Apple and Creative settle, Apple forks out $100m
By Ryan Block 
posted Aug 23rd 2006 5:47PM
posted Aug 23rd 2006 5:47PM
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em, right? That's the American way, after all, and it's serving Singapore-based Creative very well. As some may well remember, not even four months ago Creative filed suit against Apple for violating their "Zen patent," which pertained to a hierarchical menu system for portable media players; Apple countersued Creative, and then in the true Jobsian style of raining down on his foes, launched a second suit pertaining to icons and data display and entry in such portable devices. (Apparently two other suits also went down behind the scenes.) Guess those didn't work too well, as today Apple announced they'd be handing over $100,000,000 US (would you look at all those zeroes?) to Creative to license the "technology" outlined in the Zen patent -- the exact amount Creative pledged to spend on advertising against the iPod in 2005. It also looks like Apple scored a deal wherein they'll recoup some of those costs if and when Creative [Thanks, pspspsp, Ryan, and Roopesh]
WTFOMFGROFLOL!
This is funny.
Damn...
It seems like Creative could've/should've gotten a lot more from Apple. I mean, all iPods, 'cept the shuffle, run on Creative's patent, and Apple's probably made BILLIONS (I don't actually know) in total from their little DAP. Plus, how could Creative let Apple get some money back when the company inevitably sues iriver, Sandisk, etc.
At least this settles Apple's suit on Creative, right?
Stevie sounds a little bitter :D
Serves Apple right, damn patent whores.
"We're very pleased to have reached an amicable settlement with Apple and to have opened up significant new opportunities for Creative," said Sim Wong Hoo, chairman and CEO of Creative. "Apple has built a huge ecosystem for its iPod and with our upcoming participation in the Made for iPod program we are very excited about this new market opportunity for our speaker systems, our just-introduced line of earphones and headphones, and our future family of X- Fi audio enhancement products.
-----------
The pervasiveness of doPi is scary; a company making competitor players has no trouble 'branching out' to support a competitor's product. Amazing.
The business world is ruthless. I also don't understand "Apple can recoup a portion of its payment if Creative is successful in licensing this patent to others."
But then again, that's why I don't do business. Seems like an odd agreement to me.
Wow. Creative has a made for iPod program??? This is just too weird. Sounds like Apple just wanted to get the lawsuit off their back so they paid up. And it sounds like Creative is such a confused company they don't know what to do with themselves.
Yes, ccutlip, but Apple didn't get customers buying all those iPods because they used a hierarchical menu system.
Anyways, this marks the beginning of the end for Creative, jumping into bed with Apple, who would have thought it?
When Zune comes out this Autumn it's going to be a fight to the death. And there's going to be a hella fatalaties over the ensuing months.
If they spent $100,000,000 on advertising and still have such a relatively minute market share then I pity them.
They'd better pull out of the DAP market before they start losing money. Their other products are really quite good.
Funny how Steve Jobs still won't admit anything!
1st Creative sinks AdLib, then they go for Apple. Watch out!
Is it just me or does it seem like Apple paid Creative to help them advertise the iPod? And the more successful Creative is at doing it, the less it costs Apple.
Considering the size of the DAP market, Apple should have no problem recouping it's cost with the added help of Creative now marketing iPods.
im not taking a bite
Wow. They really do grant patents for anything these days. Is it too late for me to patent sex positions? At least it would be fun for whoever I hire to draw the patent application illustrations.
I was hoping to a drawn-out legal war that made people actually look at the rediculous state of patents, specifically software patents. Hierarchal menus, seriously?
But I guess I shouldnt have expect that from a patent whore like Apple. You have to play the game to win, I guess, no matter how stupid the game is.
"When Zune comes out this Autumn it's going to be a fight to the death. And there's going to be a hella fatalaties over the ensuing months."
That's probably exactly why Creative's now snuggling up to Apple.
Apple's going to HAVE TO license the iPod tech eventually, and Creative wants to be in on the ground floor.
