Multimedia said:Apple had already been shipping its own file management system on iPods for years before they even filed their "patent". How dumb is this?
It's part of business in America. Just think about the whole blackberry fiasco.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Creative Sues Apple, Seeks Injunction
- Thread starter Bern
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's part of business in America. Just think about the whole blackberry fiasco.
dpaanlka said:
OS X public beta was in 2000, and 10.0 was released in March, 2001. The iPod was released later, in October, 2001. 'Nuff said.
But that's not the deal-breaker. NeXT had column views in the early 90's, and was purchased by Apple in 1996. So, unless Creative was making MP3 players with "column" view before NeXT was around.......
Too bad for Creative.This may be their last gasp before dying a slow,painful MP3 player death.
As another member said.Creative could have done this a few years ago but chose to do so now that iPods are the main player..The judge will realize this.
As another member said.Creative could have done this a few years ago but chose to do so now that iPods are the main player..The judge will realize this.
IANAL, but here we go
.
OK, so they the patent specifies a portable media player that has three level deep hierarchies. Each level having multiple options, such as albums -> list of albums -> list of tracks. Some of the iPods menus do indeed have three levels; other have four, which are clearly not covered by this patent.Zeke said:
Specifics on selecting an album to play any number of tracks.
While playlists can be created in iTunes, they cannot be created on the iPod. If this law suit specifically targets the iPod, then this point does not apply.
Specifics on selecting a track to play.
Again, this cannot be done on the iPod you must use iTunes to do this.
So, we can select tracks, playlists, categories and subcategories?
So we can go back up the hierarchy by pressing buttons.
So we can find out more details about the track, playlist, category or subcategory.
So we can search the music collection by genre, which are displayed in a list.
So the albums are listed in the genres.
So we can search via artist.
So we can play a track.
OK, so when I select something the portable music player changes its display. How can they patent a good design tenant feedback?
OK so we can select a category that is at the top of the tree.
We can also place any (sub)category on the front page.
The hierarchy is sorted as such: Artist->Album->Tracks.
This is a very general patent. If it were not for the words portable media player they could apply this to almost anything. I doubt this has got legs.
Bern said:Assuming Creative do have a case, that would mean they should then sue every other mp3 player manufacturer. Come on people we're talking about a company from an area of the world notorious for copying other products.
As much as I think Creative makes my country look bad, you shouldn't generalize my area of the world like that.
Back to topic, I hope Creative don't win this and give up the idea that they can have some share in the mp3 player market. They should just stick to their sound cards.
How about a counter-sue from Apple?
Creative's interface is almost exact to the iPod's. (See Below)
There's two examples, want another, sure.
Creative named one of their MP3 players the Nano Plus.
They're suing the company they should be thanking for giving them design and product names.
Creative's interface is almost exact to the iPod's. (See Below)
There's two examples, want another, sure.
Creative named one of their MP3 players the Nano Plus.
They're suing the company they should be thanking for giving them design and product names.
Attachments
kresh said:
Exactly my thought. The iPod (prior to Gen5) could be used as a mobile bootable hard disk. How is that not a computer function vs. a MP3 player?
Speaking of Patents: Often times they are awarded with minimal checking and it only becomes relevant and thoroughly checked in court.
vccavtech said:
the overall maturity level of the boards just dropped 30%.
Do you REALLY think a judge is going to base his or her decision on the wares they own?
The good thing is the last time a company sued Apple for this type of thing a new iPod came out a week later.
So now we know what the insider industrial spies know
So now we know what the insider industrial spies know
I just looked at Creative's sight for the first time in my life. All I can say is: Seriously, WTF? There are 25, yes, TWENTY-FIVE different models of MP3 players. How is anyone supposted to pick one? I never truely appreciated Apple's model line-up. Small, medium, and large. Easy as pie.
I guess I'm getting old, but I've got better things to do with my time then sort through 25 models to find the right one.
I guess I'm getting old, but I've got better things to do with my time then sort through 25 models to find the right one.
The US patent system is far, far worse than what you describe: computer science degrees aren't acceptable credentials for patent examiners. You have, at best, non-CS electrical engineers (computers are electrical, right?) examining what are essentially software patents, and they are quite frankly clueless as to the state and history of the software art. They aren't merely "making mistakes", they're patently unqualified for the job. To make matters worse, patents are written in an absurd legalese (see above) that's difficult for an experienced software engineer to decipher. Anybody else has no chance, but they're likely to grant the patent anyway because they don't want to appear ignorant.jettredmont said:
dpaanlka said:
1st ipod launched Oct 2001
OSX 10.0 launched March 2001 had column views (Public beta circulated in Sept 2000 also had column views)
bigwig said:
Now you watch yourself. There are plenty of EE's that are much better software developers than CS majors. In reality, CS is just a subset of EE, a level of abstraction or two above what electrical engineers usually deal with, but it's often the case that people from both disciplines will work on the the same stuff together. EE's have a lot more software experience than you may think. We don't only deal with silicon, you know. Electrical engineering is way too broad of a field for you to make generalizations like that.
(Gotta defend the major)
Perfect Timing Creative!
Today the Supreme Court ruled that injunctions will no longer be automatic. Creative will have to actually win the case before they will be allowed to break Apple's kneecaps.
Mwahahahaha!
Today the Supreme Court ruled that injunctions will no longer be automatic. Creative will have to actually win the case before they will be allowed to break Apple's kneecaps.
Mwahahahaha!
