or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Creative seeks injunction against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Creative seeks injunction against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by McDave
Hopefully this means Apple will realise they're a bit prone in their dependency on the US market and will get those TV shows (or other local TV shows) out to other iTMSs ASAP to help boost overseas iPod sales.

McDave [/B]

Do I read this as a hint as to where they should be going?

Actually, this isn't up to Apple. I'm sure they'd love to get them to you, but the licensing issues are just tremendous. That's why it took so long to get the iTunes store out and about for just music.
post #42 of 76
As others have pointed out, the iPod interface is based on the Mac OS X columns view which is based on the NeXT OS columns view. Creative is going down the toilet and will grab onto anything to keep them afloat.

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #43 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by another_steve
It's almost refreshing to see the voice of reason amongst a thread of knee-jerk reactions from zealots.

First, yes, patents are very important. Anyone who doesn't understand that, surely doesn't have the capacity to actually create something that's worth protecting.

Second, to your point, what's ridiculous is the type of thing that they allow you to patent. To that end, I agree, the bar needs to be raised significantly.

Steve

I have IP being considered for moving forward for patent application. Its dumb as bricks (both patent and software patents in general) but I'm going along with it because I see the need for a portfolio of defensive (software) patents.

Raise the bar? You're kidding right? From what resources is the patent office going to raise the bar? The only way they can possibly do so is to create a backlog of momentous proportions in which case you might as well not bother with software patents (which is fine by me...copyright is plenty protection for my IP).

At least they are going to try the idea of peer review. The problem will still be getting enough time to read the peer reviews and check the prior art so discovered.

If the two of you really believe that the only problem with software patents is the bar is too low then I fully expect both of you to be part of that peer review process or you have less grounds than us dumb "zealots" who are incapable of developing worthy IP to whine.

Vinea
post #44 of 76
The funny thing about this is, when I first used a Creative Nomad owned by a friend of mine, the UI was so horrible after 5 mins of playing with it I had to break down and ask him how to get it to play a song. The UI was truly awful, full of icons, tabs and lists, way over complicated. My iPod in comparision, was like a dream.

Fast forward a few years and another friend has a new Creative player, the one that looks like an iPod except with the thumb pad that just goes up and and down. Guess what? The interface now exactly resembles the iPods.

Who's ripping off who here exactly?
post #45 of 76
yawn. what a grand display of absurdity. i'm going back to walkman and betamax. let the children play their games.
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
post #46 of 76
i'm going to patent the human brain. so you all owe me a licensing fee. copiers.
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
post #47 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by another_steve
First, yes, patents are very important. Anyone who doesn't understand that, surely doesn't have the capacity to actually create something that's worth protecting.

They were important in the 19th century. Now, all they do is serve big corporations.
post #48 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by scientifics
i'm going to patent the human brain. so you all owe me a licensing fee. copiers.

Wouldn't you need to actually possess the thing you're going to patent?
post #49 of 76
It's frustrating to think that companies use litigation as a strategy to hinder their competition without regard for anything actually owed them. I'm not saying that's going on here... I obviously don't know. If Creative created something that is being used without their permission (and if the reason for the patents is to keep this from happening), they should be able to defend their position.

If it turns out that they do have something on Apple here, wouldn't it be likely that their might be a bidding war for Creative (I mean, rather then Apple simply buying them out)? I'd assume Viacom, Sony, or Microsoft... someone would be interested in them as well.
post #50 of 76
isn't it blantly obvious that this is a complete crock? copying an interface? christ! how different does one wish the interface to be? what difference does it make? foremost there is no way they are the SAME interface. this is the kind of thing that drives people to make completely ass-backward unintuitive interfaces for fear of 'copying' another's interface. its garbage. complete bullshit. this is not an apple vs. creative issue, its a 'get-over-yourself-the-ipod/zen-interface-is-not-exactly-a-fucking-nobel-prize-winning-idea.' its a crude, simple way to make a device user friendly. i hardly think that a mindbogglingly huge amount of mental energy went into dreaming up such a thing.
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
post #51 of 76
of course, if the issue was Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' vs. a crude Dan Brown knock off, I'd be inclined to side with the person who actually has the talent. Unfortunately, this is more like a Robert Ludlum novel vs. a Tom Clancy novel. They are both unimaginative pieces of escape fiction: crude espionage thrillers. So don't get any delusions of grandeur about how because you made the new york times best sellers list you're all of a sudden william fucking shakespeare.

