The
love fest between Creative and Apple continues, but this time it's pretty serious. Creative is pulling out those media player interface patents they filed in August of last year, and suing Apple for patent infringement with their iPod, iPod nano and iPod mini players. It doesn't seem to matter much to Creative that two of those players were released long before the patent in question, and the iPod nano came out a mere month later. There's also no mention of a seemingly more legitimate argument: Apple's
possible trademark infringement in the use of the "nano" name. Creative claims that their NOMAD Jukebox was on display at CES in January 2000, and there displayed the user interface that has since been copied by Apple and others. This user interface is covered in
August's "Zen Patent," and sounds vaguely defined enough to have some weight in court, as silly as it seems. Creative of course wants a cease and desist order to be issued, and basically a complete death of the iPod unit in general, but that's no surprise. All we can do now is sit back and watch the sparks fly.
posted May 15th 2006 6:25PM
Wow, what a bunch of asshats.
absolutley everyone in the tech industry is ripping off apple in every way, yet its apple that seems to keep getting sued - unfortunate irony
am i allowed to laugh if creative wins? or will i get pelted w/ the ipods i so fervently avoid?
(to be quite honest I don't carry any music device, because none really meet my needs yet. I was an early adopter w/ a sony NW-7, and enjoyed it, just not the limited capacity)
Corporate lawyers earning their keep. Full of sound and fury...
Actually Apple are the ones who actually "ripped off" Creative here.
So being able to access your music by artist, album, playlist, etc. is patented? Doesn't that fall under the brain dead obvious clause?
someone should sue the patent office for employing morons that cost us tax money in court battles
If I remember correctly, Apple sued M$FT and lost. I know they sued for "look and feel" which can't be patented, but certainly this bears a striking resemblence to "look and feel" lawsuits. Besides, prior art should prevail, even if the NOMAD was on display, the Apple interface and user input model is significantly different to warrant dismissal of this suit.
Heirarchical interfaces are here to stay in almost every significant appliance... Let's put the lawsuits aside.
-S
Creative... my young padiwan, are you just trying to get some publicity there hmmmm? A could of "The Original...bla bla bla" slogan perhaps?
Look man, this is one of the oldest tricks in the book (asuming there is a book). Should have played the "I am your father" card long time ago, too late man, I sorry but in the eyes of the consumer, YOU are the son, as well as every other mp3 player.
That's hillarious. Oh no, they better sue all the other mp3 player makers out there. Cause I think I say that same interface EVERYWHERE.
Even though I hate M$, didn't they come out with the MediaPlayer version of organizing before Creative AND Apple started with their portable devices? Gotta love those lawyers. Kinda reminds me of Big Box Mart (Wal-Mart for those who don't watch JibJab.com) wanting to trademark the smiley face. Retards...
****sorry for the typos, and lots of them!
I am ashamed. =(
what about back in the 90's when I was organizing my MP3's by Aritist, Album, Song, and miscillaneous playlists?
Lol go creative
Hmmm... it looks like the same interface design that Apple owns.
Remember NeXT? That is how you browsed your files on the NeXT computers... which is now on OS X (columnar view through the Finder.)
Who owns NeXT? Hmmm.. I think Apple does.
Lawyers are the only winners on this case.... again!
Of course Apple is getting sued, that's the only way to fight Apple, using the stupid shortcomings of the legal system. Anyway, no judge is going to award this to Creative. They should go shove it and go bankrupt already with their shitty players.
I have owned both an early Creative MP3 player (Creative Nomad 20GB) and an iPod (3g) and I can tell you that Apple has it right, and having recently bought a Creative Zen Micro, Apple still has it right over Creative. The UI is not particularly similar. The Creative UI has this odd modality between the library and the current playlist. The newer Creative units actually resemble the iPod more than the Nomad. I see a resemblance, and IANAL, but I'm inclined to tell Creative to take a hike on this one.
