimmyh03
May 17, 2006, 06:16 AM
Isn't this all a bit similar to the Guitar worlds PRS vs. Gibson lawsuit???? It's just company's feeling insecure and having no faith in their products:cool:

iMeowbot
May 17, 2006, 07:09 AM
This is an absolutely rediculous patent, if I ever saw one. I mean, common...a patent to describe how files are organized on an MP3 player? Whats next, a patent to cover how to supply power from a 115v outlet?

There were patents (now long expired) for such things. See 565,541 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=0565541) and 1,064,833 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=1064833) for examples.

Or, how about a patent to cover input of characters into a computer using several rows of mechanical buttons?

There were many patents over the years covering that idea, from the telegraph to the typewriter to the teletype to computer I/O.

Oh, I got one, I could patent the use of 1's and 0's to store data!
That was done in patent 3,120,606 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3120606). But also see about John Atanasoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vincent_Atanasoff).

(This is a general truth about inventions, they all look obvious after the fact.)

SPUY767
May 17, 2006, 07:43 AM
Whoa whoa whoa, who should be suing whom? Looks like iPod software to me.

And apple may be entering a counter suit. You see, a patent was granted Apple about using s touch sensitive device on an MP3 player specifically. You can bet your sweet ass that Creative doesn't have and "Prior Art" for that.

tip
May 17, 2006, 09:57 AM
Using column view for organizing and presenting data is neither unique to Creative or a new and novel application of the presentation.

Actually I think this predates NeXT. I believe there was a blurb in the OSX Missing Manual book that showed a column interface from the Apple II (or III) days.

Kingsly
May 17, 2006, 12:36 PM
Under Section 337 of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, imported products that allegedly violate United States intellectual property rights can be barred from entry into the United States.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

yac_moda
May 17, 2006, 01:15 PM
This is an absolutely rediculous patent, if I ever saw one. I mean, common...a patent to describe how files are organized on an MP3 player? Whats next, a patent to cover how to supply power from a 115v outlet? Or, how about a patent to cover input of characters into a computer using several rows of mechanical buttons? Oh, I got one, I could patent the use of 1's and 0's to store data!

At some point, the U.S. needs to pony up and fix this patent and copyright nonsense. The problem is, most people either a) don't know WTF you are talking about when you approach the topic, or b) don't give a rats a$$ about it. Most people fall in category a, however.

YOU obviously know NOTHING about patents or inventions. I would be VERY surprised if ALL those things you mentioned did not have many patents by many companies :eek: :eek: :eek:

yac_moda
May 17, 2006, 01:32 PM
Actually I think this predates NeXT. I believe there was a blurb in the OSX Missing Manual book that showed a column interface from the Apple II (or III) days.


Well said and probably true but I don't think that is the answer to this question.

There will be points listed somewhere in the patent where the inventor is claiming certain mastery of the ART and to have surpassed others, inventions, THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE FOUND.

If it is NOT there it is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN PATENT :eek: :eek: :eek:

dgaust
May 17, 2006, 10:38 PM
I totally agree that Next had column view before Creative did, but I'm pretty sure there was a dos program on my friend's 386 or was it a 286 back in the 80s that had the same dang thing! Good luck with this UNcreative.

David:cool:

Xtree Gold, it had a 3 column file hierachy.

Willy S
May 18, 2006, 06:42 AM
http://www.mbl.is/frimg/2/96/296964A.jpg

The iPod is sooo original and these products are totally different; similar to white vs black Macbook. :rolleyes:

Apple runs a whole division for protecting their intellectual properties and most people here find that to be normal while they are bashing Creative for doing exactly the same thing.

I´m no lawyer so I don´t know who will win the battle, but just looking at these 2 products it looks like one is copying the other.

Mo Jiggity
May 18, 2006, 09:22 PM
Although it may not be fair, I'm glad this is happening. Creative manufactured mp3 players for years before Apple entered the market, and now suddenly there are teenyboppers running all over with iPods going "omgf omgf ur cerativ playr is teh suck!!!11" simply because they cannot comprehend the fact that brand recognition is not a true measure of the product's merit. I have had the privilege of owning both a 5G iPod and a Creative Zen Vision:M, the former first. Honestly the Vision:M is vastly superior. The only area in which it is inferior is its thickness, and possibly control scheme, but feature-wise it is objectively better than the iPod. It has at least four-hour video life, the ability to play DivX, WMV,XVid, and many more video formats than the iPod, a better SNR, an FM tuner, microphone, brighter screen, more options, and a better UI. For instance, you can hit the right directional button to go over to a vertical list of letters, select a letter, and jump to that letter in a list of songs or artists, much faster than on the iPod. And, no matter how many times I have people tell me that the click wheel is more precise than the touchstrip on Creative's players, I always find myself and iPod owners themselves overshooting selections on menus. I can navigate my Zen Vision:M twice as fast as I could use my iPod. All this for now the same price.

The fact is that Creative makes arguably better quality players than Apple, produced them before Apple, was smart enough to get a patent, and does not rely on MTV, marketing managers and obscenely cliche advertisements involving equally-obscure and therefore instant hit songs with Bono in them.

If anybody can give me one good reason why Apple deserves to win the suit, then I will happily step down from my pro-Creative soapbox. But until somebody can come up with something beyond a mere logical fallacy (ie "Creative is jealous.") I cannot think of any reasoning that dictates why Apple should be allowed to continue producing a product that was produced by somebody else first, marketed to people whom the majority of which place far too great of a value in their gadgets, and then turn around and make a technically-inferior product and get away with it.

**NOTE: I apologize for what appear to be sweeping generalizations contained within my rant, but the environment in which I work is full of the aforementioned types of people

wildmannz
May 19, 2006, 01:26 AM
Apple sues Creative -> they filed a suit on the same day!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/18/business/ipod.php

How come this didn't make as much of a headline as Creatives?

Abstract
May 19, 2006, 01:44 AM
i think i'm going to sue creative for being completely ****ing retarded. :cool:

Clearly Creative copied the US Patent office on retardedness, and now they have to pay.

Montserrat
May 19, 2006, 05:16 AM
Macworld.co.uk are reporting that Apple have countersued Creative. There must be so much overlap in the navigational elements of most MP3 players that they could all probably sue each other for quite a while.

Meanwhile, link: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14692

Mechcozmo
May 19, 2006, 06:27 PM
If anybody can give me one good reason why Apple deserves to win the suit, then I will happily step down from my pro-Creative soapbox. But until somebody can come up with something beyond a mere logical fallacy (ie "Creative is jealous.") I cannot think of any reasoning that dictates why Apple should be allowed to continue producing a product that was produced by somebody else first, marketed to people whom the majority of which place far too great of a value in their gadgets, and then turn around and make a technically-inferior product and get away with it.

Creative's players don't sync as the iPods do. I can plug an iPod into my Mac, reflash the firmware, tell it to sync with iTunes, and within an hour have 10GB of music transfered over. Or have all songs that I've played 5 times with a rating of 3 stars or higher transfered. A Creative player won't do that. I do a lot of transferring between iTunes and my iPod, and that link is something that Creative lacks.

Granted, that is not part of the iPod per se, but it is a part of the iPod experience.

Maxipeg
May 19, 2006, 08:14 PM
We have to many lawyers in this country.
we have too many lawyers without a reasonable job in this country... and unfortunately these guys are not only fed by the industry, it's also the health system (and many others) that guarantee them a good living