PDA

View Full Version : Creative Lawsuit Update: Apple Sues Creative


Queso
May 18, 2006, 05:48 PM
Looks like we have a bit of retaliation in progress

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

Note: Threads merged; page 1 thread starts with post 21 below. - jsw

zap2
May 18, 2006, 05:59 PM
Give Hell Apple!

iGary
May 18, 2006, 06:01 PM
That's what they get for effing with the Steve™.

Counterfit
May 18, 2006, 06:07 PM
Why the **** is it filed in Wisconsin? :confused:

rockthecasbah
May 18, 2006, 06:09 PM
take those bums down a peg (if that's even possible at this point with their current lowly status :p )

monke
May 18, 2006, 06:36 PM
Hmm... I seem to have predicted this here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2412950)

Does anyone know what are the four patents Apple is suing Creative for infringing?

Seasought
May 18, 2006, 06:47 PM
Good for Apple. I hope Apple stomps them into the ground with their counter suit. :D

balamw
May 18, 2006, 07:30 PM
I'll see your patent and raise you three. :D

Anyone know which four Apple patents are mentioned in the suit?

B

IJ Reilly
May 18, 2006, 07:47 PM
Does anyone know what are the four patents Apple is suing Creative for infringing?

Earth, fire, air and water.

2nyRiggz
May 18, 2006, 07:50 PM
Thats what i'm talking about...service with a smile...give em hell Steve...punks hating on apple.


Bless

balamw
May 18, 2006, 07:51 PM
Earth, fire, air and water.
LOL. So that's the Steve's secret weapon, he's patented the elements!

I really do want to know if the four are better defined than the weak "Zen" patent.

B

Str8edgepunker
May 18, 2006, 09:26 PM
I was just reading the figure on market share. 77% of all mp3 players. Holy moley. No wonder Creative wants a piece of the pie.

Lixivial
May 19, 2006, 01:19 AM
Great... just what we need. More litigation. It'd be an interesting scenario if it's Creative who is indeed countersuing Apple.

EricNau
May 19, 2006, 01:22 AM
I hope this lawsuit puts Creative out of business.

*crosses fingers*

aswitcher
May 19, 2006, 01:55 AM
Sounds like Creatives All or Nothing lawsuit just got even more final.

dpaanlka
May 19, 2006, 02:05 AM
I think Creative might be second-guessing their decision to sue Apple. What a lame idea that was.

aswitcher
May 19, 2006, 02:37 AM
I think Creative might be second-guessing their decision to sue Apple. What a lame idea that was.

Maybe they are hoping to be bought out...

balamw
May 19, 2006, 02:39 AM
Maybe they are hoping to be bought out...
Unlikely given their CEOs posturing. More likely looking to get a FairPlay license & access to iTunes.

B

aswitcher
May 19, 2006, 03:47 AM
Unlikely given their CEOs posturing. More likely looking to get a FairPlay license & access to iTunes.

B

Ah. well that make sense.

MacRumors
May 19, 2006, 07:03 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple is counter-suing Creative (http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/19/lawsuit/index.php), claiming they are in violation in four of its patents. The lawsuit was filed on May 15th, the same day that Creative filed its lawsuit (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060515204005.shtml).

Creative is trying to bar Apple from selling iPods in the U.S. through a cease-and-desist order. Even though Creative's suit's implications are broad, Apple's suit (if successful) could have more impact on Creative because Creative is a smaller company.

x86isslow
May 19, 2006, 07:08 AM
Alright, go Apple!

radian23
May 19, 2006, 07:09 AM
Good for apple.

DrK
May 19, 2006, 07:11 AM
Let's see what happens to Creative's stock price today :p

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

Leoff
May 19, 2006, 07:12 AM
Can't everybody just get along?

I mean... think of the Children! Would someone think of the Children?!?

rosalindavenue
May 19, 2006, 07:13 AM
Good job Apple-- go after the patent trolls as hard as you can. Keep in mind that the NextStep column view had been around since the 80s.

hob
May 19, 2006, 07:14 AM
I think Creative were probably asking for this...

NewSc2
May 19, 2006, 07:19 AM
so what exactly is Apple claiming Creative is infringing upon?

.Andy
May 19, 2006, 07:20 AM
Hooray for patents and litigation!

They seem to be a militant part of a company's arsenal rather than a way to protect their IP.

skidooairman
May 19, 2006, 07:23 AM
Talk about Creatives "Sour-Grapes". I hope Apple takes them to the brink of bankruptcy. Creative has a reputation for medium quality electronics and crappy MP3 players whereas Apple has a reputation for "ipod". Screw Creative to the ground, Apple.

NewSc2
May 19, 2006, 07:25 AM
next time people get all excited that Apple's new patents are future products, just look at this and understand that Apple's just trying to cover its butt whereever it *might* go.

NewSc2
May 19, 2006, 07:26 AM
"Apple is counter-suing Creative, claiming they are in violation in four of its patents."


*shrug* which four?

joeboy_45101
May 19, 2006, 07:33 AM
All Right Apple! It should be interesting how all of this plays out.

Bern
May 19, 2006, 07:46 AM
The four patents are probably those Creative is claiming Apple copied from them. Now that would be ironic wouldn't it :D

sushi
May 19, 2006, 07:47 AM
It should be interesting how all of this plays out.
Yes it will.

America, the land of lawsuits! :eek:

wedge antilies
May 19, 2006, 07:55 AM
Can't everybody just get along?

I mean... think of the Children! Would someone think of the Children?!?

In my best Nelson voice:

HA HA!

Note to Creative:

Don't start a fight you can't finish.

-Red 2.

Shamus
May 19, 2006, 08:11 AM
LOL. That is so Apple-like of them to do something so cunning as that. :)

kev0476
May 19, 2006, 08:13 AM
creative is about to get owned!

TimUSCA
May 19, 2006, 08:17 AM
Next time Creative will consider the reprecusions (sp?) when trying to take down a giant. I mean, I bet Apple never would have sued them for this if Creative hadn't decided to go there in the first place. They wanna be jerks, then so can Apple!

stefan15
May 19, 2006, 08:25 AM
Talk about Creatives "Sour-Grapes". I hope Apple takes them to the brink of bankruptcy. Creative has a reputation for medium quality electronics and crappy MP3 players whereas Apple has a reputation for "ipod". Screw Creative to the ground, Apple.

Zen is an overall crappier package but sounds noticably better than an ipod.. There's also soundblaster. Either way I think suing for navigation systems is crap.. what about what the consumers want?

miketcool
May 19, 2006, 08:25 AM
Kudos to Creative for this move. They have fought long in hard in the digital music player wars and they have put in a ton of effort. I am glad to see them want to go out this way. Might as well go down trying in one last glorious attempt...

http://daapspace3.daap.uc.edu/~wiglemd/images/ship.jpg

I know this pic isn't very accurate, I just couldn't find one with all the rats jumping off.

kev0476
May 19, 2006, 08:26 AM
also does anybody know what the 4 patents are?

(L)
May 19, 2006, 08:27 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple is counter-suing Creative (http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/19/lawsuit/index.php), claiming they are in violation in four of its patents. The lawsuit was filed on May 15th, the same day that Creative filed its lawsuit (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060515204005.shtml).

Creative is trying to bar Apple from selling iPods in the U.S. through a cease-and-desist order. Even though Creative's suit's implications are broad, Apple's suit (if successful) could have more impact on Creative because Creative is a smaller company.

LOL!

Honestly, I don't hate Creative Labs. I even liked one of the original Nomads over the iPod at the time. But you know what? If they're going to be this poopish about their third-rate media players, it makes me think...A world without Creative would not be a world without creativity - just a world with one less sore loser.

edenwaith
May 19, 2006, 08:28 AM
Bwahaha!

Man, this feels evil! But the good, conquering-the-world type of evil.

But Creative seems to be more of a who-didn't-flush-the-toilet type of evil. Creative is just being stupid. If Microsoft keeps getting away with ripping off Apple's interface (not to mention many other programs), how is Creative going to get away with displaying songs in a digital music player?

Now, if there was a particular method on how the data is stored on the player, and Apple stole the method by some nefarious means, then Creative should have proper grounds to sue.

spacehog371
May 19, 2006, 08:36 AM
Who ever thought to organize mp3 files by artist, album, genre, playlist... i mean... thats freaking genius... noone would have ever thought of that. It's not like it's common sense or something... wait.

steelfist
May 19, 2006, 08:36 AM
how cute :rolleyes:

the only thing i like about creative is their sound cards.

(L)
May 19, 2006, 08:38 AM
Zen is an overall crappier package but sounds noticably better than an ipod.. There's also soundblaster. Either way I think suing for navigation systems is crap.. what about what the consumers want?

Let me make this clear. The Zen is an overall crappier deal, period. Sounds better? Here's the problem...

Creative is a sound card company. The Zen is a media player. If you use WAV, the Zen will sound better. If you want quality almost as high but want to be able to fit more than 10 albums on a media player, you need a bit rate high enoug to sound good and compressed enough to be compact - WM VBR or Apple Lossless would do well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for people like me (i.e., people that want lots of quality music), the iPod is the way to go if only because it supports Apple Lossless.

As for what the consumers want, that's not to be settled in courts anyway. As for Creative Labs's suit, their UI design is not original. Neither is Apple's, really. It's easy to use because it is simple, but in the end, it's been done before, and if people can sue over this, they can sue over any menu system. Really, Apple and Creative look stupid together on this.

Bottom line: Which sounds better? The Zen unless you want good sound and lots of tracks. What's wrong with suing over simple UI's? There's a difference between software innovation and being able to organize stuff in hierarchical groups.

interlard
May 19, 2006, 08:40 AM
Gone are the days when The Beatles said "sue!" and Apple bent over and took it.

However, patents were invented to fuel innovation in the Industrial Revolution. Inventors would share their designs, whilst being legally protected from copycats for a short time.

Software patents aren't fueling innovation. They're just a weapon. They really should be abandoned.