Well with lawsuit happy Apple issuing cease and desist orders on just about any company with an MP3 player that remotely resembles having a click wheel and suing an apple rumor website, I would just have to say Karma is a bitch.
MediaPlayer? Try iTunes too.
Go Creative! Put an end to the iPods!
And while you're at it, release a decent competitive product! I've been waiting... I got the Vision:M, but it's a joke next to an iPod that is much slimmer, even with all the codec support Creative provides. And the flash-players are useless.
I'm not one to defend corporations that don't need help being defended, but I can't help but opine about how pathetic our patent system is and how counter it is to a fair marketplace.
The iPod won... Creative lost... suck it up and actually make a better product rather than claim some ridiculously obvious patent -- wow, so you patented a common interface heirarchy, only this time it's on a tiny screen... some real rocket-scientists you got working for you there...
truth, truth sparks fly will mmuch better ;)
" It doesn't seem to matter much to Creative that two of those players were released long before the patent in question, and the iPod nano came out a mere month later."
The poster of this news doesn't seem to understand how patents work. Creative filed for their UI patents before Apple brought any iPod products to market, but it takes years for a patent to be actually approved. However, once your patent has been approved you can go and sue everyone who infringed on your patent from the time you filed to the present (and of course into the future).
Apple should've patented the rectangular white design with screen on top and a touch based navigation interface below that, because Creative obviously copied that concept.
QUICK!! EVERYONE!! BUY AS MANY iPODS AS YOU CAN WHILE THEY'RE STILL BEING MADE!!!
Gosh I better not post on this subject when it appears, in a couple of days on slashdot as new news, least I lose even more slashdot points for saying anything against the mighty "Apple".
Those who can't compete, sue.
I can't wait until the part where the judge orders Creative to pay all of Apple's legal costs.
I hope creative wins because they are the killers of conformity (ie. ipods)
Apple could lose the suit and then get there money back by buying Creative. The hole thing is a silly publicity stunt. Creative got the patent more than a year ago and sat on it why?
Yes, 25, just as rebellion has become conformist. How drole.
or droll. Or, droel.
Or troll. Rebel against spelling!
Hmm Would it be cheaper for Apple to fight the legal battle or to just buy creative ;-)
j/k....sorta
Oh come on sure Creative made a mistake by waiting this long to take legal action, but let's face it. The Creative Nomad Jukebox was out with an original interface long before the iPod. I'd know, I had the Jukebox 3. The iPod came out and the first thing I noticed was the almost identical menu system (aside from the transitions). I hope Creative wins this one.
All you Apple lovers out there just need to take a look at the Rio PMP300... it WAS the SECOND mass produced MP3 EVER to the MPMan... Take a look and tell me who you think copied who... Apple has never come up with anything on there own... Just because you didn't own one of the first MP3 players doesn't mean Apple invented them... I bought this player when it came out and it still works today.
http://www.antiqueradio.com/Dec04_Menta_mp3pt1.html
I hope Creative wins... Companies like Diamond pioneered the MP3 industry...
The second sentence of the article is wrong, and seems to skew the entire discussion. The patent was filed in January 2001; it wasn't issued by the patent office until late 2005.
An inventor can file a patent up to a year after commercializing the invention. According to the article, this invention was commercialized at CES in January 2000. So, it could be entirely legitimate and legal to wait until January 2001 to file the patent.
Also, in the U.S., an inventor can invent something before commercializing it and still get a patent. So, the inventor of this patent might have invented the interface in 1999, 1998, or even further back.
It really is possible that Apple didn't invent the "ipod" interface. Remember, Xerox PARC invented the visual file GUI that Apple is often credited with.
Like an above post stated, I've been using the "column" view of these players since college in th early 90s. First saw it Fall 1991. On what? NeXt computers. Oh, uh... Apple.