The other lawsuits are still in the works, they havent been withdrawn or shot down.
So Creative wins this round, then they will lose the next 2 rounds, forcing them to pay apple $100M each case!
Apple is going to end up making a profit on this whole endeavor.
Is it me or does it seem's like Creative lost? Maybe Apple's counter suite did have some weight, why else would they agree to be a made for iPod partner? Why would they cut Apple a deal after they go after the other media player companies using their (sad) patent? How much is Apple making on these iPods again?
I think this is the end of Creative as a maker of MP3/DAP players. They'd rather take the easy $100 million and concentrate on the iPod accessory market. Smart move on their part because Microsoft will waste a fortune trying to make the Zune platform a competitor to the iPod (regardless of low probability of success) and there's not going to be room for any other competitors who aren't large scale consumer electronics manufacturers.
There's probably a clause that Apple gets first dibs on Creative's intellectual property if the company tanks. I had hoped Apple could have scooped up all the EAX and A3D intellectual property and spruced up OS X's standard audio capabilities. Perhaps they couldn't do that anyway until the lawsuit with the Beatles/Apple Corps. is settled separately.
why is this just the kind of repugnant filth one would expect the pathetic ipod fanboys to say....you think they would say, "Apple = owned"?? Of course, not....even though that's what these idiots were saying when the Creative lawsuit was first posted here. How Creative was going to go bankrupt?? How Apple really created this UI first, with the Newton?? Sickening...
Apple's lawsuits against Creative was discontinued, James Scott:
http://www.macminute.com/2006/08/23/apple-creative/
Apple makes a ton of $$ off of it's "Made For Ipod" line, and now Creative will be reaping a slice of those revenues, for as long as the iPod exists, or as long as it is profitable. And the patent for the UI is only about a year old...it's not like Apple has been cheating since 2001 - legally (even though literally, they have). And this award announcement should have an impact on both Apple's and Creative's market values: guess who's negatively, and who's positively?? In the long run, Creative stands to win far more $$ than the initial $100 mil....
but the bottom line is the bottom line, which none of you fanboys have the grace, or maturity, to admit: Creative was in the right, and Apple was in the wrong. Otherwise, Apple would not have chosen to agree to this settlement so quickly.....
Apple = owned: Haha!
This looks like Creative got to save face.
In the end they'll probably end up paying Apple back nearly as much as they won both through the profit sharing deal and through their Made for iPod plan. Both sides got to avoid court costs and the fact that Creative is going to be MAKING IPOD ACCESSORIES should tell everyone who the winner is.
I still wish they would've gone to court and indicted the whole damn patent system, but I suppose neither company has anything to gain from that happening.
It's likely that Apple settled out of court to prevent any chances of finding an unwelcome judgment at the end of the trial. Similar to how Microsoft was smart to settle out of court for using vibration technology already patented and Sony did not. Because of this Sony can no longer utilize this technology and Microsoft can. Also, the other lawsuits still are likely in luei and Apple may eventually recover some of their losses here.
How about this scenario; Creative starts to make products for iPods, Creative gets sneaky and makes said accessories compatible with their players also. Bingo, one less reason for people to buy iPods over Creative, and Creative makes huge cash off the iPod crowd. That combined with the possible licensing of their patent to well, everyone, could mean some serious cash for Creative.
eh creative's just jealous that they cant sell mp3's as good as Apple.There just making up excuses "they copied our hierarchicile menu! No fair!" pfft...
@James Scott
Dude, listen to your own God...
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
^^^ Geez, you're really upset huh?
Tnyc. LOL
Apple's going to be making royalties aplenty off Creative, who will now be promoting a competing product line.
Not only that, MS is pushing all non-iPodders into Apple's arms...
Like they needed the help...
When Creative initiated their suit, a great number of pundits, here and elsewhere, claimed that creative would now be able to bring apple's incredible ipod business to a halt, or at least claim a very large portion of all future ipod dollars.
