So, Dell's out of the MP3 business, Creative looks like it's on the way out (really, iPod accessories and Zens? I just don't see it).
Who's next? Is Zune going to be that last little push for Sony and Samsung to exit the player only market and concentrate on music phones? I think Samsung might be next-- Sony is too invested in the Walkman legacy to every really give up, no matter how tiny their market share.
So do we end up with Apple, MS and SanDisk as the only A list manufacturers of stand alone MP3 players left (with any appreciable market share)? SanDisk keeps on because they're smart about incentives for their retail partners and their flash business lets them control costs. MS keeps on, no matter what the reception for Zune, because MS can throw money at a market till the sun implodes.
Am I missing anyone?
Well, Apple's worldwide marketshare was less than 30% from the last time I saw the figures, so they are not out yet.
No, it does not. The only legit patent right now is the one Creative holds. Any other "prior art" is irrelevant at this point; as Apple too has recognized that Creative has a pretty strong case, hence the settlement. Now, whether it was Creative or Apple or NeXT or Papa Big Crap that originally came up with the idea is a totally different debate.
Creative got the patent, Apple saw that it couldn't win the case, and that's that. No need to demonize Creative because it saw the opportunity to extract some money from Apple, the company that sued another company back in the '80 for a cause as stupefying as "look and feel". (It lost).
But... as part of this deal, does Creative get iTunes compatibility for their players?
An interesting question also. But nothing was mentioned about it, so likely not.
Quote:
Additionally, this is a one time licensing deal. Very smart, Jobs. Creative gets their quick cash infusion, then continues to bleed money into irrelevance in the near future.
Apple had two choices: legitimize the patent, and pay, or beat the patent, and let everyone else in the industry copy the interface at will.
They paid.
Now Creative can go after everyone else. Say, Zune? Apple gets a portion of the licensing fees.
Apple also got Creative on board as an iPod accessory maker, which means that Creative will now be making Zens, and iPod accessories. Guess which line will get dropped first?
Game. Set. Match. All for a measly 100M$. That's pennies in comparison to what's at stake.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right. It's about putting an end to frivilous lawsuits by NOT SETTLING. The reason there are so many suits is because people who commit fraud know they can make easy money from companies who settle. Slip and fall in a grocery store? Just threaten to sue and you can settle for $8,500 -- even if you faked your own fall! I've worked for many a company who settle case after case because they said "it would cost more to do the right thing."
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
Those reasons you gave have nothing to do with this issue. It's not about a theoretical right and wrong, it's about business, and what's right, in the long run, for the business.
This settlement was the right thing to do. Apple most likely had good reason to think they might not win this.
People here thinking that this was a slam dunk are just expressing feelings. Have any of you actually read, and understood both Apple's, and Creatives patents involved here? Or the methodology, or the interface itself in detail? No?
I'm sure Apple did.
Apple made out just fine here. It won't benefit creative past this quarter. $100 million is a paltry sum for companies in this business. It will be spent quickly, probably in developing that line of "Made for iPod" accessories. You can think of it as Apple supplying some development money to Creative to manufacturer devices that will help Apple sell more iPods.
I thought it was Plays For Sure? Whatever it is, it's looking kinda dead right now, or if not, it's on its last legs.
I think you're right on the name, but yeah, it's toast now that Zune is bypassing it.
Masterstroke on MS's part - get everyone on board on the train going East, then build new tracks, a new line, and new faster trains going West, and don't invite anyone else on.
One thing's for sure. Apple's patent lawyer (and legal team) shoud be strung up and beaten like a red-headed stepchild for either not doing due diligence on this issue, or being proactive enough to patent this in the early development stage. Patent applications are complex, but fer cryin' out loud, this was a $100 million problem that shouldn't have been.
You can't blame the lawyers for this though. I know they are an easy target. But before it gets to the lawyers, it has to be finished. As none of us know what was going on at Apple we can't say. The same thing happened, remember, with MS. Apple missed the boat there as well.
Well here's the thing - this *was* a bogus patent. The basic UI idea had been kicking around for 20 years, more or less. The *only* reason Creative got it was that the USPTO screwed up.
However, once it was granted, and the lawsuit started, this was the best outcome for both companies, and for the consumer. Ironic, but true.
I agree with Ageis on this. I'm not so sure it's bogus. There has been much discussion about it everywhere. It's more than just the way it looks on the screen. It's the underlying functionality, what it's actually doing.
It's not looking at files the way the finder does. It's finding them like Spotlight does, and then presenting them in a menu based fashion.
When did Apple finish Spotlight? Is it presented this way? Did they patent it? If they did, it's much later.
Who knows if Apple didn't get the idea from Creative's patent?
