Apple faces iPod patent dispute with Creative


iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
This is nothing more that the cost of doing business for Apple.

Creative will probably be out of business before this is over.
 

Seasought

macrumors 65816
Nov 3, 2005
1,093
0
Why is this only now becoming an issue? Seems like a desperate measure to me.. :confused:
 

tutubibi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2003
538
0
localhost
Creative CEO is still not getting it:

"We are focused on the technology," he said. "This is still a technology marketplace."

"This is the key difference between a technology company and a branding company," he said, taking a side-swipe at Apple's successful marketing campaign for its iPod.
 

spice weasel

macrumors 65816
Jul 25, 2003
1,255
9
Fair trade

So Apple swipes the interface from Creative (does this mean Creative will be suing over the "list view" interface in both Mac OS X and Windows?), and Creative blatently copies the Apple iPod's look (the "we've been working on it for a year" is BS -- there are more similarities than just the screen size). Seems like a fair trade. Oh, but Apple is killing Creative in sales, so the latter gets angry and sues. I hope their legal costs put Creative out of business. Rio down, Creative to go.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
I hope Apple do not do this.

Microsoft did this routinely and there were uproars.

Apple shouldn't sink to this level.

At the end of the day, I expect Apple and Creative will come to some sort of agreement ( if you don't sue us, we won't sue you type thing).


spice weasel said:
I hope their legal costs put Creative out of business.
 

kohei

macrumors newbie
Nov 16, 2005
12
0
tutubibi said:
Creative CEO is still not getting it:
absolutely agree, they still don't know what made Apple's iPod so successful...stupid CEOs:D
 

mkubal

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
557
0
Tampa
Considering that Creative is worth only $673 million (as of when I posted this), I think Apple should just buy them. I enjoy a good hostile takeover. :)
 

mduser63

macrumors 68040
Nov 9, 2004
3,038
30
Salt Lake City, UT
mkubal said:
Considering that Creative is worth only $673 million (as of when I posted this), I think Apple should just buy them. I enjoy a good hostile takeover. :)
Normally, I would think such a move would be a bad thing, but in this case, I hope Apple does it. Creative has the potential to be a good company that provides really competition and keeps Apple (and others) innovating. Instead, they're always whining about how they should be on top because their products are better, and threatening to kill Apple in the market place. Now they're threatening to sue based on a completely illegitimate patent because they're starting to realize that nobody buys your product just because it has a crappy FM tuner and a microphone and support for 8 million formats that no one has ever heard of.
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
spice weasel said:
So Apple swipes the interface from Creative (does this mean Creative will be suing over the "list view" interface in both Mac OS X and Windows?)
No because they only hold the patent on the heirarchical browsing system on a portable music player. Hang on, that's a thought, if it's only for a portable music player, Apple could patent it for a multimedia player, (music, photos, and possibly video), so all their models from now would be safe and it would limit royalty payments over older models sold.

I liked Creative when they just stuck to sound cards and speakers. They still have the best sound cards in my opinion, but they are getting too big for their boots. They are only a small company and a take over would be interesting. Apple sound cards in lots of top end windows machines would be cool.
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
mduser63 said:
Now they're threatening to sue based on a completely illegitimate patent because they're starting to realize that nobody buys your product just because it has a crappy FM tuner and a microphone and support for 8 million formats that no one has ever heard of.
Typical conversation I have with a customer looking to buy a Creative mp3 player, (i'll skip all the stuff about fiddly buttons and such):
Customer: But it holds twice as much as the iPod.
Me: Only if you use 64kbps WMA, which is a lower sound quality. If you want comparable sound quality on both, you need to use 128kbps mp3, which means you get exactly the same on both.
Customer: Oh, well let's have a look at the iPod then.
Me: As you can see, centre takes you forward, menu takes you back, clockwise to scroll down, anti-clockwise to scroll up. It's a lot easier. It doesn't however have the radio you wanted.
Customer: (Surprised) Oh, I see. (Brief pause) Go on, I'll take one of the iPods. I'm not that bothered about the radio anyway.

Creative, take note.
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
tutubibi said:
Creative CEO is still not getting it:
He does say right at the bottom that:-

... he acknowledged that Creative's strategy of focusing on the technology of its products had not worked as well with consumers as he had hoped.
If Creative does have a case against Apple, then I hope they do defend their patent. It's a shame that it usually comes down to those with the biggest public image and deeper pockets, who are successful. No one likes Microsoft doing it, so why should anyone else get away with it.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
If Apple violated a patent (which I'm not one to say) and the patent is legitimate and holds up, then they should pay. Doesn't matter who the victim is, that's the law.