What you all need to realize is that while the patent was GRANTED in August this patent has been around for years. The USPTO is quite slow about processing these things. The real question is does Apple have any old lab notebooks lurking in the shadows that can disrupt Creative's patents? Or do Microsoft's patents invalidate Creative's? In which case this becomes a Microsoft Apple dispute.
I have been following this for quite some time and while Apple may or may not have been working on it first, Creative had the first use in commerce, and they had the first published patent in to the USPTO (usually a good sign).
An injunction is unlikely see this week's news on eBay and the Supreme Court comments on MercExchange's seeking an injunction.
I hate all you Ipod fanboys that say creative produces shitty players when look who came out with a player that has a 1 in 10 chance on average of snaping in 2. I also find that the creative players last way longer. The Zen Touch is pretty tough against the elements.
Ps Creativve hasnt waited to long, they were awarded the patent like6 months ago it takes time to build a strong case.
OMG i think my cellphone uses this same interface paradigm...and my TiVo. All the file menus in every application on every computer too...especially back before the mouse. I guess we should throw Creative a bone and give them a nickel everytime we click a button on something with a screen...they've sure earned it.
That would be absolutely incredible if they were to get that cease and desist against Apple.
I hope to all god Creative wins this, simply looking at the numbers, 2001, it appears Creative does have a bit of a case here...
The issue seems to be the philosophy behind the patent. This sort of hierarchical thinking isn't exactly new.
So what if one of the menu selections is cellular service, or nuclear fission? These are clearly quantum leaps above and beyond a means of organizing a menu.
If not, I patent the notion that one thought comes after the next. God help you all.
Now pay up.
The blog is ruined by these silly apple fanboy posts, grow up. I come hear to read about technology not your bias posts.
That's lame. I hope Apple enrages against Creative and creates a cooler user interface just to shut their f*#king mouth up.
There is the issue of prior art. I'm sure the Apple guys will be scouting around to see if Creative took inspiration from somewhere else.
HP Labs had an early player around 97 or 98. One talk I went to described the UI problem and people talked about hierarchical menuing schemes. It will be interesting to see if anything turns up.
I was just wondering...If a company were to make a decent compeditor to the iPod, what would you guys want it to do? What are the iPod's shortcomings or features that could be improved upon?
This is pure bulls**t to me. I am really getting sick and tired of all these patent suing cases by companies that have been outclassed by other companies when they get beat in the marketplace. Cellphones have been using that kind of menu system for years! Hell, even the windows folder system is basically like that interface Creative patented. If anything, the USPTO shouldn't have granted a patent on this kind of menu technology because it is something that was only logical when it came to making menus. Until somebody makes a better system its basically the most intuitive menu system out there and also the most user friendly. So if Apple loses this (god forbid), Creative will pretty much have free reign to sue any other company whose menu system is similar (iRiver, Sony, and all the countless other MP3 players out there).
America: If ya can't be a commercial success, sue!
You Apple fanboys are pathetic.
Any even slightly anti Apple commentary & there ya go piping up with your fanatacist drivel.
If you people will recall Apple tried to make the same patent but failed!
A patent is a patent & the law is the law.
Who wouldn't sue in this case?
Any company would be stupid not too.
If it was the other way around & Apple were suing you'd all be chiming in favour!
Get over it!
Go Creative!
This is just stupid, bad business. People love the iPod. Wiping out the iPod i not going to win Creative any love.
Death to apple!!!
Or atleast the people who think that because they own a mac they are better than you, until they come over because they need to play oblivion.
I've been in the MP3 player business since '00 and have owned the original Creative Nomad Jukebox as well as about 4 iPods. This issue is a lot more complex than just a column-based UI like the NeXT had. The main idea is that Creative used a metadata-based content organization system, which was novel for MP3 players. Should they get an injunction against Apple? It seems like that would be bad for everyone except Creative. But, on the other hand, is it really fair that Apple should be able to manipulate the NAND flash market like they did last year? They managed to keep their competition from getting any supply while they negotiated prices that were 40% less than market by committing to huge orders. Then, once they had the XMAS season locked up, they cancelled 50% of the orders. The resulting chaos in the flash market may have driven a few competitors out of business. This is the kind of thing that Apple does behind the scenes - their dominance is based on a lot more than just creating nice products. These guys are every bit as evil as M$ or any company that you can name, and will take any opportunity that they can get away with.