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right. It's about putting an end to frivilous lawsuits by NOT SETTLING. The reason there are so many suits is because people who commit fraud know they can make easy money from companies who settle. Slip and fall in a grocery store? Just threaten to sue and you can settle for $8,500 -- even if you faked your own fall! I've worked for many a company who settle case after case because they said "it would cost more to do the right thing."
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
Two idiotic posts on the same thread! Where's Ireland when you need him?
I agree with Ageis on this. I'm not so sure it's bogus. There has been much discussion about it everywhere. It's more than just the way it looks on the screen. It's the underlying functionality, what it's actually doing.
It's not looking at files the way the finder does. It's finding them like Spotlight does, and then presenting them in a menu based fashion.
I do believe DB/2 could be used as prior art for such a lookup...
While I do now agree that it is not as simple as the UI, having read the patent claims, it's... still lame. Database lookup + hierarchical menus + portable music player. *shrug*
I do believe DB/2 could be used as prior art for such a lookup...
While I do now agree that it is not as simple as the UI, having read the patent claims, it's... still lame. Database lookup + hierarchical menus + portable music player. *shrug*
It's over and done.
Yes, it is, but if you would like to read the patent app., here it is:
Well, Apple's worldwide marketshare was less than 30% from the last time I saw the figures, so they are not out yet.
Sure, but the vast bulk of world wide MP3 player sales are dirt cheap, no-name low capacity flash players, which are unlikely to stage a concerted run on the iPod.
Apple still dwarfs the usual suspects, increasingly. I think the trend world wide is the same as the US, except for the world popularity of cheap 'n tiny flash players manufactured by dozens of small players ("other"). The personal computer/iPod combo is still wildly beyond the means of the vast majority of the world's peoples, but so are any other "mainstream" MP3 player.
During the opening of the French and British iTMS Jobs was claiming 52% world wide market share, whatever that means. It is true that iRiver has dropped out since the chart was made.
At any rate, you can see that Creative wasn't hanging onto international market share any better than US market share, and they're the next biggest after Apple, world wide. Without Creative the world market is basically Apple and "other". I can't see Apple offering anything that would compete with "other", but neither does "other" bode to capture the hearts and minds of Apples target demo.
Sure, but the vast bulk of world wide MP3 player sales are dirt cheap, no-name low capacity flash players, which are unlikely to stage a concerted run on the iPod.
Apple still dwarfs the usual suspects, increasingly. I think the trend world wide is the same as the US, except for the world popularity of cheap 'n tiny flash players manufactured by dozens of small players ("other"). The personal computer/iPod combo is still wildly beyond the means of the vast majority of the world's peoples, but so are any other "mainstream" MP3 player.
During the opening of the French and British iTMS Jobs was claiming 52% world wide market share, whatever that means. It is true that iRiver has dropped out since the chart was made.
At any rate, you can see that Creative wasn't hanging onto international market share any better than US market share, and they're the next biggest after Apple, world wide. Without Creative the world market is basically Apple and "other". I can't see Apple offering anything that would compete with "other", but neither does "other" bode to capture the hearts and minds of Apples target demo.
I agree that most of the "other" manufacturers are local brands. But Apple is not yet near domination worldwide.
It does look interesting that the major brands seem to be squeezed between Apple and the "unknowns". That's very unusual.
But, even in this country, Creative has only a 4.3% marketshare this year, trailing not only apple's 75.6%, but SanDisk's 9.7% as well.
I agree that most of the "other" manufacturers are local brands. But Apple is not yet near domination worldwide.
It does look interesting that the major brands seem to be squeezed between Apple and the "unknowns". That's very unusual.
But, even in this country, Creative has only a 4.3% marketshare this year, trailing not only apple's 75.6%, but SanDisk's 9.7% as well.
Yeah, I thought it was interesting that SanDisk's world wide market share is so small. I would have thought that their focus on flash based players using their own kit would work well in global markets-- even better than the US.
It might have something to do with the deals SanDisk has made with US big box retailers that give them ample shelf space and mind share. Possibly the sales channels world wide are more diversified?
Comments
So, Dell's out of the MP3 business, Creative looks like it's on the way out (really, iPod accessories and Zens? I just don't see it).
Who's next? Is Zune going to be that last little push for Sony and Samsung to exit the player only market and concentrate on music phones? I think Samsung might be next-- Sony is too invested in the Walkman legacy to every really give up, no matter how tiny their market share.
So do we end up with Apple, MS and SanDisk as the only A list manufacturers of stand alone MP3 players left (with any appreciable market share)? SanDisk keeps on because they're smart about incentives for their retail partners and their flash business lets them control costs. MS keeps on, no matter what the reception for Zune, because MS can throw money at a market till the sun implodes.
Am I missing anyone?
