or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Hostility mounts as Apple slams Creative with second suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hostility mounts as Apple slams Creative with second suit

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Apple Computer has upped the ante in its fierce and bitter legal battle with rival digital audio player maker Creative Technology, filing a second counter-suit in the United States.

The latest filing, made by Apple last Thursday in a Texas district court, alleges that Creative has and continues to infringe on three more of its patents -- one for the display of condensed data sets on a computer, another dealing with the editing of data on a portable media device, and a third for the creation and representation of icons to organize files on a computer system.

In the 8-page complaint, the iPod maker said "Creative has caused Apple substantial damage and irreparable injury by its infringement" and that it "will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury" unless a court steps in.

The company is seeking cash damages "adequate to compensate for Creative's infringement" and a court order banning further patent infringements.

Apple's first counter-suit was filed last month in a district court in Wisconsin and charged Creative with infringing on four of its patents.

The suits are in response to complaints filed by Creative in federal court and with the U.S. International Trade Commission. In those complaints, the Singapore-based company sought an injunction and increased damages, as well as a cease-and-desist order that would prohibit Apple from importing iPods into the United States.

Reuters in its own report points out that Apple's second counter-suit was filed in a district court in Texarkana, Texas, which handles a disproportionate share of major patent cases in the United States.

Legal experts told the publication that that patent trials put before juries in that court have favored patent holders -- suggesting that Apple has chosen the venue as a means to put pressure on Creative to settle the patent dispute quickly.
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Legal experts told the publication that that patent trials put before juries in that court have favored patent holders -- suggesting that Apple has chosen the venue as a means to put pressure on Creative to settle the patent dispute quickly.

Sweet. Now that's awesome. \\m/
post #3 of 20
Creative might be on it's last legs.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #4 of 20
Cmon Apple! Show Creative whos boss!
post #5 of 20
Apple shouldn't settle anything. They should run Creative into the ground to send a message about other beleaguered companies filing lawsuits against them.
post #6 of 20
Just goes to show that software patents are bullshit.all of the software patents cover techneques that are common and have been for thousands of years in the real world, but somehow it is "new" if you add three little words..."on a computer"
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #7 of 20
*** Dancing on lying stealing John Carmack extorting Creative's grave. ***

Ooh, I'd better pick a good playlist for that!
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Just goes to show that software patents are bullshit.all of the software patents cover techneques that are common and have been for thousands of years in the real world, but somehow it is "new" if you add three little words..."on a computer"

No, not all. There are definitely new and novel things being invented every day in the software industry, and a lot of money going into that activity. Those people deserve a protected return on their investment, as it drives innovation and further investment in research.

But the bar for something "obvious to one skilled in the art" certainly seems to be set too low for software patents. No one should ever be able to patent a # of clicks and such.
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
Apple shouldn't settle anything. They should run Creative into the ground to send a message about other beleaguered companies filing lawsuits against them.

Apple is suing in two courts. The Wisconsin venue they chose is famous for turning around patent litigation faster than any other court district in the country, and the Texas one is famous for having one of the highest rates of success for patent holders. So either way, Apple is in good shape.
post #10 of 20
creative really messed up by attcing apple. it's like a little dog nipping at the heals of the big dog... eventually the big dog will snap back.

i truely hope that creative doesn't die from this since creative is the underdog and ipod's biggest compitition. there needs to be compitition to the ipod to keep apple innovative and affordable. i prefer the ipod myself, but i'm glad there are alternatives.

still, that was a horrible plan to file a lawsuit aginst apple and their most successful product. apple will fight to the end to keep ipods flowing into the hands of people everywhere. did creative really believe they could stop the import of ipods into america? fools!
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Just goes to show that software patents are bullshit.all of the software patents cover techneques that are common and have been for thousands of years in the real world, but somehow it is "new" if you add three little words..."on a computer"

Software patents are no different then any other type of patent. (BTW: Think for yourself instead of repeating stupid Slashdot rants).