#46 (lan) People have made better interfaces... have you ever used a PMC (Portable Media Center) the UI on it is 1000 time better than any current MP3 player interface.
Has anyone told them that Apple doesn't make the Mini anymore?
Someone probably should.
This is really the fault of outdated patent law. You can hardly blame Creative for trying to cash in.
Clearly, Creative waited to see the verdict in the BLackberry case.
Uh...OK. Creative has no case. This patent clearly shows the use of software buttons for navigation whereas the ipod's buttons are and have always been hardware buttons. That is to say, on the ipod there are distinct buttons for menue, previous, next, enter, etc, and they have a hardwired function that does not correspond to a visual element on the screen that can be altered. That is the only novel element of this creative patent, and unless they can prove something there this will be a quick and painful case for creative.
Furthermore, check out apple's patent 6,664,981 filed in 1995 and issued in 2003, for a hierarchical user interface for customizable menues and structures. Also the lovely patent 4,945,475 back in 1989 showing "An upside-down tree type structure provides a downwardly expanding cataloging structure wherein directories provide for further branchings. A branching from a directory is terminated when a file is reached."
Also: 6,307,574
6,731,312
6,005,588
5,781,904
6,574,620
Sorry, Creative, but you got no game. Owned.
I wouldn't worry too much. Creative were awarded this patent a year ago, which means Apple has had a year to prepare for this case.
Waste of time.
hey, i own an ipod nano.. or maybe soon a ipod tiny.....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DEATH TO ALL MP3 PLAYERS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Look at the sixth picture down on this page of Lisa interface prototypes:
http://home.san.rr.com/deans/prototypes.html
Then look at the date.
Prior art anyone?
I'm kind of torn on this one. Which is the lesser of two evils?
For one, I despise the iPod and would love to see it die. I dislike most of Apple really, for their pretentious and holier-than-thou attitude. But, I have a particilarly special hatred for the iPod and iTMS because of the DRM used to screw over consumers (locking them in) and competitors (locking them out).
But...I also think the patent system needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot to avoid wasting taxpayer's dollars on ridiculous suits like this one. An interface is nothing more than an "idea" (really, everything is an "idea" when you think about it...ironically) and shouldn't be allowed to be protected.
My opinion? #1 outweighs #2 for me. the iPod must die.
["The iPod won... Creative lost... suck it up and actually make a better product rather than claim some ridiculously obvious patent"]
Take a dose of reality and call me in the morning.
Apple only won because they cheated. Unfortunately, cheating in this game is legal. Y'know that little thing Apple uses called [Un]FairPlay? Well, they use it for two reasons:
1. To lock consumers into their several-hundred-dollar music collections and use the overpriced iPod as a cash cow.
2. To lock competitors *out* by keeping the format tightly locked into only their products.
Sure this may seem like good business (for Apple), but anti-competitive and highly unethical.
If there was a level playing field from the start, we'd be seeing a very different situation overall.
Well in Europe this case would get thrown out on the basis of prior art, if it had been made public before the patent had been applied the patent would be void. Secondly the patent would have to be original and not obvious. To display details of 1000 or so tracks you must use a heirarchical interfaces in order to make sense of it. Soi would be obvious. If this case wins then in theory you could lose windows, Microsoft Office as these also use heirarchical interfaces as well. You may have to scrap all your car radios/CD's that also use such a menu system. This only shows the US patent office in bad light and the rest of the world think that you are nuts to allow lawyers to wreck your best businesses.