Well, Apple's worldwide marketshare was less than 30% from the last time I saw the figures, so they are not out yet.
Wow. So, they copied (or accidently developed) the column view, put it on their player and they win. Doesn't seem right to me.
- Mark
It's probably a bit more complex an issue than that.
Let me see if I've got this straight...
-
... does that sum up the situation?
No, it does not. The only legit patent right now is the one Creative holds. Any other "prior art" is irrelevant at this point; as Apple too has recognized that Creative has a pretty strong case, hence the settlement. Now, whether it was Creative or Apple or NeXT or Papa Big Crap that originally came up with the idea is a totally different debate.
Creative got the patent, Apple saw that it couldn't win the case, and that's that. No need to demonize Creative because it saw the opportunity to extract some money from Apple, the company that sued another company back in the '80 for a cause as stupefying as "look and feel". (It lost).
But... as part of this deal, does Creative get iTunes compatibility for their players?
An interesting question also. But nothing was mentioned about it, so likely not.
Additionally, this is a one time licensing deal. Very smart, Jobs. Creative gets their quick cash infusion, then continues to bleed money into irrelevance in the near future.
Attorneys do what you want them to do. I think this deal has Jobs' fingerprints all over it.
Their job is also telling the likelihood of winning, and what it will cost.
Then the client decides.
J SureToPlay
I thought it was Plays For Sure? Whatever it is, it's looking kinda dead right now, or if not, it's on its last legs.
Let me see if I've got this straight...
Apple bases their interface on the MacOS X/NeXT columns view.
Creative bases their interface on the MacOS X/NeXT columns view.
Apple is late in patenting said interface.
Creative is not late in patenting said interface.
The fact that Apple's patent is legit and Creative's is not is irrelevant as filing dates are the only thing that matter.
... does that sum up the situation?
No.
Damn minimum character length.
Oh, but this is delicious.
Apple had two choices: legitimize the patent, and pay, or beat the patent, and let everyone else in the industry copy the interface at will.
They paid.
Now Creative can go after everyone else. Say, Zune? Apple gets a portion of the licensing fees.
Apple also got Creative on board as an iPod accessory maker, which means that Creative will now be making Zens, and iPod accessories. Guess which line will get dropped first?
Game. Set. Match. All for a measly 100M$. That's pennies in comparison to what's at stake.
An an AAPL shareholder, I could not be happier.
Me too.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right. It's about putting an end to frivilous lawsuits by NOT SETTLING. The reason there are so many suits is because people who commit fraud know they can make easy money from companies who settle. Slip and fall in a grocery store? Just threaten to sue and you can settle for $8,500 -- even if you faked your own fall! I've worked for many a company who settle case after case because they said "it would cost more to do the right thing."
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
Those reasons you gave have nothing to do with this issue. It's not about a theoretical right and wrong, it's about business, and what's right, in the long run, for the business.
This settlement was the right thing to do. Apple most likely had good reason to think they might not win this.
People here thinking that this was a slam dunk are just expressing feelings. Have any of you actually read, and understood both Apple's, and Creatives patents involved here? Or the methodology, or the interface itself in detail? No?
I'm sure Apple did.
Apple made out just fine here. It won't benefit creative past this quarter. $100 million is a paltry sum for companies in this business. It will be spent quickly, probably in developing that line of "Made for iPod" accessories. You can think of it as Apple supplying some development money to Creative to manufacturer devices that will help Apple sell more iPods.
I thought it was Plays For Sure? Whatever it is, it's looking kinda dead right now, or if not, it's on its last legs.
I think you're right on the name, but yeah, it's toast now that Zune is bypassing it.
Masterstroke on MS's part - get everyone on board on the train going East, then build new tracks, a new line, and new faster trains going West, and don't invite anyone else on.
One thing's for sure. Apple's patent lawyer (and legal team) shoud be strung up and beaten like a red-headed stepchild for either not doing due diligence on this issue, or being proactive enough to patent this in the early development stage. Patent applications are complex, but fer cryin' out loud, this was a $100 million problem that shouldn't have been.
You can't blame the lawyers for this though. I know they are an easy target. But before it gets to the lawyers, it has to be finished. As none of us know what was going on at Apple we can't say. The same thing happened, remember, with MS. Apple missed the boat there as well.
Well here's the thing - this *was* a bogus patent. The basic UI idea had been kicking around for 20 years, more or less. The *only* reason Creative got it was that the USPTO screwed up.
However, once it was granted, and the lawsuit started, this was the best outcome for both companies, and for the consumer. Ironic, but true.
I agree with Ageis on this. I'm not so sure it's bogus. There has been much discussion about it everywhere. It's more than just the way it looks on the screen. It's the underlying functionality, what it's actually doing.
