Creative Lawsuit Update: Apple Sues Creative

[ClimbingTheLog]

Creative INVENTS the MP3 player market ... Apple STEALs it ...

Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs 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]

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

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

What have Apple to got to gain from this suit?

Discouraging the ME-TOO'ers.

 

[yac_moda]

Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs 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

 

[SiliconAddict]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

Dear Creative,

I fart in your general direction.

-Seth

 

[Leoff]

Isn't this IRONIC

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]

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]

Don't you mean:
Eiger Labs 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

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

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

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


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

 

[anonicon]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[JGowan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!

 

[matticus008]

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]

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]

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.