X5-452
May 19, 2006, 08:43 AM
Let's see what happens to Creative's stock price today :p

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

I find it hysterical that underneath the search bar in Google Finance, they've listed 3 examples: Google, Cars and then AAPL.

I say good for Apple. If Creative wants to play dirty, then so then Apple. I can't wait to see the outcome of these lawsuits.

octoberdeath
May 19, 2006, 08:47 AM
well this all started with creative... so it should end with them. apple i would image has to know what they're doing. they wouldn't just start sueing people. i think apple will come out on top. creative is just angery that apple is doing so well. and that their products suck.

gomakeitreal
May 19, 2006, 08:50 AM
Let me make this clear. The Zen is an overall crappier deal, period. Sounds better? Here's the problem...

Creative is a sound card company. The Zen is a media player. If you use WAV, the Zen will sound better. If you want quality almost as high but want to be able to fit more than 10 albums on a media player, you need a bit rate high enoug to sound good and compressed enough to be compact - WM VBR or Apple Lossless would do well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for people like me (i.e., people that want lots of quality music), the iPod is the way to go if only because it supports Apple Lossless.

As for what the consumers want, that's not to be settled in courts anyway. As for Creative Labs's suit, their UI design is not original. Neither is Apple's, really. It's easy to use because it is simple, but in the end, it's been done before, and if people can sue over this, they can sue over any menu system. Really, Apple and Creative look stupid together on this.

Bottom line: Which sounds better? The Zen unless you want good sound and lots of tracks. What's wrong with suing over simple UI's? There's a difference between software innovation and being able to organize stuff in hierarchical groups.


I think FLAC is the way to go, and i remember there is some player supporting flac.

truly wish itune can support flac. =(

JeffTL
May 19, 2006, 08:53 AM
The countersuit should force some sort of cross-licensing settlement -- seeing as neither company wants a large segment of its business effectively shut down.

m-dogg
May 19, 2006, 08:57 AM
I hope this doesn't put Creative out of business. While I don't really like them, I think competition in the MP3 player market is a good thing for us as consumers.

dobbin
May 19, 2006, 08:57 AM
I expect that this will end with Apple and Creative both saying "We won't sue you, if you don't sue us". I hope this is just a strategy to get Creative's claim dropped and that they can both stop wasting money on lawyers.

princealfie
May 19, 2006, 08:58 AM
Zap them... well hehehe, can't say. I'm buying a Nano today for you guys!:)

virus1
May 19, 2006, 09:01 AM
I hope this doesn't put Creative out of business. While I don't really like them, I think competition in the MP3 player market is a good thing for us as consumers.
very good point. but i still want to see them suffer. :D

shamino
May 19, 2006, 09:03 AM
This is the way the game is played in corporate America. Everybody files for as many patents as possible. The big boys don't sue each other, because they're all using tech that the others have patented. If they were all to file lawsuits, it would end up with no money changing hands, because they'd all be paying the same amounts to each other for all the license fees - with the lawyers taking all the corporate profits. So they don't sue.

Creative is not a big boy. They don't realize how this game is played. They have one patent that might be useful against the iPod, so they threaten a suit. Apple responded by suing over four Apple patents that Creative is violating. At this point, either Creative will settle, or both suits will go to court and Creative will end up paying net royalties to Apple for every Zen sold.

It only remains to see how stupid Creative really is.

kcmac
May 19, 2006, 09:04 AM
The regurgitation of this story is getting old. How about reporting what Apple is suing for or just not reporting anything at all?

This is just pure laziness. Move along.

lanray
May 19, 2006, 09:09 AM
Hey - I want to sue somebody. It's the thing to do these days. Any suggestions?

Really, it's clever of Apple. Troll the trolls. Would be nice to see the basis of the suit.

fixyourthinking
May 19, 2006, 09:15 AM
I hope this doesn't put Creative out of business. While I don't really like them, I think competition in the MP3 player market is a good thing for us as consumers.

Although creative seems to be the 2nd largest player the MP3 market is too saturated ... I would actually like to see the opposite and few big players bow out of the market gracefully ... none of them are innovating ... only copying Apple.

askthedust
May 19, 2006, 09:24 AM
i wonder what apple's legal bill ends up being on a yearly basis...

Bubbasteve
May 19, 2006, 09:30 AM
Mess with the Bull you get the horns

gael.deest
May 19, 2006, 09:41 AM
truly wish itune can support flac. =(

Yep, open standards and algorithms are definetely the way to go to avoid those silly lawsuits...

BobVB
May 19, 2006, 09:45 AM
Well the main problem is that the patent office even issued a patent in the first place, giving Creative the notion that they actually could patent the obvious.

Apple bought SoundJam and it used the same navigation organization as the iPod. The idea that Creative can take an already existing idea that Apple owned and then get a new patent by saying 'we want to use Apple's already existing music player organization scheme for a nearly identical usage, i.e. a small computer dedicated to being a music player' is obviously wrong and it should never have been issued at all.

Maybe getting the lawyers out of the patent offices would be a good way to go - they are motivated by self-interest to make law more litigious, not less.

iMeowbot
May 19, 2006, 09:52 AM
Okay, so now it's time for IBM to sue Apple for stealing their litigation strategy.

dongmin
May 19, 2006, 10:01 AM
Creative is not a big boy. They don't realize how this game is played. They have one patent that might be useful against the iPod, so they threaten a suit. Apple responded by suing over four Apple patents that Creative is violating. At this point, either Creative will settle, or both suits will go to court and Creative will end up paying net royalties to Apple for every Zen sold.

It only remains to see how stupid Creative really is.Well Apple sells 4 ipods for every zen sold (at least). So even if Creative pays Apple for royalties on its Zen, Creative could potentially come out on top if they get a piece of every ipod sold. Creative may even be able to stop their mp3 business altogether and just live off the royalties.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

lOUDsCREAMEr
May 19, 2006, 10:26 AM
whos copyin who?

ZEN Vision:M

http://images.creative.com/iss/images/products/headers/prod14331_hdr_1_6_1.jpg

iPod Photo
http://www.apple-history.com/images/models/ipod_photo.jpg



ZEN Touch

http://images.creative.com/iss/images/products/headers/prod10274_hdr_1_6_1.jpg

iPod (1st gen)

http://www.apple-history.com/images/models/ipod.jpg

technicolor
May 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
I hope creative gets put out of business.

Shangri-La
May 19, 2006, 10:37 AM
Apple bought SoundJam and it used the same navigation organization as the iPod.

Why even bother with suing Creative. According to Google:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

Creative only has a market cap of Mkt Cap: 478.15M

I think I read somewhere that Apple is expected to net over $19B over the next 5 years from iTMS and iPod. Apple should just buy out Creative like they did with SoundJam. They would then own the patents for the bargain basement price of $500M. That's a 2.5% investment without all the lawsuits. I don't get why Apple doesn't make more acquisitions like this. They are cash heavy and making record profits.

bretm
May 19, 2006, 10:41 AM
so what exactly is Apple claiming Creative is infringing upon?

Market share. Apple has a patent on low market share. Due to Creative's low market share in mp3 players it has forced Apple to be ridiculously successful, drawing out idiot companies to sue them.

Let's get a loser pay legal system and all will be solved.

octoberdeath
May 19, 2006, 10:42 AM
Why even bother with suing Creative. According to Google:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

Creative only has a market cap of Mkt Cap: 478.15M

I think I read somewhere that Apple is expected to net over $19B over the next 5 years from iTMS and iPod. Apple should just buy out Creative like they did with SoundJam. They would then own the patents for the bargain basement price of $500M. That's a 2.5% investment without all the lawsuits. I don't get why Apple doesn't make more acquisitions like this. They are cash heavy and making record profits.


they could buy them, but then what? what is apple going to do with creative? i guess they could get some nice sound cards...but other than that...

bretm
May 19, 2006, 10:44 AM
Because Creative has NOTHING of value to Apple. No hardware, no software. It'd be like Apple throwing away 500mil. I wonder how many other companies would make similar claims? WTF

Why even bother with suing Creative. According to Google:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

Creative only has a market cap of Mkt Cap: 478.15M

I think I read somewhere that Apple is expected to net over $19B over the next 5 years from iTMS and iPod. Apple should just buy out Creative like they did with SoundJam. They would then own the patents for the bargain basement price of $500M. That's a 2.5% investment without all the lawsuits. I don't get why Apple doesn't make more acquisitions like this. They are cash heavy and making record profits.

IJ Reilly
May 19, 2006, 10:45 AM
LOL. So that's the Steve's secret weapon, he's patented the elements!

I really do want to know if the four are better defined than the weak "Zen" patent.

B

I'm still trying to work out how Creative patented Zen. I thought the Buddhists had the prior art on that one a long time ago. Does an empty iPod still make a sound?

dausone
May 19, 2006, 10:46 AM
from msnbc.com

"Apple alleged Creative infringed four patents for user-interface systems on the digital music players. The suit was filed in response to a similar allegation against Apple by Creative, which is seeking damages and the suspension of sales of the Apple iPod in the US."

heh.

bretm
May 19, 2006, 10:48 AM
You can just put aiffs on your ipod. That would sound pretty damn good!

Let me make this clear. The Zen is an overall crappier deal, period. Sounds better? Here's the problem...

Creative is a sound card company. The Zen is a media player. If you use WAV, the Zen will sound better. If you want quality almost as high but want to be able to fit more than 10 albums on a media player, you need a bit rate high enoug to sound good and compressed enough to be compact - WM VBR or Apple Lossless would do well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for people like me (i.e., people that want lots of quality music), the iPod is the way to go if only because it supports Apple Lossless.

As for what the consumers want, that's not to be settled in courts anyway. As for Creative Labs's suit, their UI design is not original. Neither is Apple's, really. It's easy to use because it is simple, but in the end, it's been done before, and if people can sue over this, they can sue over any menu system. Really, Apple and Creative look stupid together on this.