Get.
Over.
Yourself.
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
"Humanity as a collective
subject has to set a limit, and freely renounce
further 'progress' in this direction." - On Windows Vista
Reply
post #52 of 76
Anybody that sues Apple (for whatever reason) is a petty idiot no questions asked, but when Apple starts suing random people (websites housing "trade secrets" nonetheless) than it's all well and good.

Gotta love the irony on this one. A patological suer has been slapped with a couple of big ones lately. Ooh, ooh, the horror!
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #53 of 76
I personally think that patents should be a 'use it or loose it' kind of system, like trademarks; as I understand it, if you fail to defend a trademark, you loose the right to it. I'd like to see a similar ruling that if you fail to bring a product to market within a certain time period, the patent is nullified.

This would prevent the stifling of innovation, and 'inventors' who's business model is to retroactively patent things, and then sue the ass of anyone who's made something vaguely similar.

Of course, this probably wouldn't work because the small guy would loose the protection he has, and therefore the incentive to invent anything in the first place.
post #54 of 76
Sorry, I'm sick of this shit. I'm with the just buy out Creative and bury their ass. Game over. Creative, we loved ya in the 90s, you had some great stuff and the de facto sound card standard. But this decade, it's Apple and iPod. Get stuffed. Game over. Enjoy your buyout from Apple and Sim Wong Hoo, take a nice long vacation, you've deserved it. Forget Creative.
post #55 of 76
[sic]
post #56 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
Seriously, no one who gripes about them has provided a better solution.

Well, this is one of the few situations where I think things should just be left to market forces.

I should have said in my original post, that the argument was won in Europe. The EU wanted to introduce software patents; there ensued a lengthy debate, and the bill did not pass, it wasn't even close (680 votes, 648 of them against software patents).

Why should companies be able to profit off an idea? Ideas do not help anyone, it is the execution of a good idea that is important. I don't have anything against confidentiality, if a company comes up with a good idea, they still have to work out how to actually implement the idea (they can keep that process confidential) and then successfully sell the product. Anyone who wishes to copy the idea, will still have to solve all the implementation problems etc. for themselves. If they then manage to come up with something even better in the process, good luck to them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
The USPTO is overloaded with patent filings, so it does little or no investigation into patnets before rubber-stamping them, expecting that the courts will sort out who invented what.

Exactly as I said: patents have become a huge money-maker for lawyers, nothing else.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #57 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by michaelb
Given the absurd way the NTP vs RIM patent tussle turned out, who knows what will happen.

However, I'm pretty sure Apple Legal would have been preparing for this from when the "Zen Patent" was (erroneously?) issued last year, as there must be a mountain of prior art.

Most mobile phones use a up/down scrolling menu, an item of which is clicked to go to the next deeper menu. That's been the case since the late 80s. The only difference is the horizontal side-to-side nature of the iPod's menu system.

But side-to-side hierarchical interfaces are nothing new. In fact, the diagrams of prospective Lisa interfaces dating from the late 1970s show a very similar arrangement.



The only difference is being on a smaller display.



And just where do you think Apple got this idea?

Perhaps Xerox PARC?

BTW, I got to play with a Xerox 1109 ( I believe) about 15 years ago (US Army surplus).

Let's see now, where are my USPTO applications for death, taxes, pepertual motion machine, filing cabinet, and card catalog!

What an original idea, a software index!

Message to Creative CEO: Envy IS one of the 7 deadly sins!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 76
Originally posted by pairof9s
Chief, I think you can do w/out the 4-letter "superlatives" to get your point across!


I've calmed down a bit now ...Edited out the naughty words. If you would like to edit Your post to remove the quote of my original post, that'll clean up this page nice and good.
post #59 of 76
Originally posted by franksargent
...Message to Creative CEO: Envy IS one of the 7 deadly sins!...


