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
mbabauer said:
There were patents (now long expired) for such things. See 565,541 and 1,064,833 for examples.
There were many patents over the years covering that idea, from the telegraph to the typewriter to the teletype to computer I/O.
That was done in patent 3,120,606. But also see about John Atanasoff.
(This is a general truth about inventions, they all look obvious after the fact.)
tip said:
Well said and probably true but I don't think that is the answer to this question.
There will be points listed somewhere in the patent where the inventor is claiming certain mastery of the ART and to have surpassed others, inventions, THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE FOUND.
If it is NOT there it is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN PATENT
Super Dave said:I totally agree that Next had column view before Creative did, but I'm pretty sure there was a dos program on my friend's 386 or was it a 286 back in the 80s that had the same dang thing! Good luck with this UNcreative.
David
Xtree Gold, it had a 3 column file hierachy.
The iPod is sooo original and these products are totally different; similar to white vs black Macbook.
Apple runs a whole division for protecting their intellectual properties and most people here find that to be normal while they are bashing Creative for doing exactly the same thing.
I´m no lawyer so I don´t know who will win the battle, but just looking at these 2 products it looks like one is copying the other.
Although it may not be fair, I'm glad this is happening. Creative manufactured mp3 players for years before Apple entered the market, and now suddenly there are teenyboppers running all over with iPods going "omgf omgf ur cerativ playr is teh suck!!!11" simply because they cannot comprehend the fact that brand recognition is not a true measure of the product's merit. I have had the privilege of owning both a 5G iPod and a Creative Zen Vision:M, the former first. Honestly the Vision:M is vastly superior. The only area in which it is inferior is its thickness, and possibly control scheme, but feature-wise it is objectively better than the iPod. It has at least four-hour video life, the ability to play DivX, WMV,XVid, and many more video formats than the iPod, a better SNR, an FM tuner, microphone, brighter screen, more options, and a better UI. For instance, you can hit the right directional button to go over to a vertical list of letters, select a letter, and jump to that letter in a list of songs or artists, much faster than on the iPod. And, no matter how many times I have people tell me that the click wheel is more precise than the touchstrip on Creative's players, I always find myself and iPod owners themselves overshooting selections on menus. I can navigate my Zen Vision:M twice as fast as I could use my iPod. All this for now the same price.
The fact is that Creative makes arguably better quality players than Apple, produced them before Apple, was smart enough to get a patent, and does not rely on MTV, marketing managers and obscenely cliche advertisements involving equally-obscure and therefore instant hit songs with Bono in them.
If anybody can give me one good reason why Apple deserves to win the suit, then I will happily step down from my pro-Creative soapbox. But until somebody can come up with something beyond a mere logical fallacy (ie "Creative is jealous.") I cannot think of any reasoning that dictates why Apple should be allowed to continue producing a product that was produced by somebody else first, marketed to people whom the majority of which place far too great of a value in their gadgets, and then turn around and make a technically-inferior product and get away with it.
**NOTE: I apologize for what appear to be sweeping generalizations contained within my rant, but the environment in which I work is full of the aforementioned types of people
The fact is that Creative makes arguably better quality players than Apple, produced them before Apple, was smart enough to get a patent, and does not rely on MTV, marketing managers and obscenely cliche advertisements involving equally-obscure and therefore instant hit songs with Bono in them.
If anybody can give me one good reason why Apple deserves to win the suit, then I will happily step down from my pro-Creative soapbox. But until somebody can come up with something beyond a mere logical fallacy (ie "Creative is jealous.") I cannot think of any reasoning that dictates why Apple should be allowed to continue producing a product that was produced by somebody else first, marketed to people whom the majority of which place far too great of a value in their gadgets, and then turn around and make a technically-inferior product and get away with it.
**NOTE: I apologize for what appear to be sweeping generalizations contained within my rant, but the environment in which I work is full of the aforementioned types of people
Apple sues Creative -> they filed a suit on the same day!
Apple sues Creative -> they filed a suit on the same day!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/18/business/ipod.php
How come this didn't make as much of a headline as Creatives?
Apple sues Creative -> they filed a suit on the same day!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/18/business/ipod.php
How come this didn't make as much of a headline as Creatives?
plinkoman said:i think i'm going to sue creative for being completely ****ing retarded.
Clearly Creative copied the US Patent office on retardedness, and now they have to pay.
Apple Countersue
Macworld.co.uk are reporting that Apple have countersued Creative. There must be so much overlap in the navigational elements of most MP3 players that they could all probably sue each other for quite a while.
Meanwhile, link: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14692
Macworld.co.uk are reporting that Apple have countersued Creative. There must be so much overlap in the navigational elements of most MP3 players that they could all probably sue each other for quite a while.
Meanwhile, link: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14692
Mo Jiggity said:
Creative's players don't sync as the iPods do. I can plug an iPod into my Mac, reflash the firmware, tell it to sync with iTunes, and within an hour have 10GB of music transfered over. Or have all songs that I've played 5 times with a rating of 3 stars or higher transfered. A Creative player won't do that. I do a lot of transferring between iTunes and my iPod, and that link is something that Creative lacks.
Granted, that is not part of the iPod per se, but it is a part of the iPod experience.