Bottom line: Which sounds better? The Zen unless you want good sound and lots of tracks. What's wrong with suing over simple UI's? There's a difference between software innovation and being able to organize stuff in hierarchical groups.

bigandy
May 19, 2006, 10:51 AM
why am i sure i remember creative saying when they were awarded the "zen" patent, that they wouldn't sue anyone for using what it covers?

and i'm sure i saw that on MR...

but anyway, i think it's quite funny. Apple should just buy Creative and have done with it. and they'd then control the PC soundcard market :rolleyes:

shelterpaw
May 19, 2006, 11:02 AM
Who ever thought to organize mp3 files by artist, album, genre, playlist... i mean... thats freaking genius... noone would have ever thought of that. It's not like it's common sense or something... wait.

That's a catalyst for a bigger argument. What the heck is the patent office doing? Issues patens for everything?

Yoda says: Retarded, they are.

russed
May 19, 2006, 11:04 AM
well they have always said that the best form of defence is attack.

good for apple, now go and crush the stupid Creative!

sam10685
May 19, 2006, 11:19 AM
i've never even heard of creative. it's quite sad when random tiny-ass companies need to sue companies like Apple over something stupid just to get some media attention. go Apple!

Shangri-La
May 19, 2006, 11:22 AM
Because Creative has NOTHING of value to Apple. No hardware, no software. It'd be like Apple throwing away 500mil. I wonder how many other companies would make similar claims? WTF

They DO have something of questionable value. A patent. Of course that's now up to the courts to decide. You also assume that Apple is going to win the lawsuit. Maybe, maybe not. What do you think it will cost Apple if they lose? $100M, $200M, $500M? The courts know how much money Apple is raking in with the iPod. Don't you think that the fine will be proportionate? What is the cost to Apple if they are ordered to cease-and-desist?
Buying out smaller companies has worked brilliantly for Apple in the past. SoundJam is just one example. It was a great program that Apple turned into the standard for online music purchasing.

I'd be glad to see Apple investing money in some of the smaller companies that are run by great programmers that love and support the Mac.

XForge
May 19, 2006, 11:50 AM
Right, so Creative invents a wheel, and Apple invents a Lincoln Continental Mark Nine with power everything and precognitive abilities so you barely even have to drive it, and that's patent infringement???????? Funny world, this.

i've never even heard of creative. it's quite sad when random tiny-ass companies need to sue companies like Apple over something stupid just to get some media attention. go Apple!

They're not all that random or tiny-ass; they sorta invented the sound card for Windows PCs. Other people did it just as well or better, but the SoundBlaster was the first decent one.

Play Ultimate
May 19, 2006, 11:55 AM
Why even bother with suing Creative. According to Google:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

Creative only has a market cap of Mkt Cap: 478.15M

I think I read somewhere that Apple is expected to net over $19B over the next 5 years from iTMS and iPod. Apple should just buy out Creative like they did with SoundJam. They would then own the patents for the bargain basement price of $500M. That's a 2.5% investment without all the lawsuits. I don't get why Apple doesn't make more acquisitions like this. They are cash heavy and making record profits.

Apple could run into FTC (monopolistic) issues with a purchase of Creative.
Apple is better to fight the battle in the marketplace and civil courts rather than the Fed.

XForge
May 19, 2006, 11:57 AM
Gone are the days when The Beatles said "sue!" and Apple bent over and took it.

Well, in Apple's defense, when that deal was brokered, the Beatles were The Fricking Beatles With Balls The Size Of Planets And We'll Swing Them Where We Please. Now, not so much.

Kingsly
May 19, 2006, 12:05 PM
Creative just opened a can of worms that they should've left alone.

Except its more like a can or master chiefs. Or M1A2 Main battle tanks. Or ninjas. Either way, something much more deadly than the common earthworm.

Ohhh, Worms from chernobyl. Yeahhhh!

SPUY767
May 19, 2006, 12:11 PM
Looks like I called it. Apple was playing nice and not bothering b/c creative had no chance of creating an iPod killer, but creative threw the first punch, they will be lucky to survive.

SPUY767
May 19, 2006, 12:13 PM
so what exactly is Apple claiming Creative is infringing upon?

Apple patented the use of a touch sensitive device for navigating an mp3 player.

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 12:13 PM
Right, so Creative invents a wheel, and Apple invents a Lincoln Continental Mark Nine with power everything and precognitive abilities so you barely even have to drive it, and that's patent infringement???????? Funny world, this.
Well, that is exactly how patents work, so yes. If you've got a patent on a wheel and someone makes something that includes a wheel, you need permission, usually purchased via a licensing arrangement.

The issue here is that no one can patent the wheel, so no one has to pay to use wheels. A menu navigation system that anyone could have come up with independently isn't really patentworthy. Creative's patent never should have been allowed in the first place, and then this suit would not have been possible.

Mitch1984
May 19, 2006, 12:16 PM
They are just being sore losers. It's not as if Apple don't deserve their success with the iPod. Like Microsoft don't deserve their Market Share in OS's

Buit check out this below from macworld.co.uk
It's like Apple goaded Creative into suing them to waste their money.

A seemingly surprised spokesman for Creative told the Herald Tribune: "Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions. At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit."

SPUY767
May 19, 2006, 12:17 PM
I think FLAC is the way to go, and i remember there is some player supporting flac.

truly wish itune can support flac. =(

Apple lossless is just as good as flac, slightly better in the revision of flac that I used as the files generated by itunes were smaller. The theory behind any lossless compression of files is the same, it's basically a zip file decompressed on the fly.

kresh
May 19, 2006, 12:18 PM
Let's see what happens to Creative's stock price today :p

http://www.google.com/finance?q=CREAF

I really haven't been keeping up with Creative, well since Creative Sound Blaster was all the rage in the 90's (? can't really remember).

Looks like they are heading for the penny stocks.

mi5moav
May 19, 2006, 12:20 PM
1997 my newton message pad had heriarchial menus and the OS automatically placed sound clips(very small 64bit 22.1khz ) into them according to date, time, file size and author. I was able to listen to these on my headphones. Yes, it wasn't meant to be a portable MP3 player but to me it worked well, and for my friends father who was a physician it worked even better. He had hundred of voice clips on his newton in heirarchial menus....


Oh, and about 2 years before I would always use my powerbook duo as a portable music player. In the apple menu not only did I have tons of nested songs files by author, genre, tv sound clips, movie sound clips, lecture notes... The OS automated the organization of these clips, and I was able create at that time the precursor to smartplaylist by the use of small Applescripts. I even remeber placing a couple of Apple commercials within the heirachial Apple menu.

mcarnes
May 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
The Fricking Beatles With Balls The Size Of Planets

That would be a sight to behold. :eek:

MrCrowbar
May 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
Can't everybody just get along?

I mean... think of the Children! Would someone think of the Children?!?

Ms Lovejoy is right. There's always somepne wanting money from Apple. Time for payback.

ClimbingTheLog
May 19, 2006, 12:28 PM
Buit check out this below from macworld.co.uk
It's like Apple goaded Creative into suing them to waste their money.

Mitch, as the old saying goes, "diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while picking up a rock."

Apple knew it was being trolled - the Creative patent is obvious, has prior art, will probably be overturned, and Creative was trying to extort Apple with it. The pictures above show Creative is already trying to do iPod knock-offs so they didn't enter with a good position.

Apple more than likely hoped Creative would just go away and forget about the whole thing but they were ready just in case.

What we have here is a meerkat roaming the savanah looking for food, and, coming across a Lion decides to bite him squarely on the ass. There aren't many good outcomes for the meerkat.

They DO have something of questionable value. A patent. Of course that's now up to the courts to decide. You also assume that Apple is going to win the lawsuit. Maybe, maybe not. What do you think it will cost Apple if they lose? $100M, $200M, $500M? The courts know how much money Apple is raking in with the iPod. Don't you think that the fine will be proportionate? What is the cost to Apple if they are ordered to cease-and-desist?

If Apple were to lose they still have the option of a hostile takeover. In the meanwhile, settling out of court or getting the patent invalidated are much cheaper options.

freeny
May 19, 2006, 12:31 PM
Lets all say it together now...

FREE ADVERTISING!:rolleyes:

NVRsayNVR
May 19, 2006, 12:39 PM
Good job Job's! Kick their money hungry asses!

Jealousy's a bitch! :D


"Think Alike... Be Different!"

alec
May 19, 2006, 12:55 PM
It seems that I, like lots of others on this board, disdain Creative. I had a particularly bad experience with one of Creative's first MP3 players (I originally typed 'iPods' too -- how ironic). Anyway, I echo the sentiment of "bury them, Apple".

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 12:57 PM
Isn't this IRONIC :eek:

Creative INVENTS the MP3 player market ...

Apple STEALs it ...


Creative nearly goes broke a few times, then as its last comeback dwindles BECOMES DESPERATE AND SUES APPLE.

Then the countersuit and it might actually hold more water then Creative's desperate attempt !


THIS scenario is EXACTLY the same as APPLE vers Microsoft, ANTI-TRUST CASE, that Apple LOST, with the rolls reversed :eek:

About the ONLY difference is that it is MUCH more difficult to say who is in the RIGHT -- remember how it went with MS, APPLE lost but other companies, nations, and time created Apple's REVENGE :eek: :eek:





THIS IS NOT the, APPLE vers Microsoft, Quicktime case that is where Apple got theirs from MS that was REAL JUSTICE :D

OR MAYBE IT IS ... :eek: :eek: :eek:




The outcome of this case could very easily be that Apple buys Creative :eek:

milatchi
May 19, 2006, 01:24 PM
Again, here's hoping Creative gets their ass handed to them. :cool:

AlmostThere
May 19, 2006, 01:46 PM
What have Apple to got to gain from this suit?

Creative are not a major threat in the market place and have comparatively little money that would buoy Apple's coffers.