The thing that gets me is the timing of this. It's obvious that this is some sort of last-ditch effort on Creative's part. They could have sought the injunction much earlier. But they decided to duke it out in the market, and lost. 5 years after both Apple and Creative have had mp3 players, it's clear what the score is. Apple 1, Creative 0.02. An act of desperation is what it is.
post #60 of 76
Originally posted by franksargent
...Perhaps Xerox PARC?...


Everything about modern computer interfaces can basically be traced back to Xerox PARC
post #61 of 76


WOW, have you guys seen this one?

Apple was just granted a patent from the USPTO for something called the iSuit!

The patent number is of course 666!

The iSuit is a software program (CLI based) that works interactively with the USTPO application process, and files lawsuits autonomously for all patent applications filed by companies OTHER than Apple Computer!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 76
ROFLMAO
post #63 of 76
Software patents are stupid and are most certainly not necessary for the software industry. Patents where never meant for this use.

By the way, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday on patent injunctions: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004663.php

Essentially, injunctions will now not automatically have to be granted in these cases. Creative may yet lose this.
post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee4orce
I personally think that patents should be a 'use it or loose it' kind of system, like trademarks; as I understand it, if you fail to defend a trademark, you loose the right to it. I'd like to see a similar ruling that if you fail to bring a product to market within a certain time period, the patent is nullified.

This would prevent the stifling of innovation, and 'inventors' who's business model is to retroactively patent things, and then sue the ass of anyone who's made something vaguely similar.

Of course, this probably wouldn't work because the small guy would loose the protection he has, and therefore the incentive to invent anything in the first place.

What you are saying doesn't correspond to what you really want to say.

Trademarks are defended in court. Even if they are being used on a daily basis, they must still be defended in court. Disney does this all the time. With patents, it is the same thing. You can own a patent, and be using it, but you must still defend it in court.

What happens, as it does all of the time, if I invent something, take out a patent, take it around to all of the parties who might be expected to be interested, but find that no one is? If I can't afford to develop it myself, I have no choice but to sit on it.

If someone then comes along and offers to buy my patent, I might be inclined to sell. If, ten or fifteen years later, other companies come up with the same idea and start using it, then the person, or company that bought it from me has the right to sue. If I never sold my patent, as we have see has also happened, then I can sue. What is wrong with that?

The only problem that I think has to be corrected is that the party owning the patent must be required to show that they sued within a certain time of the violation taking place. In other words, they can't sit in wait for five or ten years while the patent earns vast sums of money for the unsuspecting person or company that is in violation. That is what I consider to be the real patent troll.

I have no problem if they come out when the patent is first being violated, when the sums are small, and something can be easily worked out, or, worked around.
post #65 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent


And just where do you think Apple got this idea?

Perhaps Xerox PARC?

BTW, I got to play with a Xerox 1109 ( I believe) about 15 years ago (US Army surplus).

Let's see now, where are my USPTO applications for death, taxes, pepertual motion machine, filing cabinet, and card catalog!

What an original idea, a software index!

Message to Creative CEO: Envy IS one of the 7 deadly sins!


Apple was invited to PARC by Xerox. Apple also paid licensing fees to Xerox, and gave Apple stock in exchange for the interface elements they used.

Apple then went much further than Xerox had gone in developing the interface. Apple didn't "steal" anything from Xerox, as so many people like to think.

If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen. Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.

The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest. That was what MS was sued for by Apple. Think what would happened if Windows could have had just one window open at a time, or just overlapping, cascading windows.
post #66 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent


WOW, have you guys seen this one?

Apple was just granted a patent from the USPTO for something called the iSuit!

The patent number is of course 666!



They were granted this patent in 1783?
post #67 of 76
Originally posted by melgross
...The only problem that I think has to be corrected is that the party owning the patent must be required to show that they sued within a certain time of the violation taking place. In other words, they can't sit in wait for five or ten years while the patent earns vast sums of money for the unsuspecting person or company that is in violation. That is what I consider to be the real patent troll...