What I'd like to know is, is this patent actually more specific than it sounds on the surface?
 

EGT

macrumors 68000
Sep 4, 2003
1,606
1
Hmm, looks like this stag fight will last a long time.

Apple takes Creative's hierarchical list. Creative pursues Apple. Creative makes 'iPod killer' that looks strikingly similar to the iPod.

Apple sues Creative, possibly?

Why can't people just leave the iPod alone!
 

Photorun

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2003
1,216
0
NYC
steve_hill4 said:
No because they only hold the patent on the heirarchical browsing system on a portable music player. Hang on, that's a thought, if it's only for a portable music player, Apple could patent it for a multimedia player, (music, photos, and possibly video), so all their models from now would be safe and it would limit royalty payments over older models sold.
By jove, I think you have a brilliant idea there! Apple legal, you listening?!?
 

Neerazan

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2005
86
0
London, UK
The reason Creative are doing this now is to get any press coverage for their new toy. Add the words 'iPod' and 'litigation' to a press release and see the phones light up...
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Stella said:
At the end of the day, I expect Apple and Creative will come to some sort of agreement ( if you don't sue us, we won't sue you type thing).
Yes, something like Apple tried to do with HP over patent 6,332,175. I do wonder if the quick retirement of the best-selling iPod model in favor of a flash-based version had something to do with that agreement fizzling.
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,077
268
Charlotte, NC
I was under the impression that Apple licensed or bought the iPod OS / interface from another company. If this is true then Apple is using what they legally aquirred and Creative appears to be suing the wrong company. Perhaps this other company needs to sue Creative.
 

jdechko

macrumors 601
Jul 1, 2004
4,061
200
mkubal said:
Considering that Creative is worth only $673 million (as of when I posted this), I think Apple should just buy them. I enjoy a good hostile takeover. :)
Great. I'm sure the antitrust people will just love that one. Something about buying out your number one (in all likelihood) competitor in a specific market. That'll go over well.
 

JCentourage

macrumors newbie
Dec 22, 2004
16
0
mduser63 said:
Instead, they're always whining about how they should be on top because their products are better.
Isn't that what Apple users have done since forever? Just because we have a couple things going for us [iPod, et al] doesn't mean we can forget how often we cried, "but ours is better... stupid Bill Gates"
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Fender2112 said:
I was under the impression that Apple licensed or bought the iPod OS / interface from another company.
I think it's a complex combination. An underlying OS by another company, with a UI designed by Apple. Which of them was the source for hierarchical lists? Good question.


JCentourage said:
Isn't that what Apple users have done since forever? Just because we have a couple things going for us [iPod, et al] doesn't mean we can forget how often we cried, "but ours is better... stupid Bill Gates"
It could be said (only COULD ;) ) that calling Creative players better than iPods does not have quite the same basis as considering the Mac platform superior to Windows.
 

JCentourage

macrumors newbie
Dec 22, 2004
16
0
nagromme said:
It could be said (only COULD ;) ) that calling Creative players better than iPods does not have quite the same basis as considering the Mac platform superior to Windows.
I am not saying there entire player is better. I could never use one, but they do have some good technology. Now if they only would learn how to use all that good technology to make a good product.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Fender2112 said:
I was under the impression that Apple licensed or bought the iPod OS / interface from another company. If this is true then Apple is using what they legally aquirred and Creative appears to be suing the wrong company. Perhaps this other company needs to sue Creative.
The original iPod software was written by Pixo, who were later bought up by Sun. That software was a work for hire though, it all belongs to Apple.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,467
3,832
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Scuse me but my memory isn't as good as it was when I was 30 but :)

Wasn't there a discussion a few months ago about some individual suing Apple about the interface for the iPod?..The topic even showed a crude drawing and description of an iPod like device..
Why isn't this person suing Creative?

Anybody remember?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Peace said:
Wasn't there a discussion a few months ago about some individual suing Apple about the interface for the iPod?..The topic even showed a crude drawing and description of an iPod like device..
That was Contois Music & Technology, holding patent 5,864,868. That patent is for the user interface. The Creative patent 6,928,433 is for the organization scheme.
Why isn't this person suing Creative?
Creative may have paid to use it. There hasn't been anything said in public about that. The Contois patent really covers more the iTunes interface than the iPod, though.