Apple are simply not sufficiently confident that they would win against Creative - if they were they would just beat them in court. However, by bringing a threat of their own to the table, they show Creative that even if they win their suit, there is a good chance they will suffer irreparable damage from Apple's own suit.

These guys have been negotiating for a long time already. These cases were filed within hours of each other - both parties have them up their sleeves for such a time as no deal could be hammered out.

The most likely outcome is both duke it out in court for a while before coming to some out-of-court settlement. Creative, with potentially more to win, could stick to their guns - a percentage of iPod revenue would be a lucrative income stream - but the risk is that they need to beat Apple in court up to five times, depending on the cases Apple brings, which would be a big gamble.

amateurmacfreak
May 19, 2006, 01:50 PM
Haha, sry Creative, but you're getting pwned.

How Apple to do something like that, to counter-sue. Poor Creative really did ask for it.

ClimbingTheLog
May 19, 2006, 01:52 PM
Creative INVENTS the MP3 player market ... Apple STEALs it ...

Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger_Labs_MPMan_F10) INVENTS the MP3 player market ... Creative STEALs it...

Seriously though - since when is market competition theft? I can't think of any market theories that prevent competition other than some oligarchies. Your way of thinking is a great way to wind up with monopolies - which suck.

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 01:52 PM
What have Apple to got to gain from this suit?

Creative are not a major threat in the market place and have comparatively little money that would buoy Apple's coffers...

... Creative, with potentially more to win, could stick to their guns - a percentage of iPod revenue would be a lucrative income stream - but the risk is that they need to beat Apple in court up to five times, depending on the cases Apple brings, which would be a big gamble.


Doesn't Creative have a large market-share in Korea, where the iPod is VERY UNPOPULAR :eek:

ClimbingTheLog
May 19, 2006, 01:55 PM
What have Apple to got to gain from this suit?

Discouraging the ME-TOO'ers.

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 01:59 PM
Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger_Labs_MPMan_F10) INVENTS the MP3 player market ... Creative STEALs it...

Seriously though - since when is market competition theft? I can't think of any market theories that prevent competition other than some oligarchies. Your way of thinking is a great way to wind up with monopolies - which suck.

NO, Eiger invented the player, creative made the market.

Remember early on MP3 CD players were very popular.

AND for years they said the the HD players would SKIP although I NEVER HEARD THAT HAPPEN :confused:

SiliconAddict
May 19, 2006, 02:08 PM
Guys I wouldn't get too smug about all of this. Since we are talking about brain dead judges who wouldn't know a RAM chip from a hard drive this could still go badly for Apple....or Creative.

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 02:10 PM
Doesn't Creative have a large market-share in Korea, where the iPod is VERY UNPOPULAR :eek:
Not really, no. Samsung has a huge market there, and the iPod is far from "VERY UNPOPULAR."

Further, this imaginary parallel to an anti-trust case is just ridiculous, so let's just nip it in the bud. Creative didn't invent the menu system and in fact their early players used a different layout than the iPod, but the patent isn't that specific. Creative's newer players are remarkably iPod-like in their navigation, and Creative, which copied the implementation from Apple, is using a vague and ridiculous patent to attack something they didn't invent and modified after the patent to emulate the iPod.

ClimbingTheLog
May 19, 2006, 02:14 PM
NO, Eiger invented the player, creative made the market.

So you're picking some arbitrary level of units sold to define when a market is established? What is that number and how did you arrive at it?

I had an Archos Jukebox that I bought a few months before the iPod was introduced. It sucked. I worked at the time at a company with several thousand well-educated tech-using employees and I was the only one who had a hard-drive based mp3 player. That's not a market, that's a curiosity. The biggest problems were shock-induced skipping, low battery life, no useful sync mechanism (I wound up writing my own playlist creator software), and abyssmal transfer times on USB1. The iPod solved all those, making a product with enough capacity to satisfy the general music listener (markedly superior to a CD's capacity), had a generous enough buffer to overcome the hard disk limitations, and with iTunes - a good sync mechanism. That's when the market formed.

AND for years they said the the HD players would SKIP although I NEVER HEARD THAT HAPPEN :confused:

Yeah, see above - they were too cheap (price wise) to include a usable amount of buffer. Apple put in what it cost to make a decent device and sold them for $150 more than the competition. I bought one almost right away and never looked back.

But don't take my word for it - try on a graph of unit sales by time and brand and see what the market says was the time the market formed. Slopes should be useful here.

sethypoo
May 19, 2006, 02:20 PM
Dear Creative,

I fart in your general direction.

-Seth

Leoff
May 19, 2006, 02:36 PM
Isn't this IRONIC :eek:

Creative INVENTS the MP3 player market ...

Apple STEALs it ...



No, Creative helped invent and improve the MP3 player. Apple made the MP3 player "market."

chasemac
May 19, 2006, 02:58 PM
could apple have known that there was infringements on both sides and thought, "what the hell, they're stealing from us, let's steal from them."?

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 03:01 PM
Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger_Labs_MPMan_F10) INVENTS the MP3 player market ... Creative STEALs it...

Seriously though - since when is market competition theft? I can't think of any market theories that prevent competition other than some oligarchies. Your way of thinking is a great way to wind up with monopolies - which suck.

That made no sense at all.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Creative_Threatens_Apple_with_UI_Patent/1125404963
"According to one aspect of the present invention, a technique is provided for organizing tracks on a portable music player by automatically filing tracks in a hierarchical order based on attributes of the tracks," patent application 6,928,433 reads.
"According to another aspect of the invention, the hierarchy is derived by using metadata associated with the audio content that was obtained through any source of metadata (e.g. CDDB metadata, id3v2 metadata, other obtainable metadata) and subsequently stored with or alongside the file that stores the track.""

"Apple's iPod and iPod mini employ a similar interface, Creative claims. The company says that interface was invented by "Creative research and development engineers in our Advanced Technology Center in Scotts Valley, California."
The so-called "Zen Patent" was filed on January 5, 2001 and awarded August 9, 2005. The interface referenced in the patent was used in Creative's NOMAD Jukebox, which debuted in September 2000. Creative points out that the iPod did not ship for another 13 months."



Creative was AWARDED the PATENT :eek:

If they don't DEFEND IT they LOOSE IT !!!


Patents that exist in other market sectors are generally NOT CONSIDERED, the heart of INVENTION is to move an idea from one place to ANOTHER, or one market sector to another -- thus showing your ignorance about how patents and ideas work and are legislated in most governments around the world :eek:

I HAVE LONG NOTICED that once an invention exists in the market place everyone, people like YOU, see it as being obvious and any allegories on other devices as being the same, but if anyone LIKE ME makes a suggestion that an idea is OBVIOUS and should be moved to a NEW DEVICE you act as though this is an act of EVIL REBELLION :eek:

Thus, YOU display that YOU see thinking as an act that REQUIRES control that is allowed to exist only within certain pathways that are created by UNWRITTEN RULES, while I am on the other hand a FREE THINKER who has payed his dues, or understands well enough HOW THINGS WORK that I can imagine and predict new and products and new markets.

The courts exist in a 3rd realm where PROOF IS REQUIRED and entities like patent agencies do the work of determining if an idea is UNIQUE or NOT although courts do review these finding again, in the light of PREVIOUS COURT DECISIONS as CONVENTIONS -- you people don't have any valid conventions, YOU DO have many invalid conventions :eek: :eek:


Now, I maybe wrong about the history of MP3 players, I thought someone might bring some information of the past but NO ONE HAS !

But Archos was mentioned and that reminds me that maybe it was Archos that had the early CD MP3 players and then Creative was popular for only about a year or two and then Apple took over.

Its because of that year or two before the iPod that they got the patent, or so this article says :eek:

anonicon
May 19, 2006, 03:04 PM
No, Apple's suing them for just being a **** company.

That's not true, or else they would have been sued out of existence years ago.

;)

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 03:17 PM
I HAVE LONG NOTICED that once an invention exists in the market place everyone, people like YOU, see it as being obvious and any allegories on other devices as being the same, but if anyone LIKE ME makes a suggestion that an idea is OBVIOUS and should be moved to a NEW DEVICE you act as though this is an act of EVIL REBELLION :eek:

So you're saying that sorting files by metadata didn't exist before 2001? Well, crap. I must have been imagining things when my 1997 vintage PDA sorted audio files by artist and track information, or when I could do the same with MP3s on my computer in 1995.

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 03:44 PM
So you're saying that sorting files by metadata didn't exist before 2001? Well, crap. I must have been imagining things when my 1997 vintage PDA sorted audio files by artist and track information, or when I could do the same with MP3s on my computer in 1995.

OK lets ASSUME YOU ARE RIGHT ...


... WHY were they awarded the patent, filed in 2000, awarded 2005 :confused:


crap. I must have been imagining things when my 1997 vintage PDA sorted audio files by artist and track information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
"Shawn Fanning along with volunteer Sean Parker first released the original Napster in June of 1999 while Fanning was attending Northeastern University in Boston."



when I could do the same with MP3s on my computer in 1995.
THIS is a HIGHLY DUBIOUS CLAIM !!!

And like I SAID being in another market sector means the patent office could see it as a separate invention, especially if supporting it in a miniaturized product requires rewriting the code or other innovations.

I think ONE of the big reasons Apple has survived all these years is because by supporting languages fundamentally different from MS, MS always helped them greatly with this, they could simply look at low level execution of any good MS code that they wanted to steal and then write it in Apple's preferred language and patent it !!!

This way at least they own their flavor of the feature on Macs and other OSs try to use the same ANSI C++ code.

But it works BOTH WAYS, this also stopped any claims Apple had to owning hierarchical menus in Windows.

bloodycape
May 19, 2006, 04:06 PM
eh this just another useless lawsuit, Apple should just give up and Creative should just give up too. Pointless. Now the one I am watching is RIAA vs. XM. Plus I rather see Creative sue Apple for the using the Nano name. Grated the Apple Nano is nicer looking, but you have to remeber the Creative Zen came out months before the Apple nano.