If Creative win this then it is the American consumer that suffers since more than 80% of MP3 Players in the US are apparently iPods.
how did Apple cheat? Apple sold the iPod based on superior design, usability and excellent marketing. Apple didn't cheat to make the iPod such a popular consumer electronic.
Prior Art.
Apple has been using this concept for a little longer than this patent has been filed... Not only is this going to get shot down but Apple will be able to counter sue them into the ground.
Filed last year? The iPod has been around a whole lot longer than that.
ahahahaha #33 it would be cheaper just to buy them out!
We are better than you. Not other PC users, just you.
People that own Macintosh computers are better than you....they also make more than you.
Apple only won because they cheated. Unfortunately, cheating in this game is legal. Y'know that little thing Apple uses called [Un]FairPlay? Well, they use it for two reasons:
1. To lock consumers into their several-hundred-dollar music collections and use the overpriced iPod as a cash cow.
2. To lock competitors *out* by keeping the format tightly locked into only their products.
Sure this may seem like good business (for Apple), but anti-competitive and highly unethical.
If there was a level playing field from the start, we'd be seeing a very different situation overall.
=================
Ok, you either work or Real or napster. Which is it?
Give me a break, people know this going into it. I knew it and LOVE it. I wouldn't want to use any other service but iTunes. I wouldn't want to use any other mp3 player buy my iPod with video. Oh yeah....I buy videos too.
Your opinion is biased.
Here's my opinion:
If CREAF has the patent then let them sue. If Apple can show prior art...then what? I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be. If Apple is wrong, then yes, they should pay. But don't come here with your "mightier than thou" attitude just because you don't like the iPod, Apple, Macintosh computers, etc.
Wow Poster #60 you have some serious demons don't you. Wile the other vendors on the level playing field were doing the same thing Apple with relatively no market share did another, and in a much smaller ball park. Customers saw Apple's game and left the big boys in droves. Why do I say small market share. When the ipod first came out it worked only on the Mac and only used FireWire. The point is this, the problem with Creative's case? They patented a menu structure that Apple and others have been using for years now. Apple described the menu structure back in the 70's the the Lisa. http://home.san.rr.com/deans/UIpix/Dec1980.gif If anyone has a problem here, it is Creative and the US Patent office.
For anyone that thinks that Apple was a "small guy" in the MP3 market your dumb... Apple may only have a small percentage of the PC market share but they are HUGE compaired to most of the other companies that only make MP3 players and several other minor components (creative). If everyone hates MS for their pushy sales tactics and their ability to wipe out small companies because of their size then you have to hate Apple for the same thing...
Microsoft doesn't sell MP3 players and isn't in the hardware market... they provide the software that makes some FANTASTIC mobile devices... like PMCs (Portable Media Centers) and they do it in a way the encourages competition about HW manufacturers... not like Apple... the iPod will eventually lose its dominance in the market... Apple doesn't innovate they follow... look at the Intel chips they just started using... suddenly Intel is leaps and bounds better than the PowerPC chip (gee... I am pretty sure they were singing a different tune for quite a while)... They are taking forever to bring video to the iPod when there are TONS of other players out there the do video and do it well... over time consumers will start choosing products in the market space because they are better... not because "everyone has one".
Today I read on the NY Times about the Supreme Court's ruling on patent infringement that gives hope to the technology sector: Before, as a general rule, injunctions were given to stop the offending party's use of the patent. Now, however, after the Court's ruling, such an injunction isn't necessary based on a four-point decision-making scale. These include how it will affect the public and if harm was actually done to the offended party. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washington/15cnd-bizcourt.html
So this mean Creative is SOL.
if you read carefully you will see that the patent was applied for in january of 2001 almost a full year before the first ipod was released. the patent was only approved in 2005
Uhhhh....First thing. The GUI patent is actually quite specific, and if you compare the Nomad Zen to the Apple iPod GUI, it get's damn close. This is not saying that alot of players don't use similar GUIs, as, alot do. But, it is, in fact, more similar than any other GUI.