That is EXACTLY what makes the Creative suit/ injunction/ whatever so annoying. They sat on this thing for 5 years, threw everything they could to unseat the iPod, and now, clearly out of options, with iPod and iTunes Music + Video Store a bloody complete runaway success, they go the "we have the patent screw you guys" route. Dirty. Just plain dirty trickery to get some sort of compensation out of Apple. They must be running out of cash or something, the way I see it, and they don't really want Apple to stop making iPods or something, they want compensation in cash, they don't really want to fight out a long protracted legal battle
post #68 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen. Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.

The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest. That was what MS was sued for by Apple. Think what would happened if Windows could have had just one window open at a time, or just overlapping, cascading windows.

How hard is it to actually go and look at a screen shots of the Xerox Alto and Star? It is well established that Xerox PARC developed the WIMP metaphor first with the Alto.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3

Does the bleeding Alto Smalltalk screen shot look like "stack one above the other...increment down the screen to the bottom and to the right"? Or does it look like a normal GUI screen albeit with smaller than expected title bars?

The Star did use the tiled metaphor as it was a stripped down/simplified Alto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X...ar_desktop.jpg

Note that in a tiled metaphor you don't overlap windows so you don't stack them in a cascade. But you can open more than one window at a time.

Here's a nice pictoral history of the Apple interface:

http://www.pegasus3d.com/apple_screens.html

Drag and drop, pull down menus, double clicking and the clipboard I believe are Apple UI contributions (among many). Folks liberally learned from each other since it was all very new and there were many low hanging fruit to discover. Plus a lot of PARC folks ended up in other companies.

About the only part you got right was Apple didn't steal from Xerox. They did liberally borrow and reinvent...sometimes amusingly with capability they thought was there but wasn't really (i.e. regions).

Something they couldn't have done had there been software patents. Imagine the modern desktop locked into a company like Xerox? Eh, perhaps Raskin would have further developed the zoomable UI metaphor.

Vinea
post #69 of 76
All I can say is thank god for the Sony Bean, god bless that bean....

Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #70 of 76
If Creative is legit in their claim, does this mean that Apple will have to manufacture their 'pods somewhere else??? 'cause i've noticed (between me and my group of friends) they last about a year's time before they need replacing (thank god for warrantees), so maybe they will be made better?

\\Max
post #71 of 76
My iPod mini died just about after a year
I just use it as a 4gb mini-backup now.
post #72 of 76
The plot thickens Apple sues Creative for patent infringement. That means Apple must have been ready for something like this.
post #73 of 76
Apple is claiming Creative is infringing on four of its patents.
Mac OS X Leopard vs. Windows Vista
http://www.macvswindows.com
Reply
Mac OS X Leopard vs. Windows Vista
http://www.macvswindows.com
Reply
post #74 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
The plot thickens Apple sues Creative for patent infringement. That means Apple must have been ready for something like this.

Classic defensive policy. Somebody sues you, you countersue them. Though the question is, if Creative was indeed infringing on Apple's patents, why did Apple wait for so long to sue Creative? And they did that only after Creative sued them. Patent enforcements (in case of infringement) is necessary and required if one wants to be able to win cases.

They're learning from the IBM vs. SCO case and Novell vs SCO, I guess.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #75 of 76
It's a game of chicken. Sometimes it works, and they settle, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm curious about just what patents Apple is claiming here. Would this be something that only involves Creative, or is it something more general, that would affect far more companies and devices?

Is it even real?
post #76 of 76
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/...iness/ipod.php

"WASHINGTON Apple Computer, maker of the iPod music player, is suing Creative Technology, raising the stakes in the legal dispute over competing devices.

Apple claims Creative Labs, the U.S. division of Creative Technology, infringes four patents in its hand-held digital players. The suit was filed in a Wisconsin District Court on May 15, the same day Creative filed a lawsuit and a trade complaint against Apple.

"Creative proactively held discussions with Apple in our efforts to explore amicable solutions," Phil O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Creative, said. "At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit."

Creative filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking an order to block imports of the iPod, most of which are made in China. A lawsuit the company filed against Apple in District Court in San Francisco is likely to be put on hold while the trade complaint is heard.

The iPod controls 77 percent of the U.S. market, compared with less than 10 percent for Creative."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Creative seeks injunction against Apple