The main two problems are that the USPTO lacks the technical ability currently to adequately judge patents (leaving a lot of valid patents rejected, while accepting lots and lots of utterly stupid ones), and a timespan that's way, way too long for today's rate of technological growth.
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by kidhack
creative really messed up by attcing apple. it's like a little dog nipping at the heals of the big dog... eventually the big dog will snap back.

i truely hope that creative doesn't die from this since creative is the underdog and ipod's biggest compitition. there needs to be compitition to the ipod to keep apple innovative and affordable. i prefer the ipod myself, but i'm glad there are alternatives.

still, that was a horrible plan to file a lawsuit aginst apple and their most successful product. apple will fight to the end to keep ipods flowing into the hands of people everywhere. did creative really believe they could stop the import of ipods into america? fools!

Actually, Sandisk is the iPod's biggest competitor, at least in the U.S. I imagine Korea might be different.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
In the 8-page complaint, the iPod maker said "Creative has caused Apple substantial damage and irreparable injury by its infringement" and that it "will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury" unless a court steps in.

I'm sorry, but the amount of bullshit in that statement is off the charts!
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #14 of 20
I'm responding here to posts in preceding topics on this case. What a mess!

Actually, Apple failed to patent the iPod interface because Microsoft got there first! (see here and here). I don't know where Creative think they are coming from with this.

This is surreal. Creative sues Apple for a patent violation, a patent that MS holds. Something smells rotten in Texas, Seattle, Cupertino--in fact all the way to Denmark and on to Singapore and China. The question I'd ask: what's the relationship between Creative and MS. Then, who stands to benefit if Apple falls on its face. Remember, Apple has made Gates look bad. Apple has pissed off Hollywood. Hollywood knows the future is in minature communications devices that can create, transfer and play content (games, videos, photos, music and spoken word. Asia is the world's emerging market. Wall street knows all of this. Despite the illusion, Wall Street hasn't changed. It's still a boys--er mens--club. Follow the money. You may want to sell your Apple stock now. That SC decision was just too close to call (mind you, I have only read a summation. The fact that patent reform legisltion is deadlocked in congress shows how there's big money lined up on both sides.

PS Mel Gross will know. His wife is a banker.


BTW, I took the liberty of switching the links around. The original post had the AI link first.

Besises, Einstein didn't try to file a patent on e = mc^2 either.

That's why he was Einstein. Actually, I suspect he might have filed a copyright. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. This was years ago. Things were different back then.

My understanding is that something like a mathematical equation could be copyrighted. If nothing else as a work of poetry.

If it hasn't been copyrighted, someone's missing out on a whole lot of money. Just rememeber me if you go ahead and do it: 1% of your annual royalties would be fine.

Here is John Platt's Home Page. . . at Microsoft.com!

Edit:
He originally worked at Synaptics, the manufacturer of Apple's Click Wheel. You have to wonder if he patented the idea from knowledge he gained while at Synaptics, or from a previous co-worker depending when he left Synaptics. Something don't smell right!


I was thinking the same thing. MS has a history of stealing other people's ideas. Now it all makes sense, why the industry insiders have never gone with Apple. Gates comes from a powerful Seattle family. I wouldn't be surprised if his roots go back to the American revolution. Wasn't the opposing British general named Gates. That could explain the trek West, AND the schooling at Harvard.

Jobs was an unwanted child. Not only that he's not white; he's a WOG (or worse, a bastard (don't quote me on this) son of a WOG. You're Wall Street, where pedigree is everything. Who you gonna bet on: Jobs or Gates? (Please don't think I'm racist. I'm just calling a spade a spade. It's the way these people think.

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!