The net result is that this threat is now gone, and the relative damage to apple is fairly minimal.
Sure creative deserves credit for their idea, and certainly this confirms it, but the bigger news is that one more apple doomsday scenario has bitten the dust.
Another doomsday scenario was tied to "apple's arrogant use of its proprietary itunes system", and how microsoft's open "plays for sure" system would inevitably destroy the ipod. "No way could apple continue to dominate with a closed system. The rest of the industry will destroy them just as they did in the PC business." Well I've seen very few comments acknowledging that microsoft's new zune system is a full admission of the abject failure of plays for sure.
Apple has done a great job of bringing great, money-making products to market, and making a lot of users very happy. IMO their success will continue for some time to come.
Pete
They fought, now they made up and are getting close to each other. Why don't ya two get a room!
There's a lot of angry people out there that don't gain a damn thing from either company winning or losing other than possibly just owning the product. Wish people gave this much of a shit about all the other problems going on in the world!
So here's my theory. Apple can't sue ms when zune comes out even if ms is in violation of patents. MS just has too many patents that probably also affect osx and things would get ugly. So apple funds creative to the tune of 100 Mil to sue ms when the zune is released. MS probably has less am against creative than they would agasint appe. Hell maybe creative even get an injuction before zune ever ships. Sounds like a win for apple.
Creative 100, Apple 0
Sounds like the Apple Lawyers sat down Mr Jobs and told him Apple would lose big time if the legal system decided the case. Sensible to settle.
According to Tnyc: "They LOST this suit because they DID copied[sic] Creative's pantented[sic] works."
Thank you for playing. Someday, with practice, I bet you'll be good at the internets.
You might want to at least read, you know, THE HEADLINE before you post. That's the line that's above the part that you probably also didn't read, which is called the article.
Nobody lost. They "settled". This is a grownup word that means that neither Creative nor Apple knew if they'd win in court, so they both agreed to sidestep the process. Who knows, Apple could very well have won it. If Creative was sure they'd win, they wouldn't have settled. They could've shut down Apple's iPod business completely or at least gotten far more than $100mil out of them.
Honestly this seems like a win for both companies. Frankly, a long drawn out court battle between Creative and Apple would only be a negative for both companies. What you have here seems to benefit both companies. First, Creative gets the cash settlement, plus this probably strengthens their patent which they can now use against the rest of their competition. Secondly, this puts Creative and Apple on friendly terms, and Creative can benefit by selling iPod accessories. But that also helps Apple a lot; one of the big selling points of the iPod now isn't just the iPod itself or the iTMS, but the vast accessories market that exists for it. Getting a company like Creative working on iPod accessories ultimately helps Apple quite a bit, as it's one more company selling accessories that help strengthen the position of the iPod as a whole (just like how Microsoft and PC makers have an inherent advantage over Apple's Macintosh line thanks to the vast amount of hardware and software that supports the Windows/PC world).
And I don't think this is going to have a huge impact on Creative's own line of music players, but it probably does give them some more flexibility depending on what does happen with Zune.
Although Apple banked 2,000,000,000 in iPod and iTunes sales last year, that wasn't profit, just gross sales. So 100,000,000 represents a LOT of money.
How can you "copy" a heirarchal menu? It's the only way to do it. No MP3 player would have only one menu with the list of songs.
I thought "Apple Fanboys" (whatever that is still supposed to mean*) were kinda annoying -- and I'm a loooooong time mac user -- but you "Anti-Mac-Zealots" really take the cake...
Such useless, mindless, hopped-up blathering --
"Apple = owned: Haha!",
"Ouch, this gotta hurt huh all you Apple whores out there?? What else do you have to say...no wait, lemme take that Ipod and shove it down your throat because you will say stupid shit like how Creative is a cry-baby who's suing Apple becuase it cannot compete with the Ipod."