Second thing. Creative goes for more functionality and cool designs. iPod goes for the slim and sleek approch. Personally, I think the Creative players have much better quality....but that's just me, since I can tell the different between 128kbps and 192kbps compression, and it bothers me when programs can't output the compression I want.
Note:
Yes, this is a cheap shot.
Yes, it's a shot in the dark.
No, Creative is not floundering.
Yes, Creative has every right to do it.
Yes, I think that no judge could be impartial, because of fond memories of other Creative products, fond memories of other Apple products, or Apple's advertising campaign.
Yes, I'm a Creative fanboy.
But, Yes, I can recognize that, although I don't like iPods, they are a fairly good product. That, linked with the iTunes music store, and the ad campaign, they are gold.
WHY CANT PEOPLE JUST LEAVE APPLE ALONE?! geez, its like every day theres a new lawsuit against apple! fuckin a people, you are just jealous because they have the best selling music player in the world. get over it!
and Creative waited this long?
well i think creative has a strong case, the patent was clearly filed before the first ipod was announced, and probably before the ipod GUI was a concept.
Apple will probably loose this case in a similar way to RIM.
I'm hardly a fan of iPods... but I'm far, far more against this kind of stupid use of patents. It shows once again why the current patent law just does NOT work in the domain of information.
People should be rewarded for their inventions - and patent and copyright law should be used to further innovation, but there are times when innovation for innovation's sake is NOT helpful, there are basic ideas (like menus) that are so widely used that trying to monopolise them by introducing a minor ideosyncracy does more damage than good, and there are times when clever new ideas is more about stopping someone else than creating someting new.
None of this helps the customer, the industry or society in general.
Grow up, people.
the fanboy trolling has begun, life is a double edge sword you puppets. You rag on the patent office for allowing creative to patent this idea. And yet you neglect to mention apples rediculous patent of a wheel that goes through a list. You are all blinded by the doctoring of steve jobs, you are trash compactors that glutenously feed on the marketing and advertising hype around you. I hope Creative wins and that apple looses a considerable market share and people open their eyes and see that there are considerably better options avalable.
Mac users are almost always gay
# 44 - I think it's a perfect time for Apple to come out with a new interface. Maybe the UI for FrontRow. hmmmmm circular UI, circular touch wheel.
Once again, Creative's timing is impecable - they file for an injunction on the VERY DAY the Supreme Court rules UNAMIMOUSLY that "patent" disputes need to be settled without the possibility of an injunction ... By the time this actually comes to trail, Apple will have sold about 200 million ipods and Creative might be peddling Fisher Price USB sticks ,...
Sorry, you guys REALLY need to get this right.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5622055-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Saehan's MPMan was the first mp3 player and the compaq PJB-100 was the first drive based player. The PJB-100 UI still beats the crap out of both the stupid creative stuff (Of which I have one of the original absolutely non-intuitive DAP6's) as well as the iPod.
["how did Apple cheat? Apple sold the iPod based on superior design, usability and excellent marketing. Apple didn't cheat to make the iPod such a popular consumer electronic."]
Refer to text in post #60 after "Take a dose of reality and call me in the morning", and consider following the same advice.
["Give me a break, people know this going into it."]
You overestimate Joe Sixpack and Jane Teenybopper. They haven't have a clue.
["Your opinion is biased."]
That pretty much defines the word "opinion".
I should have known better than to argue against Apple on Engadget...
Looking at the products that they came up with, the brand name "Creative" is an irony in itself.
Agree with #27, "Those who can't compete, sue."
LOL.
By the way, the The Elger Labs MPMan F10 was not the first mp3 player.
During the late 80s/early 90s sony created a mp3 player (per se)that could hold up to approx. 4 mins of music.
Needless to say it was big bulky expensive and a flop.
