Creative seeks injunction against Apple

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 75
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    ROFLMAO
  • Reply 62 of 75
    appleriscapplerisc Posts: 31member
    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.
  • Reply 63 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,509member
    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.
  • Reply 64 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,509member
    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.
  • Reply 65 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,509member
    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?
  • Reply 66 of 75
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    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
  • Reply 67 of 75
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    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
  • Reply 68 of 75
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    All I can say is thank god for the Sony Bean, god bless that bean....



  • Reply 69 of 75
    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
  • Reply 70 of 75
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    My iPod mini died just about after a year

    I just use it as a 4gb mini-backup now.
  • Reply 71 of 75
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The plot thickens Apple sues Creative for patent infringement. That means Apple must have been ready for something like this.
  • Reply 72 of 75
    Apple is claiming Creative is infringing on four of its patents.
  • Reply 73 of 75
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    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.
  • Reply 74 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,509member
    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?
  • Reply 75 of 75
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    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."
Sign In or Register to comment.