ITC initiates Apple probe at Creative's behest

In a move that comes as a complete surprise considering the history between their two companies, Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo has reportedly telephoned Apple CEO Steve Jobs to officially withdraw his firm's pending lawsuits and congratulate Mr. Jobs on the iPod's overwhelming victory in the marketplace. Yeah right, like that really happened; actually, the bad blood between the world's number one and two DAP manufacturers continues to flow unabated, with Wednesday seeing Creative move one step closer to the permanent cease and desist order it's seeking against the iPod, thanks to a probe intiated by the US International Trade Commssion. The ITC agreed to look into's Creative's complaint that several iPod models violate its Zen patents, which was the impetus for Apple filing two countersuits of its own. A ruling on the complaint is not anticipated for at least twelve months, during which time we can expect Apple to sell a lot more digital audio players than Creative, who will probably have to shift even more of its R&D budget to the overworked legal department.

[bboe @ Jun 14th 2006 5:18PM]

I'd rather see them actually working on improving sound cards (remember when creative's focus was on those?)- when the #@$* is a PCI-X card coming out. They promised that was a priority for them way back when Comdex was still around. It has been a while and I still don't have one. The audigy2zs still crackles in FEAR and other games. XFI appartently has the same issue. Perhaps with a PCI X XFI2zs they could get their act together.

[Ian Jardine @ Jun 14th 2006 5:36PM]

Difficult to know who is in the right in this patent battle. But the style of Apple's fight back, using disparate courts in the USA, sort of indicates that Apple wanted to wear down Creative rather than meet the case(s) head on. With this current move Creative focuses the issue quite succinctly.
ApparentlY creative entered into negotiations, which failed, with Apple b4 any lawsuit was issued. The lawsuits pertain to the exact issues discussed with Apple. The counter Apple suits across America have apparently never been raised with Creative.

Strangely all this "action" doesn't make it look as though Apple has either the upper legal, or moral hand. Or am I missing something?

[Jeremy @ Jun 14th 2006 6:20PM]

Ian, It all depends on the outcome doesn't it. Until all the card's are dealt and layed down all we can tell for sure is that there are two completly different poker players.

[tf @ Jun 14th 2006 7:34PM]

"With this current move Creative focuses the issue quite succinctly."

Umm, all that happened was the ITC said: "that complaint you made, we'll look at it." Creative then released a Press Release. That's not a move, that's the logical progression to filing a complaint. As for desperate courts throughout America... there are two claims, one mirrors Creative's and one is with a Court which deals with patent cases frequently and quickly.. that is all. Enough hyperbole.

[Beowulf @ Jun 14th 2006 8:13PM]

jury system, gooooood.
premature guessing, not so much.

[James Scott @ Jun 14th 2006 8:22PM]

Wasn't this patent applied for and approved AFTER the iPod was released?

Prior art will pw3n Creative and bury them.

[James @ Jun 14th 2006 9:06PM]

In other news:

Japanese Buddhist monks sue Creative for using the "Zen" name

[Intrepid @ Jun 14th 2006 9:50PM]

intellectual property laws extend passed patents James Scott. Also, Apple has continued to breach the patent after it was officialised.

[zip22 @ Jun 14th 2006 11:29PM]

does the ipod violate the patent?
"A method, performed by software executing on the processor of a portable music playback device, that automatically files tracks according to hierarchical structure of categories to organize tracks in a logical order. A user interface is utilized to change the hierarchy, view track names, and select tracks for playback or other operations."

the ipod does not execute the method. the method is on the computer.

[mooman @ Jun 15th 2006 3:33AM]

itunes creates the navigational tree structure, the iPod executes(ie: runs, performs, to put into effect)this structute. So the iPod does violate this patent.

re James Scott:

A quick history lesson:

many many years ago, before the iPod was a twinkle in Apple's eye, Creative approached Apple for a joint venture in making a mp3 player. Apple turned them down and Creative made and released the Nomad Jukebox in 2000(which has this navigational tree structure). They applied for the patent in 2001.

About 13 months later Apple announced the iPod with a very similar navigational tree structure.

Apple applied for the patent on the navigational tree structure in 2002.

In 2005 Creative was awarded the patent, Apple was denied the patent.

[Pip @ Jun 15th 2006 9:22AM]

Hierarchical structure navigation is common sense. Especially since the iPod uses Nextsteps (And now OSX) same hierarchiacal navigation to play songs. It would be common sense to have extended this to players - What other way is there? The patent case will probably be tossed out and the patent removed from Creative.

[ian Stephenson @ Jun 15th 2006 10:39AM]

Unless I'm missing something - if Creative wins this they'll be coming after my record collection. For years I've been navigating it by artist/album/track.

I'm sure that someone indexed their record collection electronically before 2003 - true thats not a "on the processor of a portable music playback device", but if thats sufficient distinction over a laptop computer, then Apple can claim the iPod is a "mobile audio reproduction system", and they're in the clear!

Ian

[zip22 @ Jun 15th 2006 11:36AM]

mooman

"A method ... that automatically files tracks"

the ipod does not "file tracks" it reads a file created by itunes.

[Lincoln's Log @ Jun 15th 2006 1:25PM]

You folks also need to realize that if Apple felt that there was any chance in hell that they would actually lose this thing they would settle immediately to avoid compromising the vital cog in their business machine. Obviously, given the fact that Apple is not only fighting this but taking Creative to task over not one but four patent violations. Also note that the preliminary investigation will take a year to 15 months at least so it's not anything that will impact anyone but Creative at the time being. Creative will continue to bleed money as they are now while Apple will no doubt have released several generations of iPods in that timeframe that may even introduce an entirely new innovative navigation technique. Creative may not even be in the market by the time it's all said and done and I think they're very aware of this. The sad thing is that they've actually got more of a chance of winning this suit than they do ever being a success in the portable player market. Column-based browsing of digital media has been around for eons - NeXT 's OS introduced this very technique back in 87. There's no way in hell Creative has a chance of getting any sort of traction in the courts over this. Their patent is extremely vague and general. Not only that but basically every other player uses the identical navigation technique.

[The Jeremy @ Jun 15th 2006 8:18PM]

I've always felt that the lawsuit Creative launched was a desperate attempt at getting Apple to "settle" as in "buy out Creative".

I hope Creative is clubbed to death. It'll be poetic justice for using the same strategy successfully against Aureal many years ago. And once Apple owns Creative through the bankruptcy sale, perhaps an updated A3D (or EAX, or both) can be implemented into OS X standard.

Well, I guess that would also depend upon the Apple Records lawsuit being settled as well.

[Donald Fisher @ Jun 16th 2006 4:38AM]

But surely most MP3 players navigate through tree structures and not just the Ipod? ( Or do they all license the patent now? )

I think it'll stall and stall and stall until there comes a time where Apple will have a different method of accessing the tunes on the future versions of the ipod.

I wonder if OSX will change its filing system to something like meta-tag filings/search/navigation and the ipod will piggy back onto that in a manner in which doesn't violate the patent.

By which time, it'll be pointless for creative to pursue the issue as most of the public simply just wont care by that time.