Creative sues Apple for violation of "Zen Patent"

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.

[sheik124 @ May 15th 2006 6:29PM]

Wow, what a bunch of asshats.

[bob @ May 15th 2006 6:32PM]

absolutley everyone in the tech industry is ripping off apple in every way, yet its apple that seems to keep getting sued - unfortunate irony

[wulff @ May 15th 2006 6:32PM]

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)

[felonious.monk @ May 15th 2006 6:37PM]

Corporate lawyers earning their keep. Full of sound and fury...

[josh @ May 15th 2006 6:38PM]

Actually Apple are the ones who actually "ripped off" Creative here.

[GOD @ May 15th 2006 6:38PM]

So being able to access your music by artist, album, playlist, etc. is patented? Doesn't that fall under the brain dead obvious clause?

[jabbertrack @ May 15th 2006 6:41PM]

someone should sue the patent office for employing morons that cost us tax money in court battles

[S @ May 15th 2006 6:42PM]

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

[Nukes and Candy @ May 15th 2006 6:43PM]

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.

[Jonathan Dolph @ May 15th 2006 6:43PM]

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.

[Brandon @ May 15th 2006 6:46PM]

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...

[Nukes and Candy @ May 15th 2006 6:46PM]

****sorry for the typos, and lots of them!

I am ashamed. =(

[James @ May 15th 2006 6:46PM]

what about back in the 90's when I was organizing my MP3's by Aritist, Album, Song, and miscillaneous playlists?

[Ryoma @ May 15th 2006 6:48PM]

Lol go creative

[MuchoCheeto @ May 15th 2006 6:48PM]

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!

[cz440 @ May 15th 2006 6:49PM]

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.

[Mike @ May 15th 2006 6:50PM]

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.

[LC @ May 15th 2006 6:50PM]

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.

[cz440 @ May 15th 2006 6:52PM]

MediaPlayer? Try iTunes too.

[Roopesh Sheth @ May 15th 2006 6:52PM]

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.

[lumix-Lover @ May 15th 2006 6:53PM]

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...

[dzieci @ May 15th 2006 6:53PM]

truth, truth sparks fly will mmuch better ;)

[Mask of Destiny @ May 15th 2006 6:55PM]

" 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).

[donut @ May 15th 2006 6:56PM]

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.

[jon @ May 15th 2006 6:58PM]

QUICK!! EVERYONE!! BUY AS MANY iPODS AS YOU CAN WHILE THEY'RE STILL BEING MADE!!!

[Ian Jardine @ May 15th 2006 7:00PM]

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".

[OER @ May 15th 2006 7:02PM]

Those who can't compete, sue.

[Kabeyun @ May 15th 2006 7:03PM]

I can't wait until the part where the judge orders Creative to pay all of Apple's legal costs.

[rex @ May 15th 2006 7:05PM]

I hope creative wins because they are the killers of conformity (ie. ipods)

[Jeremy @ May 15th 2006 7:08PM]

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?

[Rick @ May 15th 2006 7:11PM]

Yes, 25, just as rebellion has become conformist. How drole.

[Rick @ May 15th 2006 7:12PM]

or droll. Or, droel.

Or troll. Rebel against spelling!

[batch @ May 15th 2006 7:12PM]

Hmm Would it be cheaper for Apple to fight the legal battle or to just buy creative ;-)
j/k....sorta

[Raffi @ May 15th 2006 7:14PM]

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.

[Jason @ May 15th 2006 7:16PM]

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...

[mogatu @ May 15th 2006 7:16PM]

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.

[Rick @ May 15th 2006 7:26PM]

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.

[Nick @ May 15th 2006 7:26PM]

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.

[Andrew @ May 15th 2006 7:28PM]

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.

[jojo @ May 15th 2006 7:31PM]

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.

[xxdesmus @ May 15th 2006 7:33PM]

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...

[Rick @ May 15th 2006 7:33PM]

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.

[Me @ May 15th 2006 7:35PM]

The blog is ruined by these silly apple fanboy posts, grow up. I come hear to read about technology not your bias posts.

[Antonio Cardenas @ May 15th 2006 7:38PM]

That's lame. I hope Apple enrages against Creative and creates a cooler user interface just to shut their f*#king mouth up.

[steve @ May 15th 2006 7:39PM]

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.

[Vwartenbenschnuggen @ May 15th 2006 7:40PM]

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?

[Ian @ May 15th 2006 7:46PM]

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!

[Killertwin @ May 15th 2006 7:47PM]

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!

[Mike @ May 15th 2006 7:57PM]

This is just stupid, bad business. People love the iPod. Wiping out the iPod i not going to win Creative any love.

[Galls @ May 15th 2006 8:00PM]

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.