"Why don't you Apple gayboys...err i meant fanboys put aside your brand loyalty and stupidity and admit that Apple did something ILLEGAL and will paid for it."
What kinda twelve-year-olds frequent this site?
Are we still calling people 'gay' as some sort of insult? You do realize it only makes you look "latently-in-denial-gay" when you do so, don't you?
Also, use of the term "pwned' was only acceptable about 7 years ago when it was new and creative -- using it now only makes you a geek-culture lemming.
In the words of Iggy Pop, "Why don't you go read a book and flunk a test you assholes"
p.s. Chuck Norris uses a Mac he fashioned out of twigs, leaves and an opponents lower intestine...
Actually, I have to correct one thing. There is one area where this could technically be seen as sort of a "loss" for Creative. Really, this patent lawsuit probably wasn't supposed to be about just getting some cash settlement out of Apple. The whole point really seemed to be to really try and put a real dent in the iPod, to really hurt iPod sales or perhaps even force Apple to change the way the iPod works. This ultimately would have been a benefit to Creative, but that isn't how this worked out.
zune scene, $100 million is certainly a significant amount of money, but Apple probably can clear that amount of money in a short period of time on iPod sales alone. I mean, Apple sold about 8.5 million iPods in the quarter ending March 31st, for example, at an average net revenue of $201/unit. Even without knowing exactly what Apple's margin is on iPods, that money gets made back probably in less than a month of iPod sales. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but also probably a wise investment compared to having the lawsuit shadow hanging over Apple's head; plus there's the other benefits I mentioned in my last post, and it does work out pretty well in the end for Apple. It would have been a lot worse to have not settled, and for Apple to have been forced to change how the iPod works (i.e. like when Palm had to switch to Graffiti 2 due to Xerox's patent).
yeah, Apple pays creative for advertising them and then has things made for Ipods. Creative, are you Apple's bitch?
Stupid people being anti Ipod. The point was already made four months ago when this suit came out but I'll make it again. Why does Creative get the right to sew Apple when everyone uses the same menu system?
I've noticed 2 things:
1. there are a surprising number of legal experts that read Engadgets. I have been truly educated by some of the comments in this thread and feel almost ready to take the Bar exam myself.
2. the angriest people, those you really don't to meet in real life, for example Burroughs802, Tnyc, Jiggsaw, are also the most illiterate.
Just my observations
Peace
waddo
http://www.waddo.net/
"Ouch, this gotta hurt huh all you Apple whores out there?? What else do you have to say...no wait, lemme take that Ipod and shove it down your throat because you will say stupid shit like..."
I REALLY can't wait until school gets back in...
Why is it that the anti anything Apple always have the same juvenile post around the net?
Creative should spend $100,000,000 of their own money AND the $100,000,000 they won, both on advertising. Down with the iPod!
I think Creative most likely had to settle for the bucks instead of getting to use Apple's DRM on their players.
HAHA!!! unCreative settled for a measley $100 mil, if they won the suit they could've had over a $Billion dollar payday!!! Well, it does make sense they settled with Apple, they wanted to get on the Winning side with the Made for iPod campaign, especially since they were PlayedforSure by M$ and the Zune failur...errrr.....iniative.
Hopefulley that Hundred Mil will make up for the next few quarters negative quarters for un-Creative and Sim Wong Who?!
Trust me, I know what I'm doing...
CREATIVE PATENT IS BASED ON APPLE COLUMNS VIEW INTERFACE
Apple's iPod interface is based on the MacOS X interface which is based on the NeXT interface which is based on the Apple LISA interface. All of these are property of Apple. We're going back decades here long before Creative even existed. Anyone who thinks Apple based the iPod interface on Creative's patent is just plain ignorant of the facts.
Creative knows just how lucky they were to get their patent approved and Apple knows that although they could win it would probably cost them as much or more regardless in a long drawn out court case. Creative can now go after Microsoft or anyone else using "their" patent which only serves to help Apple. When Creative exists the music player business they still have their new "Made for iPod" business.