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 04:07 PM
... WHY were they awarded the patent, filed in 2000, awarded 2005 :confused:
It was filed in 2001, first of all, and patents generally take a while to be approved and processed, so the length of time isn't anything noteworthy. That the USPTO employs idiots who approve nonsense like this is just a bureaucratic reality. The patent can be overturned in court if it is decided it was improperly awarded.

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 04:40 PM
It was filed in 2001, first of all, and patents generally take a while to be approved and processed, so the length of time isn't anything noteworthy. That the USPTO employs idiots who approve nonsense like this is just a bureaucratic reality. The patent can be overturned in court if it is decided it was improperly awarded.

YES, this is obvious ...

... what is ALSO obvious is that there are a LOT of GEEKs in the UK that like to bash the USA patent office, but their arguments go UNHEARD IN OUR COURTS, HA, HA :D ;)

The fact that Creative was appointed the patent simply means that there are NOT likely to be any previous claims, accept perhaps those 4 by Apple but I see no place in these arguments of any info about those 4 patents, they are probably to detailed to be related to the Creative patents.


Is there ANY crossover between the patents, does PAST computer functionality bear on MP3 players, I REALLY DOUBT THAT, are the 4 patents from Apple computer or player patents WHO KNOWS -- I don't think your arguments hold ANY WATER AT ALL you don't have enough information :eek:

JGowan
May 19, 2006, 04:43 PM
Well... it's obvious to me that Apple probably DID infringe because they had these back-pocket insurance policy-type infringements of their own against Creative just waiting... just in case Creative wanted to be a @#$% and start something.

The fact that Apple counter-sued on the SAME DAY shows that they knew exactly what they had done, but also what they could hold over Creative's head if the day ever came... and it finally did.

This is totally just a "I'll-drop-my-suit-if-you-drop-yours" kind of deal.

I love it.

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 04:45 PM
YES, this is obvious ...

What on Earth are you talking about?

Well... it's obvious to me that Apple probably DID infringe because they had these back-pocket insurance policy-type infringements of their own against Creative just waiting... just in case Creative wanted to be a @#$% and start something.
They've had time to prepare, because Creative announced the patent almost a year ago. Only a foolish company would pretend that Creative didn't intend to sue.

tk421
May 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
"Shawn Fanning along with volunteer Sean Parker first released the original Napster in June of 1999 while Fanning was attending Northeastern University in Boston."

when I could do the same with MP3s on my computer in 1995.


THIS is a HIGHLY DUBIOUS CLAIM !!!

Why? I remember having mp3s before 1999.

Since you're so quick to cite wikipedia, you could have looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
"It was invented and standardized in 1991 by a team of engineers directed by the Fraunhofer Society in Erlangen, Germany."

d_and_n5000
May 19, 2006, 04:47 PM
Can't everybody just get along?

I mean... think of the Children! Would someone think of the Children?!?
Think of the Children indeed - if no one thinks of the children, and Apple loses as a result, where will the Children get their iPods?

cbigfoot1987
May 19, 2006, 04:47 PM
Next time Creative will consider the reprecusions (sp?) when trying to take down a giant. I mean, I bet Apple never would have sued them for this if Creative hadn't decided to go there in the first place. They wanna be jerks, then so can Apple!

If there is a next time!!!:D :D :D :p

matticus008
May 19, 2006, 04:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
"Shawn Fanning along with volunteer Sean Parker first released the original Napster in June of 1999 while Fanning was attending Northeastern University in Boston."

THIS is a HIGHLY DUBIOUS CLAIM !!!
Oh fun! You went back and added more nonsense crap. The first software mp3 player was released in 1995, with encoders being publicly available in 1994. I used mp3's back when the file extension was .bit, so please get your facts straight before calling someone's claim dubious.

And like I SAID being in another market sector means the patent office could see it as a separate invention, especially if supporting it in a miniaturized product requires rewriting the code or other innovations.
And like I said, I used mp3s in portable devices before 2001--four years earlier, to be precise. Creative didn't invent anything, and they didn't introduce it to a new device. They've done nothing patentworthy with it, other than file a vague patent and then change their own menu implementation to mimic Apple's iPod rather than their original designs.

gnasher729
May 19, 2006, 05:13 PM
Well... it's obvious to me that Apple probably DID infringe because they had these back-pocket insurance policy-type infringements of their own against Creative just waiting... just in case Creative wanted to be a @#$% and start something.

The fact that Apple counter-sued on the SAME DAY shows that they knew exactly what they had done, but also what they could hold over Creative's head if the day ever came... and it finally did.


I absolutely hate it when people come out with this kind of bull. According to you, anybody who is suspected of a crime and has an alibi must be guilty, because they prepared that alibi exactly for that situation.

gnasher729
May 19, 2006, 05:22 PM
What have Apple to got to gain from this suit?

Creative are not a major threat in the market place and have comparatively little money that would buoy Apple's coffers.

Apple are simply not sufficiently confident that they would win against Creative - if they were they would just beat them in court. However, by bringing a threat of their own to the table, they show Creative that even if they win their suit, there is a good chance they will suffer irreparable damage from Apple's own suit.

May I refer you to the case of RIM, who were sued for patent infringement, and managed to throw out _all_ the dozen or so patents they were supposed to be infringing upon, and _still_ had to cough up more than four hundred million dollars.

The real threat in a patent case is that the claimant could get an injunction against you, which forbids you to sell the supposedly infringing product, if there is any danger of "irreparable damage". Worst case scenario was that Apple has to stop selling iPods. Now with the countersuit, this scenario is suddenly highly unlikely. Creative cannot claim the threat of "irreparable damage" through an iPod that only beats the Creative players in the market by stealing Creative's patent, when Creative is sued at the same time for stealing four patents of Apple.

Stridder44
May 19, 2006, 05:34 PM
Why? I remember having mp3s before 1999.

Since you're so quick to cite wikipedia, you could have looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
"It was invented and standardized in 1991 by a team of engineers directed by the Fraunhofer Society in Erlangen, Germany."


1999? Heck, I was "getting" MP3's back in '95

(L)
May 19, 2006, 05:44 PM
I think FLAC is the way to go, and i remember there is some player supporting flac.

truly wish itune can support flac. =(

Ideally, there should be more support for some of those less common ones, even on mainstream players. I don't even know if FLAC is a compressed format. All I can say is that Apple Lossless is "good enough" for me. There are lots of factors to sound quality - in terms of hardware playing music, Creative might be slightly ahead of Apple. In terms of bit rate vs compression, Apple Lossless does an OK job. Then, of course, you need good headphones or speakers. Of course, from the vibe I'm getting, anybody who goes out of their way to use FLAC probably uses electrostatic headphones with an amp, or at least a decent Sennheiser pair. Or some good speakers. Truth be told though, I can't afford and I'm too lazy to bother with upgrading beyond Apple Lossless or my "standard" level Sennheiser cans. :p

balamw
May 19, 2006, 05:47 PM
1999? Heck, I was "getting" MP3's back in '95
I too have a few MP3 and MP2 files from 95-ish, but they have cryptic names and I don't really know what any of them are anymore. They're not in my iTunes library, just on tapes & floppies from the era.

FWIW ID3V1 tags were only introduced in 1996. http://www.id3.org/id3v1.html

B

shamino
May 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
Guys I wouldn't get too smug about all of this. Since we are talking about brain dead judges who wouldn't know a RAM chip ...
... from a potato chip, you mean :)
... from a hard drive this could still go badly for Apple....or Creative.
We'll see. I doubt this will ever get to trial if Apple's is counter-suing with four patents of their own.

Apple will have to pay Creative for licensing their one patent, and Creative will have to pay Apple substantially more for licensing their four patents. Creative would have to be pretty dumb to not settle this whole thing out of court with a quiet apology.

(L)
May 19, 2006, 05:57 PM
I hope this doesn't put Creative out of business. While I don't really like them, I think competition in the MP3 player market is a good thing for us as consumers.

True enough. But, competent competition is better than stupid fart competition that goes around trying to mimic what the top dog is doing. Creative is the second most popular player not because Mac users will buy them (those players are MS only and Plays For Sure Sometimes), but because Windows users that for any reason don't choose the iPod are more likely to choose Creative's rather similar solution over less intelligent design-driven mp3 players. Big whoop, really. Creative isn't making their product unique by doing stuff they do best, like sound hardware. Instead, they are trying to pack a few more features than the iPod in an iPod-like look and pretend that's somehow going to be good enough to gain market share. If Apple does succeed at making a touch screen miracle iPod with no finger grease ever on it, Creative likely will not be able to follow, anyway.

As for the UI - might it help Apple that they use the little arrow thingies to the right of each menu item? Creative always just had an ugly scroll bar. Hierarchical organization is not innovation.

(L)
May 19, 2006, 06:00 PM
... from a potato chip, you mean :)
We'll see. I doubt this will ever get to trial if Apple's is counter-suing with four patents of their own.

Apple will have to pay Creative for licensing their one patent, and Creative will have to pay Apple substantially more for licensing their four patents. Creative would have to be pretty dumb to not settle this whole thing out of court with a quiet apology.

That would be ideal, but... it does seem like Creative decided to play dirty. And, any idiot can look at the UI's and see that they're similar, but also that they are a tiny bit different and that categories and subcategories are nothing to phone home about. I would like to see this suit change UI patent laws.

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 06:07 PM
In one of the articles on Betanews they talk to Creative about the COUNTER SUIT and Creative says, we and Apple were discussing the patent and they DID NOT TELLS US ABOUT THESE COUNTER CLAIMS, the 4 patents !!!

That makes it look like a setup, the patents are perhaps a diversion and an attempt to drain Creative of money :eek:

Now YOU know why their long time Legal director left the company a couple of weeks ago ...

... THAT DON'T LOOK GOOD FOR APPLE :eek: :eek: :eek:


Well... it's obvious to me that Apple probably DID infringe because they had these back-pocket insurance policy-type infringements of their own against Creative just waiting... just in case Creative wanted to be a @#$% and start something.