From the bit of playing with my sisters ipod and working on the macs in our test house at work. I would have to say the ipod functions much like OS X. Wich could predate CES 2000. I don't really like how the ipod works. I much prefer my sony player with it's OLED screen and 50 hour playtime.
Go creative, we need to take down the beast that is Apple and open people's eyes. I work in a computer store and you would not believe the amount of people that think an "iPod" isn't an MP3 player. They have this idea in their head that an iPod is a godly device that "is the first to play video" etc. If this lawsuit succeeds, people might start to notice the other (far better) players on the market. Who knows, maybe North America might start to see some of the awesome players that are held back in Korea!
It's a long shot, if not a dream, but someone has to get some ground on apple. Just please Creative, if you do win, don't go suing all the other DAP companies... please?
Oh Golly, Apple fanboys unite, Engadget needs to just make a seperate Comments section for Ass kissing.
This was underhanded by Creative, I understand why they did all of this, it's true, overall, they Do have "Better" MP3 players, more options, better B-Life, all of that, and it's created an extremely bitter outlook towards Apple.
You know, jealousy, "I'm better than the Jock, but he's more popular", it's childish, but it's true, that's what this is. I'm hoping they don't win per se...Though, considering how I also dislike this Jock popularity of the iPod, even though cheap, asian ripoffs manage to be superior, it remains the Jock, I wouldn't cry if Apple got decked into motivation, you know, the kind that would actually Improve the iPod noticeably.
"Creative" -- just hearing that name makes me quiver with excitement.
"Apple fanboy" -- penis envy.
"Zen Patent" -- decision will be based on Ohm's Law.
I can argue the case for Apple: There is NO WAY they could have copied the interface of the Creative Nomad from the CES debut in 2000... The evidence: Apple Computer never goes to CES. They like to believe that it doesn't exist.
They're just pissed because they can't get the scrollwheel, and have to sell that lame scroll-line as a "feature"
it's really unbelievable how the fanboys love to spout off without even using thought process or researching! All this talk about the UI being on NeXT PC's & OS X & cell phones!! Haha, idiots. The patent is for the UI for portable DIGITAL MUSIC PLAYERS. It doesn't matter one bit if a cell phone or PC had it, just don't use it on a mp3 player without Creative's license, or you're screwed.
The patent was filed in Jan. 2001: the 1st iPod was released in Oct. 2001 = apple loses.
the patent for the UI is in Creative's name, not Apple's. Apple tried to get the UI patented themselve & was rejected. Apple tried to get a stay on the patent approval for Creative, & was rejected = apple loses.
The only thing that can remotely be attributed to apple (& I say remotely) is the click wheel & the all white color scheme. The word is 'remotely', because other devices, like laptop PC's use the touch pad for it's interface: but that's a PC, not a mp3 player, so you honor iPod's patent there. And I say remotely on the white color, because there were portable radios, cassette tape players, CD& MD players that were all white, before the iPod.
You say the iPod started the idea of being square, with a screen on top & the button(s) at the bottom, configured for ease of use with the thumb?? Wrong again, this concept was in place with MD players & the Rio PMP300 before the 1st ipod - the design is more the result of consumer preference than it is any genius from iPod. Why ipod fanboys love to profess their ignorance to reality due to their blinded tunnel-vision love of everything iPod just makes me laugh: you claim to be at some elevated stature due to owning ipods, yet you bring it crashing down with your utterances of stupidity!!! Hahahaha.....ipod fanboys..
i think if creative wins they really lose
if apple have to create a new ui then it will probably blow anything else away make the ipod more popular and lose more market share themselfs
just my 2c
Yet another pathetic attempt to beat Apple... Creative knows that they will never have what Apple has... It's too bad they have stooped to this level... I really like creative's other products.
PS- For all you jealous Mac-haters... I do not own a Mac.
Assuming Apple can do this touch-screen thing on an iPod then they wouldn't have to worry about Creative with future products.