I can't imagine a better outcome for either company.
Wow...apple blinked big-time. Not Job's week...first he's, er, apple, is being sued for options fraud...now creative shake's down apple's ipod technology. What's up next ? Couldn't happen to a nice guy or company. roflmao
Lets not be dumb here... Creative has made EXCELLENT audio products for PCs for a VERY LONG TIME... If they can bring that same quality to iPod accessories they stand to open a HUGE market to themselves... I wonder... will they make all of these new accessories work with their own products AND iPods?? If so this could be a great way to get their brand name into some iPod owners laps and possibly see some of those users switch to Creative products down the road...
Let's see, first Apple bases their interface on the MacOS X/NeXT columns view. Then they incorporate the same interface into the iPod. Then Creative decides to patent this interface. Months later Apple figures they should patent their own interface. Now they settle and you idiots who can't see the forest through the trees STILL think Apple is in the wrong?
And Ryan... come on... 100 million is not that much money for companies like these. And do yo really think it is that bizarre of Creative to start selling Made For iPod products as a result of this deal. The only reason Apple settled was to combat Microsoft's dirty marketing tactics (it is obvious that it was Apple's UI - I think it was particularlly cheap of Creative to exactly copy the enhanced color version of the iPod interface that Apple designed and enhanced as the product progressed. This certainly wasn't in the patent that Creative filed for some 4 years back.)
Yes it was lucky that Creative was awarded this patent and had circumstances been different (ie: no Zune), Apple probably would not have settled. It is also lucky for Creative that they get to make iPod accessories because they won't be selling the Zen for very much longer - Microsoft's Zune will destroy it.
Chris said:
"So here's my theory. Apple can't sue ms when zune comes out even if ms is in violation of patents. MS just has too many patents that probably also affect osx and things would get ugly. So apple funds creative to the tune of 100 Mil to sue ms when the zune is released. MS probably has less am against creative than they would agasint appe. Hell maybe creative even get an injuction before zune ever ships. Sounds like a win for apple."
I completely agree.
And to the poster who said Apple was taking illegal actions, I have to disagree. Apple is going out its way to be far more upstanding and "legal" than ANYONE else in the playing field because they are under such a huge microscope and constantly being reviewed. They have much to lose and so are playing it straight and safe.
Revrant just wrote:
"Apple getting the better deal, and though the interface existed before(Not by Apple's hand), Creative was the first to get to it, so no dice there."
Yes, Apple is getting the better deal because Creative is in a poor position, but it was by "Apple's hand". They, along with NeXT, are the company that created this UI of discussion. There is no denying this. It is a fact.
Woo hoo! that's AWESOME! fork it, Stevie. FORK IT! and make sure all zeros are accounted for when you write the check, and don't forget to include a note that says": "Sorry for stealing what's rightfully yours!" O-K?!
This is Grrreeeat! you made my morning, Engadget.
I love how the Anti-Apple folks are coming out of the woodworks to laugh at Apple. What they don't realize is that if Creative sues and wins licensing from others, they have to pay Apple back part of the money Apple paid to them.
What they also don't realize is that Creative will now be making peripherals for Apple so they have a vested interest in seeing the iPod survive. This also means more revenue dollars for Apple. Short term, this is a windfall for Creative and a loss by Apple, longterm, it could be Apple that is the biggest winner. Take Business 101 folks before you start making a fool out of yourselves. Think beyond the dollar sign and zeroes and think of the implications of the settlement.
Keep in mind Apple (much like other large companies such as IBM and Microsoft) holds many patents and there is likely something Creative (among others) are using that Apple can sue and win with. So it's not a slam dunk that had all five lawsuits continued Creative would have gotten the better end of the bargain. Just because you win the Zen patent lawsuit doesn't mean you don't wind up paying back every cent for other patent infringements. And I still think the Zen patent is a load of bull since all they did was slap an existing menu system on a portable device.