The fact that Apple counter-sued on the SAME DAY shows that they knew exactly what they had done, but also what they could hold over Creative's head if the day ever came... and it finally did.

This is totally just a "I'll-drop-my-suit-if-you-drop-yours" kind of deal.

I love it.

AlmostThere
May 19, 2006, 06:24 PM
May I refer you to the case of RIM, who were sued for patent infringement, and managed to throw out _all_ the dozen or so patents they were supposed to be infringing upon, and _still_ had to cough up more than four hundred million dollars.

The real threat in a patent case is that the claimant could get an injunction against you, which forbids you to sell the supposedly infringing product, if there is any danger of "irreparable damage". Worst case scenario was that Apple has to stop selling iPods. Now with the countersuit, this scenario is suddenly highly unlikely. Creative cannot claim the threat of "irreparable damage" through an iPod that only beats the Creative players in the market by stealing Creative's patent, when Creative is sued at the same time for stealing four patents of Apple.

Actually, I would would be very interested to be referred to a link showing link where _all_ of the dozen or so patents have faced a final rejection.

GyroFX
May 19, 2006, 07:03 PM
1999? Heck, I was "getting" MP3's back in '95

hehe...Hotline was the first place I've gotten all my MP3s back in 95. CD burners were too expensive, so i did a line out from my computer to a cassette recorder :D . Worked like a charm

Mac
May 19, 2006, 07:05 PM
The best thing about all of this is Creative's spokesperson commenting about the counter lawsuit:

"Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions," Phil O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Creative, said. "At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit."

So, Apple should have said to Creative: "If you sue us we will roast your beans". Nobody shows their cards upfront.

What an idiot! Only morons comments like this.

Thus, Creative needs another spokesperson. Mr. O'Shaughnessy will have no job until retirement in 2050.

Killroy
May 19, 2006, 07:16 PM
Good job Apple-- go after the patent trolls as hard as you can. Keep in mind that the NextStep column view had been around since the 80s.

Just a thought. Did the Newton have column view? If it did it's ass kicking time.:D

yac_moda
May 19, 2006, 07:23 PM
Just a thought. Did the Newton have column view? If it did it's ass kicking time.:D

I CAN'T WAIT until ALL iPods also have the Creative log-o on them :eek: :mad: :eek:


Just kidding :p ;) :p :D

avaloncycle
May 19, 2006, 09:36 PM
Apple suit now claims 7 patent infringements. This article lists the patents infringed upon. Hope creative goes bk.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/188100711

knackroller
May 19, 2006, 09:40 PM
Yes, can't they just get along? As much as i admire Creative as a company, it is in dire need of GOOD DESIGNERS..

Leondunkleyc
May 19, 2006, 11:38 PM
.

Hattig
May 20, 2006, 08:34 AM
And 7 patents now? Looks worse for Creative every day.

I wonder if Apple will take this to the end, or accept the inevitable Creative climbdown and sudden wish to come to a no-fee licensing agreement.

Leondunkleyc
May 20, 2006, 09:14 AM
.

JGowan
May 20, 2006, 10:24 AM
Well... it's obvious to me that Apple probably DID infringe because they had these back-pocket insurance policy-type infringements of their own against Creative just waiting... just in case Creative wanted to be a @#$% and start something.

The fact that Apple counter-sued on the SAME DAY shows that they knew exactly what they had done, but also what they could hold over Creative's head if the day ever came... and it finally did.

I absolutely hate it when people come out with this kind of bull. According to you, anybody who is suspected of a crime and has an alibi must be guilty, because they prepared that alibi exactly for that situation.Don't Hate. And no I didn't say that if you had an alibi you must be guilty. Talk about saying someone did something that they didn't. You should read a page out of your own book.

What I implied was that, of the MILLIONS (!) of patents, Apple KNEW IN ADVANCE that Creative was infringing, otherwise how would they drop a countersuit on THE SAME DAY. You have to admit, generally if Apple was DOING NO WRONG, they would not stand for not even 1 patent infringement and 7 would be out of the question. It stands to reason that they knew that Creative might file some sort of patent complaint on Apple and had this ready just in case.

Why on earth would you be so PRO-APPLE that you couldn't even consider that sometimes, ideas overlap and sometimes you have to just roll the dice. Apple's "SOSUMI" (So Sue Me) is a prime example of Apple saying "we're going to do what we want and if you have a beef, let's see you in court. This is business. Billions hang in the balance. Do you actually think that Apple is 100% above board, all of the time? If you do, you're naive.

I'm not even saying Apple did anything wrong, necessarily. But that's not up to me to decide. Or you, for that matter. To me, USER INTERFACE is so broad that I can't even see how Creative could try this. The ability to change the hierachy of files based on need has been around FOREVER... the fact that you're putting it on a little computer that plays music is nothing new at all.

But you have to ask WHY WOULD APPLE SIT ON 4 PATENT INFRINGEMENTS against Creative? It's because of this remote possiblity of patent 6,928,433.

unigolyn
May 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
But you have to ask WHY WOULD APPLE SIT ON 4 PATENT INFRINGEMENTS against Creative?

Oh, I don't know, because maybe Creative infringed on Apple's patents and Apple didn't sue because it would make them look bad for attacking a fledling competitor? This is what Apple's legal department gets the big bucks for - preparing for any possible litigation well before it happens, so if The Steve says 'let slip the dogs of law' at 9 am, they've got 15 injuctions filed before lunch.

Oh, and yacmoda or whatever your name is, pretending to be a rabid 'sky is falling' Apple playa-hata in ONE post every now and then is HUMOROUS. Turning it into a performance art for your own amusement is called TROLLING. It's not funny and you're bothering people.

steve_hill4
May 20, 2006, 12:04 PM
NO, Eiger invented the player, creative made the market.

So you're picking some arbitrary level of units sold to define when a market is established? What is that number and how did you arrive at it?

I had an Archos Jukebox that I bought a few months before the iPod was introduced. It sucked. I worked at the time at a company with several thousand well-educated tech-using employees and I was the only one who had a hard-drive based mp3 player. That's not a market, that's a curiosity. The biggest problems were shock-induced skipping, low battery life, no useful sync mechanism (I wound up writing my own playlist creator software), and abyssmal transfer times on USB1. The iPod solved all those, making a product with enough capacity to satisfy the general music listener (markedly superior to a CD's capacity), had a generous enough buffer to overcome the hard disk limitations, and with iTunes - a good sync mechanism. That's when the market formed.

I agree completely, and yet again I see more uninformed crap being posted by mac yoda/yac moda.

Few even realised what mp3 players were until about the 3rd/4th generation iPods. If indeed Creative made the market for them, Apple made the
hypermarket. They didn't even produce theirs initially, but bought out the early Samsung produced model and marketed it as the Creative NOMAD.

A friend was playing music through his 15GB beast the other week and proudly stated it was one of the first, older than the iPod. When I slipped in the 5GB model first launching in 2001, he looked surprised and said that it must have been just after that then. Point, he had an early player but didn't even know when Apple first produced the iPod, thinking it to be a recent addition, (say 2-3 years). To say Creative had the market before anyone would ignore facts like people who bought mp3 players at the time of the iPod launch didn't even know what was in the market. Indeed most early players were mp3 CD players.

wildmac
May 20, 2006, 12:12 PM
OK lets ASSUME YOU ARE RIGHT ...


... WHY were they awarded the patent, filed in 2000, awarded 2005 :confused:



becuase not everyone files a patent whenever they take a dump.

I think there's even a patent on a mouse click. Get the point?.. the patent office is so outta whack on this, they will award a patent to anything. You could patent a barbershop that also sells coffee.

steve_hill4
May 20, 2006, 12:19 PM
Below are links to the now seven patents filed by Apple:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5479602.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5586237.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5898434.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6731312.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5341293.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6047342.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5799280.html

SPUY767
May 20, 2006, 01:33 PM
I CAN'T WAIT until ALL iPods also have the Creative log-o on them :eek: :mad: :eek:


Just kidding :p ;) :p :D


I'm just glad that Yac finally got banned, I'm wondering why it took so long. . . The smilies were killing me, and the caps were causing sterility in labroatory animals.

steve_hill4
May 20, 2006, 01:40 PM
I'm just glad that Yac finally got banned, I'm wondering why it took so long. . . The smilies were killing me, and the caps were causing sterility in labroatory animals.
Wasn't Mac Yoda also banned?

Wonder how long before this person finds their way back here.

igentz
May 20, 2006, 04:26 PM
Creative=Jerk
Apple=Freakin Awesome!

Counterfit
May 20, 2006, 06:25 PM
Whether or not Creative have a valid patent they will lose, they could have trademarked the name iPod and they still wouldn't win. When it comes to America not even the Supreme Court can argue with an 83% US Marketshare.
Market share has no importance on whether someone loses a patent infringement case. Some guy in a garage/basement/backyard could patent something (assuming he had enough $$$ to hire a patent lawyer), and Microsoft could (accidentally/intentionally) use the patented hardware/software without permission (thus infringing). MS would then be in a bad spot to lose a patent infringement case, even though they would probably have 99.99999% of the market of whatever used the patented stuff. Of course, they'd probably settle or simply buy the patent from him if that happened.

Leondunkleyc
May 20, 2006, 07:47 PM
.

mannix87
May 21, 2006, 02:33 AM
anyone have any stats on whether Singaporeans prefer the iPod over their own Zen? my bet is, the iPod's outselling Creative even in Singapore.

steve_hill4
May 21, 2006, 03:53 AM
anyone have any stats on whether Singaporeans prefer the iPod over their own Zen? my bet is, the iPod's outselling Creative even in Singapore.
Excluding Japan, I think most of South-East Asia seem to be behind either Samsung, iRiver or 3rd parties, (depends on location). Apple are well known and sell probably more than any other single company in the region, but I seem to recall they own about 20-30% of the market there at best. Of course, those figures may include the much higher proportion of Japanese sales, so taking them out would drop it closer to the 20%.

