spacehog371 said:
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.
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 Lawsuit Update: Apple Sues Creative
- Thread starter Queso
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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!
Bury Creative
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.
bretm said:
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.
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.
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.
sam10685 said:
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.
Shangri-La said:
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.
interlard said:
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.
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!
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!
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.XForge said:
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.
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.
Buit check out this below from macworld.co.uk
It's like Apple goaded Creative into suing them to waste their money.
gomakeitreal said:
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.
DrK said:
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.
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.
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.
Mitch1984 said:
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.
Shangri-La said:
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.
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".
Isn't this IRONIC 
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
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
THIS IS NOT the, APPLE vers Microsoft, Quicktime case that is where Apple got theirs from MS that was REAL JUSTICE
OR MAYBE IT IS ...
The outcome of this case could very easily be that Apple buys Creative
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
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
THIS IS NOT the, APPLE vers Microsoft, Quicktime case that is where Apple got theirs from MS that was REAL JUSTICE
OR MAYBE IT IS ...
The outcome of this case could very easily be that Apple buys Creative
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.
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.
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.
How Apple to do something like that, to counter-sue. Poor Creative really did ask for it.