I agree with a couple of previous guys who said it's possible Apple settled so they can concentrate on making sure MS's Zune fails.
From the announced terms, Creative sounds like a company trying to get out of the MP3 market, rather than to get back in. It's most likely that within the next 6 months, they'll clean up their inventories, exit, and shift focus.
What's more advantegeous to Apple given the introduction of the Zune? More competitors in Microsoft's market or less? Wars by proxy aren't only fought it in the Middle East.
Oh and what's with all the geeks saying Apple = pwned. Do you want to sound even more pathetic? Get a life.
Next time some CoreGeek tells me about how innovative Apple is and how MS is big and evil and 'copied Windows from us'...
I'll be bringing this little bit of info up for them.
This all about Apple againts competitions. Apple is using Creative to legally put other mp3 market on the sideline in case the court decide that creative really own the user interface. Creative can collect royalties while Apple monopolizes the market.
AAH!
Would you people please read the damn patent!
Its a bit more than just a hierarchical menu.
also note "announced a broad settlement ending all legal disputes between the two companies" note the ALL legal disputes.
Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
ie cleared slate. There are no more pending suits between apple and creative.
I also think its quite a smart move to move into accessories market for creative. 1 plastic piece of crap is 1000x more profitable than any dap on its own.
You see what I mean? I KNEW those Apple gay/fanboys, that's right..I said it GAY. So that makes me a "homo waiting to come out"??? LOL...nothing is further from the truth you dumbass. Stop making assumptions about me and/or my level of education because you DON'T know me. I'm not writing a thesis nor a term paper so I choose to use whatever writing style and language I wish on the net. If you don't like that then you can bend over for your b/f to please you. How's that for an ASSumption?
But let's get back to the FACTS shall we? This settlement is the equivalent of a LOST in the eyes of the public. Do you honestly think Steve Jobs would surrender to Creative if he thinks that he can win it in court? Apple is one of the most aggressive companies out there who will use its army of well -paid lawyers to go after anyone that might tarnish Apple in anyway, shape or form. So suck it up fanboys and admit that Apple LOST this one ..plain and simple. Otherwise Apple will fight Creative to the death and has planned to do so with all the counter suits.
What pisses me off is that you Apple fanboys think anything that have the Apple logo on it is the BEST on the market. Do yourself and your wallet a favor and do some research before you buy your next upgrade. Apple do make some of the best looking products out there but there isn't really anything so technologically advanced from Apple that you can't find or get anywhere else and usually for alot cheaper. Apple are all about style first, IMO, and unfortunately often that's what its best feature is. Ipods DON'T produce the BEST sound quality compared to some other MP3s players out there and they wont dominate the market forever. If you think it will then i have two words for you "Sony Walkman". Nothing last forever as they said. It's just another company that makes good looking products to go after your money.
Again, I'm not a PC camper or a Mac camper. I go with whichever flatform that provides me with the best products, give me the flexibility, looks and values for my money. If you only buy Apple products then you are nothing but an ignorant consumer. But hey..it's money. Do as you please ;) Adios!
You know? I hate all these patent and copyright suits that are filling up the courts nowadays, but I kind of find it hard for me to sympathize with Apple on this. They never hesitate to sic their legal teams on anyone they feel is even remotely selling somthing similar to their click wheel design.
Screw both companies. The only thing I am loyal to is the MP3 player that suits my needs best. Yesterday it was Creative. Today it's the Ipod, tomorrow, who knows? People willing to settle for less because they only like the company that is selling the product are the epitome of fanboy.
Just my personal observation, keith waddington, tends to "pwn" himself within his own posts, especially when he tries to sound somewhat intelligent; as an example, read the post below where he mentions illiteracy yet his own post has grammatical errors.
"I've noticed 2 things:
1. there are a surprising number of legal experts that read Engadgets. I have been truly educated by some of the comments in this thread and feel almost ready to take the Bar exam myself.