Yes, Creative owns the patents, and they had the technology before Apple, those who argue against hard evidence get marked as outright idiots in my book.
Though it doesn't mean Creative will win, I suspect this will grow more complicated.
For all of you folks here spewing the hate on both sides...consider this:
The Creative Pantent isn't as 'vauge' as it first appears; they go into lots of detail about how not only the UI is configured, but the methods of navigation as well.
This is where I believe they are in trouble, the Apple navigation scheme does not in fact rely on "soft keys".
I bought the Nomad when it came out. I was in fact emulationg the navigation behaviour of a much more prevailent device at the time: first generation WAP enabled phones.
The UI, the "Soft Key" functionality...pretty much all of it.
And at the time (read the *detail* in which they describe this) they very likely, and reasonably figured they had the best UI idea and nav scheme out there...phone soft key operation was well understood by the target market.
The hierarchy thing is obvious, and there is so much prior art (including Apple's) IP that I doubt that Apple will bring it up unless Creative does, because looking at the patent, they can simply wipe out a Nomad Juke and a 1G iPod and look at the screens; the iPod doesn't have the specific non-prior art navagation functionality specified in Creative's patent...and Creative won't get ANY points by showing Apple's column view on their product as part of the "innovation".
Often, parts of patents are invalidated while others remain. In this scenario, I'd wager that Creative will get to keep the part that is "unique" to them (Phone Soft Keys -> Music Player) and lose the part that is not (hierarchy) simply because the iPod just doesn't access the functionality in the way the patent *painstakingly describes*
-K
N° 50: "Death to apple!!!
Or at least the people who think that because they own a mac they are better than you, until they come over because they need to play oblivion."
I don't think that because I have a Mac I am better than you. I just think I have a better computer.
(and I'm right ;-) )
Facts are facts fanboys. Listen up:
- Creative beat Apple to the market with MP3 Players;
- They all but invented the UI you iPod users swear by;
- They made the first hard drive mp3 players (big as they were, limited by the tech of the time);
- Steve Jobs is not god;
- Apple used the UI AGAIN, after Creative was awarded the Zen Patent. Not asking for trouble?
Eventually there will be a downfall to the iPod. Look at current market shares, iPod units are now on the down slide due to 20+ competitors with 100+ units.
"- They all but invented the UI you iPod users swear by"
So they didn't invent it then, that's a relief for us 'fanboys'. Ooh, is that the time? Better pray to Cupertino....
Apple should have known better, well in fact they did. Several decades ago Apple went through the proper protocol to license the GUI for their OS, only to have it stolen by Microsoft.
Fool me once shame on you...
This time around they don't bother with the whole patent BS and use a similar interface to what Creative had proposed although I leave the degree of similarity for the courts to decide.
Fool me twice shame on me...
Gonna go out on a limb and predict that Creative won't be around long enough to see this case go to fruition. They are bleeding cash now (over 150 million loss in 2006 fiscal year SOURCE: http://www.creative.com/corporate/investor/releases.asp?pid=12401)
and Apple could easily purchase them with their deep pockets if deemed necessary.
Now to all you fanboys, Apple or otherwise, grow up. Just like when your favourite sports team wins, when a corporation wins you get squat (stockholders excepted). To cheer on either side of the fence is pure idiocy as you the taxpayer are the ones covering the cost of this cock fight.
As for my opinion on Apple's market dominance..they've earned it irrespective of any user interface. The iPod succeded through clever marketing, unmatched industrial design and shrewd corporate alliances. Something which Creative could learn a bit from instead of playing the chump card, however entitled they may be. But that's probably why Apple stock is through the roof and Creative is floundering.
Let's hope that this case is the straw that breaks the archaic patent systems back once and for all.
Sean
"when a corporation wins you get squat"
Of course if Creative wins, it might slow Apple for a bit - which of course means competition is back.
Apple fanboys always complain about Microsofts OS domination. Is the iPod ANY different? No.