It is suggested in part this is because there is only an iTMS in Japan and if there is no store, people seem to prefer to use their CDs and downloads, (legal or not for both), on another machine. This is true even if they are playing files that Apple support, not just WMA.

A lot of the figures are merely the work of my memory and guessing, so please don't shoot me if I am off the mark in any way. Apple does not like to release sales figures or market percentages for individual countries where they have a relatively low share.

syntrophy
May 21, 2006, 07:34 AM
anyone have any stats on whether Singaporeans prefer the iPod over their own Zen? my bet is, the iPod's outselling Creative even in Singapore.

yeah i do, the last time i read about it, creative was at 24%, ipod was at 30% and rising far faster than creatives are.

i prefer ipod! though some stupid fellow singaporeans buy creative "because they can play fm without buying other add-ons"

right....

shamino
May 21, 2006, 02:53 PM
What I implied was that, of the MILLIONS (!) of patents, Apple KNEW IN ADVANCE that Creative was infringing, otherwise how would they drop a countersuit on THE SAME DAY. You have to admit, generally if Apple was DOING NO WRONG, they would not stand for not even 1 patent infringement and 7 would be out of the question. It stands to reason that they knew that Creative might file some sort of patent complaint on Apple and had this ready just in case.
You obviously have no clue about how corporations work.

Big companies patent every two-bit idea their employees think up. Some are frivolous, some are solid, and most are in a questionable gray area in between. But they don't go on a lawsuit rampage against every pipsqueak company that infringes them - they'd end up spending trillions of dollars on nothing but lawyer fees and wouldn't improve their own product standings one bit.

Instead, they hold on to the patents as defense against those pipsqueak companies that are stupid enough to sue over the one patent they happen to hold.
Why on earth would you be so PRO-APPLE that you couldn't even consider that sometimes, ideas overlap and sometimes you have to just roll the dice. Apple's "SOSUMI" (So Sue Me) is a prime example of Apple saying "we're going to do what we want and if you have a beef, let's see you in court. This is business. Billions hang in the balance. Do you actually think that Apple is 100% above board, all of the time? If you do, you're naive.
And what makes you think that Creative is any cleaner? Because they're smaller?

I can guarantee you that the iPod's other competitors (Sony, Rio, Samsung, and all the rest) infringe on the same patents. And I'm sure Apple is infringing on their patents. But none of them are stupid enough to go suing each other.
But you have to ask WHY WOULD APPLE SIT ON 4 PATENT INFRINGEMENTS against Creative? It's because of this remote possiblity of patent 6,928,433.
For the same reason IBM doesn't sue everybody in the world over the millions of patents that they hold. It is impossible to develop any electronic product without infringing one one of them, but spending trillions of dollars to sue everybody is just plain stupid, and everybody knows it.

This is no different.

shamino
May 21, 2006, 03:00 PM
becuase not everyone files a patent whenever they take a dump. ...
There's always a long gap between patent filing dates and award dates. When you file, it usually gets rejected dozens of times on technicalities. So you fix the technicalities and re-file as many times as it takes until the patent is awarded.

This is on top of the buraucratic delays that happen in any government agency.

Finally, it is common practice to use this to delay the award date as much as possible. Patents are enforceable from the date of first filing, but they expire 17 years after the award date. So every extra year between first filing and award is another year you can sue for infringement (assuming you ultimately do get the patent.)

The telecom business has taken this to an art form. Most of the key pieces of tech for digital voice networks have patents that were filed in the 70's and 80's, and were only awarded a few years ago (in the 00's) - effectively adding 20-30 years to the period of protection! (Which may be a real problem for the industry, now that Alcatel has bought Lucent. Alcatel is far more eager to sue competitors than Lucent ever was, and Lucent inherited a lot of AT&T's core technology patents.)

edoates
May 22, 2006, 03:29 PM
They DO have something of questionable value. A patent. Of course that's now up to the courts to decide. You also assume that Apple is going to win the lawsuit. Maybe, maybe not. What do you think it will cost Apple if they lose? $100M, $200M, $500M? The courts know how much money Apple is raking in with the iPod. Don't you think that the fine will be proportionate? What is the cost to Apple if they are ordered to cease-and-desist?
.

Remember the Blackberry / NTP lawsuit? The pressure point is a possible injunction against selling ANY iPods while the suit progresses. Such injunctions are not automatic, but are routinely granted and appealed forever.

On seemingly ridiculous patents: if cunningly worded, you could probably patent multiplication. And Creative's patent may not be that cunning, just an overworked patent office, and the possibility of patenting interface elements, business methods, etc. At least Creative is NOT a patent troll (a term invented by someone I know!), but was actually using its patent in a product.

NTP had NO product, only a patent and used a possible injunction to bludgeon Blackberry into submission. I'm not an intellectual property attorney, so I can't speak to the validity of the NTP or Creative patents, but once granted, patents are notoriously difficult to over turn, and also once granted, the aforementioned injunction can be granted without regard to the validity of the underlying patent: once a patent is granted, it is assumed by the courts to be valid until it is "ungranted."

Reform of patent and copyright law is needed; write your congress people.

Ed"weird"

edoates
May 22, 2006, 03:44 PM
Ideally, there should be more support for some of those less common ones, even on mainstream players. I don't even know if FLAC is a compressed format. All I can say is that Apple Lossless is "good enough" for me. There are lots of factors to sound quality - in terms of hardware playing music, Creative might be slightly ahead of Apple. In terms of bit rate vs compression, Apple Lossless does an OK job. Then, of course, you need good headphones or speakers. Of course, from the vibe I'm getting, anybody who goes out of their way to use FLAC probably uses electrostatic headphones with an amp, or at least a decent Sennheiser pair. Or some good speakers. Truth be told though, I can't afford and I'm too lazy to bother with upgrading beyond Apple Lossless or my "standard" level Sennheiser cans. :p

When Apple Lossless is expanded, it is bit for bit identical to the original, as is FLAC, or Meridian Loss Packing (DVD-A format) for that matter. I've done enough tests to verify all three.

So, if FLAC sounds "Better" than Apple Lossless, it is likely to be the PLAYER, not the compression technology at fault. There are lots of things which make digital playback sound bad: jitter, poor analog components, etc.

Ed"weird"

edoates
May 22, 2006, 04:00 PM
I should have better articulated my point, but I was just trying to say that big never loses to small in a capitalistic world. In a perfect world theoretical guy in garage with $$$ for a patent lawyer would win the theoretical lawsuit, but this isn't a perfect world and when the judge is sitting in his chair with his gavel, coming to his decision, he will probably decide against creative becuase the really rich people know best.

But that's only my opinion of course :)

Big does lose from time to time, if small is right, and has patience: the guy who invented the "intermittent windshield wiper" beat Ford, GM, and Chrysler some years back; it took him (or is heir, I think) 15 years, but they won a few hundred million.

Ed"Weird"

forrest1992
May 22, 2006, 06:41 PM
Well if by some freak of nature chance, Apple loses all of theres and Creative wins, then to prevent stopping selling iPods in the US, Apple could then just buy Creative.

balamw
May 22, 2006, 07:15 PM
Patents are enforceable from the date of first filing, but they expire 17 years after the award date.
No and no.

Patents are only valid and can be enforced after they issue and their term is now 20 years from the filing date. Only patents filed before June 8, 1995 follow the old 17 year rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

While the patent is pending the only "protection" offered is that no-one else should be able to come by and patent the same idea, but you don't get anything else until issuance.

I concur that submarine patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent) and other similar techqniques have been perfected by various industries to maximize the patentee's benefits from the patenting process.

B

MacMan93
May 22, 2006, 08:20 PM
Creative is just pissed that Apple is better then them. When I saw the pictures of the new color Zen I was extrememly pissed!!!! I have a 5thgen and it looks like an exact COPY. Creative needs to BURN! Why were they ever needed.....sound cards? Ha! The Mac had sound built in...ever since the 128KB!

News Flash Apple has filed another lawsuit agianst Creative. This lawsuit is stating Creative is using false advertisment. If Apple wins Creative will have to rename their company! :D (hint hint Creative...false advertisment)

Google Knows All......they can even tell the future....iPod is ganna' kick the Zens Azz!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Zen&word2=iPod

joeyboy76
May 23, 2006, 03:57 AM
I agree completely, and yet again I see more uninformed crap being posted by mac yoda/yac moda.

Few even realised what mp3 players were until about the 3rd/4th generation iPods. If indeed Creative made the market for them, Apple made the
hypermarket. They didn't even produce theirs initially, but bought out the early Samsung produced model and marketed it as the Creative NOMAD.

A friend was playing music through his 15GB beast the other week and proudly stated it was one of the first, older than the iPod. When I slipped in the 5GB model first launching in 2001, he looked surprised and said that it must have been just after that then. Point, he had an early player but didn't even know when Apple first produced the iPod, thinking it to be a recent addition, (say 2-3 years). To say Creative had the market before anyone would ignore facts like people who bought mp3 players at the time of the iPod launch didn't even know what was in the market. Indeed most early players were mp3 CD players.

FACT: the nomad jukebox came before the iPod, using a 2" hard drive with USB1.1 connection. I remember seeing this in singapore as early as 1st half of 2001. the 5GB iPod only arrived sooner that year.

Creative did not create the first MP3 player, but they did create the first hard-drive based MP3 player.

shamino
May 23, 2006, 10:30 AM
Patents are only valid and can be enforced after they issue and their term is now 20 years from the filing date. Only patents filed before June 8, 1995 follow the old 17 year rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

While the patent is pending the only "protection" offered is that no-one else should be able to come by and patent the same idea, but you don't get anything else until issuance.
Yes, but once the patent is issued, you can go back and retroactively sue everybody who was "infringing" during the pending period. As long as there is evidence of some kind of infringement after the issue date, lawyers can claim damages going back to day-1.

It happens all the time. The link you provided to submarine patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent) says the same thing.

