Creative plan to sue Apple over patent
According to the BBC , Creative are planning to take Apple to court over their interface patent for MP3 players (US Patent 6,928,433 )
The patent covers the selection of songs (or whatever) through a hierarchy of sub-category screens - i.e. choose artist, then album, then song. It also covers the making of a playlist. It was filed in January 2001.
Now tell me if I'm wrong, but surely there are obvious examples of Prior Art. Sky Plus springs to mind. It uses exactly that interface to select which programme you want to watch from the ones you have recored on the hard disk. It even allows you to make playlists using the exact same method (for the purpose of recording your programmes in bulk to VHS tape). It was released back in 2000.
In fact this is not just about prior art - it's about prior patent. I simply cannot believe that Rupert Murdoch, of all people, would not have made sure that his system's interface was patented first.
The patent covers the selection of songs (or whatever) through a hierarchy of sub-category screens - i.e. choose artist, then album, then song. It also covers the making of a playlist. It was filed in January 2001.
Now tell me if I'm wrong, but surely there are obvious examples of Prior Art. Sky Plus springs to mind. It uses exactly that interface to select which programme you want to watch from the ones you have recored on the hard disk. It even allows you to make playlists using the exact same method (for the purpose of recording your programmes in bulk to VHS tape). It was released back in 2000.
In fact this is not just about prior art - it's about prior patent. I simply cannot believe that Rupert Murdoch, of all people, would not have made sure that his system's interface was patented first.
Comments
It wasn't that long ago that he said that Creative would eat into Apple's market share because their players had more features than the iPod, and he still don't seem to get it:
Creative are touting the Zen as a far more powerful player than Apple's offering, with additional functions such as FM radio and a built-in mic.
"We are focused on the technology," he said. "This is still a technology marketplace."
Originally posted by JLL
Well, if they can't make money by selling their products, they can always sue the competition.
yep, and correct me if i am wrong, but isn't the "interface" essentially "column view" from os x? if so, please tell me apple was smart enough to have THAT patented somewhere.
Worse, they're probably going to be counter-sued by Apple, but for something much, much bigger: Blatantly copying a patended hardware design...releasing it AFTER Apple did.
It's the best iPod knock off I've ever seen. One thing is for sure, Creative's president is an idiot to publicly announce their "aggressive" approach towards Apple. Apple will be able to point to Creative's distant second position in the market, couple it with the knock off and Creative's statements, and paint it as a desperate attempt on Creative's behalf to take down the numnber one digital music company in the world. Secondly, Apple won't even lose the interface battle. iTunes-like interfaces are everywhere. The court would have to make all of the other companies pay royalties as well.
Originally posted by Mr Skills
Now tell me if I'm wrong, but surely there are obvious examples of Prior Art. Sky Plus springs to mind. It uses
Tivo comes to mind. I have had a Tivo for almost five years and it has this same sort of drill down interface. Creative is really reaching with this.
If you cannot beat them in the market, then find some way to sue them. That is the way business is heading these days, unfortunately.
Originally posted by rok
yep, and correct me if i am wrong, but isn't the "interface" essentially "column view" from os x? if so, please tell me apple was smart enough to have THAT patented somewhere.
Doesn't column view stem from much earlier Mac days? (I'm only a 15 month long Mac user, but what a 15 months it's been!) Surely that is definitely prior art though???
If this is true, how did Creative manage to get the portable music player software patent if it is essentially the Mac column view?
Originally posted by kwsanders
If you cannot beat them in the market, then find some way to sue them. That is the way business is heading these days, unfortunately.
It's great business for law firms.
Originally posted by danielctull
Doesn't column view stem from much earlier Mac days? (I'm only a 15 month long Mac user, but what a 15 months it's been!) Surely that is definitely prior art though???
If this is true, how did Creative manage to get the portable music player software patent if it is essentially the Mac column view?
My guess is that they didn't mention computers and patented the interface for portable electronic devices.
On the other hand, shareholders can see it as going to battle with Steve Jobs, which I would not advise many people to do. If he is able to throw his weight around at Disney, pissing him off does not look like a good idea to many people.
I think that it is a desperate attempt on their part.
Also, I am really confused by Googling "iPod patent"
This is the result:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20040055446
I cant tell if thats just an application that is pending, denied, or if it is the actual patent? It describes the iPod interface, none the less. Anyone know what this is?
Originally posted by Mr Skills
Now tell me if I'm wrong, but surely there are obvious examples of Prior Art. Sky Plus springs to mind. It uses exactly that interface to select which programme you want to watch from the ones you have recored on the hard disk. It even allows you to make playlists using the exact same method (for the purpose of recording your programmes in bulk to VHS tape). It was released back in 2000.
In fact this is not just about prior art - it's about prior patent. I simply cannot believe that Rupert Murdoch, of all people, would not have made sure that his system's interface was patented first. [/B]
When it comes to patents, its not about how novel or original your invention is, but how good your patent lawyer is!