It's not looking at files the way the finder does. It's finding them like Spotlight does, and then presenting them in a menu based fashion.
When did Apple finish Spotlight? Is it presented this way? Did they patent it? If they did, it's much later.
Who knows if Apple didn't get the idea from Creative's patent?
Microsoft paid Apple $150M and see what happened.
MS was locked into a monopoly problem at the time. It has been speculated that they helped prop Apple up because they needed Apple as a counterweight.
MS made out like a bandit on that investment when they divested themselves of it.
Laywers = money. Hence Lawyers are the root of all evil.
The actual quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil". The rest of your post makes just about as much sense.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right. It's about putting an end to frivilous lawsuits by NOT SETTLING. The reason there are so many suits is because people who commit fraud know they can make easy money from companies who settle. Slip and fall in a grocery store? Just threaten to sue and you can settle for $8,500 -- even if you faked your own fall! I've worked for many a company who settle case after case because they said "it would cost more to do the right thing."
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
Two idiotic posts on the same thread! Where's Ireland when you need him?
I agree with Ageis on this. I'm not so sure it's bogus. There has been much discussion about it everywhere. It's more than just the way it looks on the screen. It's the underlying functionality, what it's actually doing.
It's not looking at files the way the finder does. It's finding them like Spotlight does, and then presenting them in a menu based fashion.
I do believe DB/2 could be used as prior art for such a lookup...
While I do now agree that it is not as simple as the UI, having read the patent claims, it's... still lame. Database lookup + hierarchical menus + portable music player. *shrug*
It's over and done.
I do believe DB/2 could be used as prior art for such a lookup...
While I do now agree that it is not as simple as the UI, having read the patent claims, it's... still lame. Database lookup + hierarchical menus + portable music player. *shrug*
It's over and done.
Yes, it is, but if you would like to read the patent app., here it is:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6928433
Well, Apple's worldwide marketshare was less than 30% from the last time I saw the figures, so they are not out yet.
Sure, but the vast bulk of world wide MP3 player sales are dirt cheap, no-name low capacity flash players, which are unlikely to stage a concerted run on the iPod.
Apple still dwarfs the usual suspects, increasingly. I think the trend world wide is the same as the US, except for the world popularity of cheap 'n tiny flash players manufactured by dozens of small players ("other"). The personal computer/iPod combo is still wildly beyond the means of the vast majority of the world's peoples, but so are any other "mainstream" MP3 player.
During the opening of the French and British iTMS Jobs was claiming 52% world wide market share, whatever that means. It is true that iRiver has dropped out since the chart was made.
At any rate, you can see that Creative wasn't hanging onto international market share any better than US market share, and they're the next biggest after Apple, world wide. Without Creative the world market is basically Apple and "other". I can't see Apple offering anything that would compete with "other", but neither does "other" bode to capture the hearts and minds of Apples target demo.
Sure, but the vast bulk of world wide MP3 player sales are dirt cheap, no-name low capacity flash players, which are unlikely to stage a concerted run on the iPod.
Apple still dwarfs the usual suspects, increasingly. I think the trend world wide is the same as the US, except for the world popularity of cheap 'n tiny flash players manufactured by dozens of small players ("other"). The personal computer/iPod combo is still wildly beyond the means of the vast majority of the world's peoples, but so are any other "mainstream" MP3 player.
During the opening of the French and British iTMS Jobs was claiming 52% world wide market share, whatever that means. It is true that iRiver has dropped out since the chart was made.
At any rate, you can see that Creative wasn't hanging onto international market share any better than US market share, and they're the next biggest after Apple, world wide. Without Creative the world market is basically Apple and "other". I can't see Apple offering anything that would compete with "other", but neither does "other" bode to capture the hearts and minds of Apples target demo.
I agree that most of the "other" manufacturers are local brands. But Apple is not yet near domination worldwide.
It does look interesting that the major brands seem to be squeezed between Apple and the "unknowns". That's very unusual.
But, even in this country, Creative has only a 4.3% marketshare this year, trailing not only apple's 75.6%, but SanDisk's 9.7% as well.
I agree that most of the "other" manufacturers are local brands. But Apple is not yet near domination worldwide.
It does look interesting that the major brands seem to be squeezed between Apple and the "unknowns". That's very unusual.
But, even in this country, Creative has only a 4.3% marketshare this year, trailing not only apple's 75.6%, but SanDisk's 9.7% as well.
Yeah, I thought it was interesting that SanDisk's world wide market share is so small. I would have thought that their focus on flash based players using their own kit would work well in global markets-- even better than the US.
It might have something to do with the deals SanDisk has made with US big box retailers that give them ample shelf space and mind share. Possibly the sales channels world wide are more diversified?