That's the magic of capitalism. The worker sells his time to the company. The company uses that time to make things, which it then sells back to the worker, for more money. The company is owned by shareholders, many of whom never worked a day in their lives. The shareholders use their earnings to buy more companies, to sell more things. Eventually the worker grows old, gets sick and dies. What money he has manage to save is likely used for the expensive care his illness requires. One hundred years ago he was likely to die broke. Today he is likely to die in debt. If he's lucky his descendants will have enough cash left over to bury him. If not, they can take out a loan or charge it.

Becasuse some shareholders do work, all anger is deflected by the statement, "I worked hard. If I did it you can to. If you can't then either there's something wrong with you or you really don't want 'it'." Additonally, because the myth of the self made man still exists (hey, we watch people win the apprenticeship on TV and say, "That can be me"), we all keep playing the game. Well think about this. Donald Trump said last night that the winner of the apprentice came from a pool of 1 million applicants. So, if you really think you have a chance in this system, go for it.

PS I'll give you 5 to one odds that the Bristish guy who won the Apprentice last night knew someone on the inside, or had a friend or family connection. He certainly was better looking. In a world that's become Hollywood, it's all smoke and mirrors!

Oops, I just re-read this post and we're back to the issue of money and power. If I wasn't lazy I'd edit it so it all made sense. I'm going to save it for my blog. I've run out of time.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by theapplegenius
I'm sorry, but the amount of bullshit in that statement is off the charts!

I agree. While it's good to see Apple slam Creative, I hate seeing the tools they're using to do this. It just goes to show what a farce patent law, and a lot of other corporate law, has become. The legal system is being abused as a bludgeoning instrument in business turf wars, and who has more money to spend on lawyers becomes far more important than any legitimate questions of right and wrong behavior.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #16 of 20
all this patent bullcrap.


the system is obviously flawed for the new era. it needs a massive and i mean massive overhaul.
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Actually, Sandisk is the iPod's biggest competitor, at least in the U.S. I imagine Korea might be different.

Im 90% sure that Creative is the #2 MP3 player maker in the world... or at least in the USA. I believe Iriver is #3 and then Sandisk or Samsung.

COuld be wrong about the Iriver, but im almost positive about creative being #2. Still i think they are a sleezeball company that ripped off the Ipod with their new player and sling mudd rather than innovate-- and i am a big creative customer (for their cards... at least i used to be.
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by mike12309
Im 90% sure that Creative is the #2 MP3 player maker in the world... or at least in the USA. I believe Iriver is #3 and then Sandisk or Samsung.

COuld be wrong about the Iriver, but im almost positive about creative being #2. Still i think they are a sleezeball company that ripped off the Ipod with their new player and sling mudd rather than innovate-- and i am a big creative customer (for their cards... at least i used to be.

Well, you're 90% wrong.

post #19 of 20
I wish the corporate laws would change. But laws are no longer made in favor of what is wrong or what is right. It is about the law MAKERS. The best way to do something morally wrong or illegal, is to make it no longer illegal. This is done by a bribe, er, a lobbyist. That is a job at which you convince, with money or power, a lawmaker to change the law in favor of your scheme. In the corporate arena, there is no motivation to change much as way of copyrights, trademarks and patients. This is because the money and power are behind the ones who currently have those copyrights, trademarks and patients. Things will change only when it serves THEIR interests best. As far as the industry of "Patient Trolls", or people and companies that seek out lawsuits in favor of some "Squatting" or Bulls**t patient filing or loophole they think they have, in order to hope to settle for millions, I am in favor of completely squashing that industry. As for Creative, they are committing a desperate attempt of hurting their competition, rather that just coming up with something better. Bad move, and it may cost them the entire company for this gesture of malice.
-ReCompile-
"No matter where you go, There you are"
- Buckaroo Bonzai
Reply
-ReCompile-
"No matter where you go, There you are"
- Buckaroo Bonzai
Reply
post #20 of 20
Ummm... ok... so Creative somehow got a patent for menus and icons?! WTF?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Hostility mounts as Apple slams Creative with second suit