Creative Sues Apple, Seeks Injunction

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by Bern, May 15, 2006.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    Creative have filed a cease and desist law suit against Apple, claiming Apple copied their patent for an mp3 player. Basically what they want is to stop Apple from selling iPods, iPod Nano and iPod Shuffles.

    Get the full story HERE

    So I guess Creative's way of thinking is if they can't compete with their own innovations then try to get the one's who do come up with the ideas out of the way.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    yankeefan24

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    I heard. Not going to happen anyways. But that's creative for you.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    I think the law suit shows the name as "Not-So-Creative vs Apple" :D
     
  4. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #4
    [​IMG]

    Creative has formally filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple is in breach of their "Zen Patent." The patent, granted in August 2005, covers how files on digital music players are organized.

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

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  6. macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #6
    Absurd

    Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they were granted their "patent". How dumb is this? :rolleyes:

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

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #7
    Thanks to all the readers who submitted this story. Couldn't give credit to just one because there were a lot of good submissions, each adding more info.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    macEfan

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Forbidden, you do not have access to that server
    #8
    lol, Im sure that is true... everyone seems to be trying to sue apple... but Im sure the first creative MP3 players were not hard drives based.... weren't they like 16mb multimedia cards?
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    #9
    this suit is going nowhere. but i guess this stuff happpens when no one can actually outdo you...
     
  10. macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #10
    i hope the judgment goes agaisnt creative and they have to beart costs haha
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    bill4588

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Kennesaw, GA
    #11
    LOL! this is funny....i would be AMAZED if they actually stop apple from selling iPods....
     
  12. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #12
    Creative filed their patent in January 2001, well before Apple shipped any iPods.
     
  13. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #13
    I haven't taken patent law yet... but is the relevant date when it is filed, or when it is granted? I'm assuming filed...
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    #14

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

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

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

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

    It was entertaining when it happened :)

    Rocketman
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15
    I wonder why they waited so long. My first MP3 player was a Creative Nomad III, but it was expensive and did not really hold all that much music.

    It's not Apples fault that Creatives products suck.
     
  16. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #16
    At the latest, the relevant date is the filing date. This is true of virtually the entire world except the United States...the "first to file" system. The US operates on a "first to invent" system, so the date that would apply here is likely even before the patent was filed in January 2001.
     
  17. macrumors newbie

    Pokeon

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    -= Somewhere in space =-
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #18
    Apple legal can handle this. Remember the "pwning" they gave TigerDirect?

    The case Tigerdirect made is probably not as strong, but I can't imagine Creative winning this case.
     
  19. macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #19
    assuming they can prove it was an invention, and that apple had not invented it themselves yet.

    i actually think the first to file is a better system, as it provides for certainty of the law - obviously it has its draw backs, as industrial espionage can be used to steal an idea, then patent it before the creator can patent itthemselves. but you cant have it both ways
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    #20
    I think Apple may actually be in trouble here. Here's the patent:

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...LL&s1=6928433.PN.&OS=PN/6928433&RS=PN/6928433

    The important stuff:

    What is claimed is:

    1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy, the method comprising: selecting a category in the first display screen of the portable media player; displaying the subcategories belonging to the selected category in a listing presented in the second display screen; selecting a subcategory in the second display screen; displaying the items belonging to the selected subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen; and accessing at least one track based on a selection made in one of the display screens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Patent 6,618,857 Method and system for installing software on a computer system.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
  22. macrumors 6502a

    1984

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    #22
    The iPod interface is based on the OS X columns view interface so if anything Creative are the ones who copied Apple.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #23
    how do you patent a file tree????

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

    Can I patent my file tree in finder;) ? and then sue anyone that does the same thing in a product? :rolleyes: :p
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    If they have a leg to stand on, why didn't they do this years ago?

    It just smacks of "well, looks like we can't beat them with our products, so we'll have to beat them in a courtroom".
     
  25. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #25
    Now, can someone with more time on their hands confirm that this is the same patent Creative was hyping up, oh, about a year ago? The one about displaying a NextStep-style column-based view of files?

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

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

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

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

Share This Page