I was unaware that the law was changed in in 1995 to eliminate much of this form of abuse. Which means we should hopefully be rid of this nonsense sometime in 2012, when all the <=1995 patents expire. But this still means we have another 6 years during which patent-squatters can abuse the system and make everybody else's lives miserable.

Clive At Five
May 24, 2006, 03:53 AM
Google Knows All......they can even tell the future....iPod is ganna' kick the Zens Azz!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Zen&word2=iPod


That's a clever little tool there...

Try this:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=girls&word2=iPod

And girls wonder why we "don't pay enough attention to them".... A man's gotta have his PRIORITIES! ;)

-Clive

ClimbingTheLog
May 24, 2006, 10:47 AM
Creative did not create the first MP3 player, but they did create the first hard-drive based MP3 player.

No, that honor belongs to Remote Solutions and their Personal Jukebox:

http://www.antiqueradio.com/Dec04_Menta_mp3pt1.html
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/personaljuke.html

It was $800 in 1999.

I don't understand the "Creative was first with everything, iPod just marketed better attitude" from some folks here, and then just making up all kinds of things Creative didn't do first. Add some "as I remember" or "that I was aware of" if you don't have sources to back up your assertions.

If you do want to give Creative a first-to-market accolade, give them credit for making a dedicated MP3 player with a docking station. I belive they earned that title, even if it was just the same thing Palm and Compaq were already doing.

/SG\
Jun 4, 2006, 06:03 PM
Creative is just pissed that Apple is better then them. When I saw the pictures of the new color Zen I was extrememly pissed!!!! I have a 5thgen and it looks like an exact COPY. Creative needs to BURN! Why were they ever needed.....sound cards? Ha! The Mac had sound built in...ever since the 128KB!

News Flash Apple has filed another lawsuit agianst Creative. This lawsuit is stating Creative is using false advertisment. If Apple wins Creative will have to rename their company! :D (hint hint Creative...false advertisment)

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Zen&word2=iPod

The lawsuit just goes to show you should never take anything forgranted. The Vision:M does not look like an exact copy. If you see it in person, it looks much better than the generic Apple mp3 player. Creative's interface is also much better than the ripped-off one.

I don't know what the outcome of the lawsuits will be, but I do hope that Creative will be able to continue making its fine Zen models. In the end, it may be the mp3 player itself that falls to a new trend.

AsGard
Jun 9, 2006, 01:29 PM
Hi,

I've been looking for the history of the MP3 player since (mostly) everybody is missing the big picture here. Take a look at History1 (http://www.antiqueradio.com/Dec04_Menta_mp3pt1.html) & History 2 (http://www.antiqueradio.com/Apr05_Menta_mp3.html)

So since 1998 there's been MP3 players, one more succesfull than the other offcourse. Yes is were at that time not only expensive devices but prone to errors and flaws, hell every new technology been released has its issues no?!

With the dawn of this baby ;Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox (2000); it started for me. Late that year I've bought me one of these with a 10GB HD in it; the SW delivered was pretty basic but it got your MP3 on the thing! (with tweaking it also stored jpegs or other data :p)
Never had any complaints; heck it was still groundbreaking HW.. you knew things were bound to evolved - Duh!
In the marging: remember the best price/quality ratio of the Creative Video- and Audiocards and how many there were sold between 1995 and 2000?...

So and there came a new player on the market anno 2001; IPod (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/instant-expert-a-brief-history-of-ipod/).
Since there were allready some players on the new MP3-player market killing eachother to get there devices sold to the public and Creative was a bit leading (at least here in Europe) but losing ground Apple/Mac took there iTunes project to the next level. So to make the story short; they "borrowed" others there efforts and began a marketing strategy leading to today's market dominance. It was clever of them, no doubt about but regrettable in my opinion because this was the thing I only would see from that other guy (Bill Gates) and his all-eating imperium.

So the bottom-line: Ipod HAS good players but the success is that they became a hype, not more than that. They are NOT better than any other player on the market. Yes there are worse available but Creative is not even close to being less good than IPod. More, I'm not only claim this but I now from experience there equaly or some models even better than IPod's!
It starts with the sound quality; creative has more experience with it and is still the best deal on the market for portable and PC-sound!

The real issue should be: why does hype and/or marketing defines what's better or "cooler"?! Why do you actually by something; because YOU like it or because "everybody" has one?!!
Call me old-fashioned or whatever but I like to critisize and make up my own choises not determined by others but supported and feeded.
Let everybody be free to chose what he wants in this and NO to monopolies, YES to intercompatibility; that should be the goal and interest of every company. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be competion, only other kind of surving only the customer first, than the company!!

Creative till I die (or untill proven otherly) and respect for any others.

matticus008
Jun 9, 2006, 01:51 PM
So and there came a new player on the market anno 2001; IPod (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/instant-expert-a-brief-history-of-ipod/).
Since there were allready some players on the new MP3-player market killing eachother to get there devices sold to the public and Creative was a bit leading (at least here in Europe) but losing ground Apple/Mac took there iTunes project to the next level. So to make the story short; they "borrowed" others there efforts and began a marketing strategy leading to today's market dominance. It was clever of them, no doubt about but regrettable in my opinion because this was the thing I only would see from that other guy (Bill Gates) and his all-eating imperium.
True story, but not what the suit is about. What happened is that Creative had its Nomads out in the beginning with a clunky interface. It sorted songs by metadata--genre, album, track number, etc. that weren't part of the filename. The iPod came out, with its simple wheel and intuitive menus (Creative's players at the time used an odd tree-navigation system). They filed patents, like all companies do, and Creative was ultimately awarded one about the metadata sorting. In the interim, Creative Labs redesigned its interface to be more iPod-like--no more trees, just simple, obvious menus. This was sometime around 2003, as I recall.

Now, 2005 rolls around and Creative has final approval of its metadata patent. The iPod has crushed all of its products in popularity and sales, and Creative has a patent that Apple doesn't have, so they strike back because their own advertising and marketing couldn't diminish the iPod's popularity. They sue because they patented the idea that you could sort music by track number or album name or genre.

There are two big problems with Creative doing this. 1. Their patent is ridiculous, and it would still be if Apple held it instead. Sorting digital music files by metadata has been done for a decade now, not only on computers, but also on portable devices--so it's not even that Creative moved into a new market first. It's also an obvious idea--how else would you sort music files? It might have been justifiable to patent the idea of metadata on music files back in 1995 or so when work on the ID3 tagging system started, but not in 2001.

2. They copied Apple! Creative changed their firmware to have a more sensible navigation system, after seeing the iPod released and how people could pick one up and use it after a few seconds of messing around with it. Creative has never had that kind of ease of use. The iPod came on the scene and showed everyone how to do it right, and once it started selling rapidly, everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

It starts with the sound quality; creative has more experience with it and is still the best deal on the market for portable and PC-sound!
More experience doesn't make more quality. RCA has been in business a long time, but they don't make the best speakers. Creative's sound cards aren't and have rarely (since the original SoundBlaster) been the best. If you look at waveform production, you'll find the iPod reproduces sound pretty faithfully--especially the shuffle and nano. Creative and some other manufacturers have, in the past few years, focused on improving this so that they can claim "higher fidelity" than the iPod, but if there were no iPod, they'd still be using the same so-so DSPs they did a few years back.

luminosity
Jun 9, 2006, 02:10 PM
So the bottom-line: Ipod HAS good players but the success is that they became a hype, not more than that

That makes no sense. Apple created iPods, and by definition, iPods are good mp3 players, created by Apple Computers.

Seasought
Jun 9, 2006, 02:59 PM
...

So the bottom-line: Ipod HAS good players but the success is that they became a hype, not more than that. They are NOT better than any other player on the market.

If iPods were crap, but really well-marketed crap, its success would not have lasted this long.

balamw
Jun 9, 2006, 03:23 PM
More experience doesn't make more quality. RCA has been in business a long time, but they don't make the best speakers. Creative's sound cards aren't and have rarely (since the original SoundBlaster) been the best.
In fact one could say that Creative has used their market share leadership position in the sound card arena in a very Microsoft-like fashion to crush and/or acquire various companies that were potentital competitors with better performance/quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Labs#Criticism So far w.r.t iPods Apple seems happy to comptete without asserting its patents offensively or acquiring upstart competitors...

B

AsGard
Jun 12, 2006, 06:31 AM
More experience doesn't make more quality. RCA has been in business a long time, but they don't make the best speakers. Creative's sound cards aren't and have rarely (since the original SoundBlaster) been the best. If you look at waveform production, you'll find the iPod reproduces sound pretty faithfully--especially the shuffle and nano. Creative and some other manufacturers have, in the past few years, focused on improving this so that they can claim "higher fidelity" than the iPod, but if there were no iPod, they'd still be using the same so-so DSPs they did a few years back.

If it would be inversted Apple was also forced to update the less good DSP used.. goes for everything I geuss.. one manufacturer pushes the other to do better.
About RCA and quality: yes that's true but it remains good quality, better than some other old brands do.. Some beter equipment there is the Spanish Beyma and the French Focal. Both offer quality according the price.

So what I want to say is:
People are acting as if IPod IS the ONLY ONE player that is thé best and that is sorely mistaken. I've said they ARE good but NOT by definition better than any other player. You should compare players, look at all options and look to price/quality before impulsif buying something. So not like many customers buy today: Everyone buys brand X so I MUST buy me one to be part of the gang..! I get goose-bumps and risen hair from that.

And even if the players were better than the rest the fact that it's hyped should be enough reason for (wiser) people not to buy.

balamw
Jun 12, 2006, 06:43 AM
And even if the players were better than the rest the fact that it's hyped should be enough reason for (wiser) people not to buy.
I'd probably take you more seriously without statements like that. So if your favored Creative was on top and the "sheep" were buying 80% Creative players you'd avoid them too? Or would you associate that success with Creative's superior quality?

(FWIW, for me, iTunes is the main draw.)

B