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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
...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.
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!
Comments
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
Get.
Over.
Yourself.
Gotta love the irony on this one. A patological suer has been slapped with a couple of big ones lately. Ooh, ooh, the horror!
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.
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.
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.
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!
Chief, I think you can do w/out the 4-letter "superlatives" to get your point across!
I've calmed down a bit now
...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.
...Perhaps Xerox PARC?...
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!