2. the angriest people, those you really don't to meet in real life, for example Burroughs802, Tnyc, Jiggsaw, are also the most illiterate.
Just my observations
Peace
waddo
http://www.waddo.net/ " [sic]
Revrant said:
"Oh, there's plenty to deny ron g, that's just one thing, no matter what spin Apple put on it the interface existed before they ran with it, no matter the claim to fame, you can find MP3 players using it far before the iPod(If poorly by comparison) and I hope you don't go "Patent" on me, because Apple patents just about everything the eye can see, I'm talking about who had and used it first."
Are you ignoring the facts on purpose to anger those that favor Apple? Apple isn't putting any "spin" on it. If you haven't noticed, they just settled... giving Creative the rights to the patent when everyone in the tech world knows that it was Apple and NeXT who first used (and designed) this column based navigation. Then they used it for the iPod's interface. THEN Creative has the gall to patent it, then they start to use it 2 years later.
I'm not going "patent" on you. I'm talking about who "used" it first (AND who actually designed it). Yeh, it was Apple. I know this is hard for you to accept but that is the way it is.
Oh, and in regards to Apple patenting everything. Yes, that is pretty lame but the industry has forced them to do this. You can thank the Microsofts and Creatives for that.
Hey Creative, why don't you make some accessories for your own players first! Geez.
The Creative patent is pretty weak. Cursory examination, not enough prior art cited, and none before 1997. For your only patent, it's not a work of art. Apple brought in a whole bunch of them in three different fora.
$100M will turn out to be, this year, less than a percent of one year's revenue from the iPod. $100M is never trivial, but it is way cheap for a paid up license. Apple is defending probably five or six other patent lawsuits for similar stakes, and some with less upside. The wrinkle was the ITC, and making that go away fast was a good idea.
Creative now has a litigation war chest to go against Zune, iRiver, SanDisk, etc., and while they will not be obligated to do so on paper, they will do so. Every license will lend some credibility to their patent. This is pretty much the same as if Apple had the one Creative patent themselves, but better - they have just loaned Creative the money to dog their competitors, will get it back, and they don't have to look like greedy monopolists - they look like a gracious, thoughtful company that respects other companies' intellectual property.
The accessories - Creative is not privileged to make them, they are obligated to make them. And will be paying Apple for that obligation. Which, if I had to guess, will also be Mac accessories like ATI video cards and SoundBlaster, even though that was not announced.
Steve Jobs' release is no less than smug, and he should be. They'll get the money back, now have ammunition against the inevitable antitrust suit, have let loose Creative on their enemies, etc.
@John
That is the most insightful post I've read in this post. I agreed with you regarding Steve Jobs. He is one of the most brilliant business men of our time and this is another reason why he is well respected in the business community. Alot of these Apple fanboys are clueless as to how the company they adore so much really works under SJ's, the commader-in-chief. These Apple fanatics that you read about on the net are almost cult-like. They are hypnotized by style and hype but often forget to ask for substance in what they purchase.
I'm glad somebody knows what they're talking about.
The whole thing is total BS, Apple does the whole GUI thing with the Mac OS etc, and the iPod even came out quite a while BEFORE Creative made anything similar (They did make the Creative Nomad Jukebox aka HUGE ASS CD PLAYER LOOK-ALIKE W/ HARD DRIVE, but the menu interface wasn't nearly as great) And then Creative decides to try and patent technology that was being used by Apple years before they even touched it... they got lucky this time, but oh well, Apple is filthy rich and their products own compared to Creative..
Creative's just jealous. They should stick to the sound card business, they're good at that.. and they're speakers aren't bad either.
"Smart move on their part because Microsoft will waste a fortune trying to make the Zune platform a competitor to the iPod (regardless of low probability of success)"
People also thought the xbox would fail. They were last to market, had no experience in the market, and and had higher costs. That's no less than what they're looking at now. jeez. I feel like a fanboy now.