Creative wants to make money by suing Apple

I looked up the patent. It's mostly gibberish to me (as patent claims usually are), but it seems like Creative's claim here is against Apple's touch-sensitive click wheel. The patent was issued in 1988.

To take a look yourself, go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair and enter 6928433 in the search field.

I don't know if it's legit. I imagine Creative just discovered that they had this patent and thought "hoo-eee, who can we sue with this baby?"

Edit: Wait...looks like I'm completely wrong. I searched for application number 6928433, which is defined as "touch panel with discontinuities in touch sensitive surface". But I should have been searching for patent number 6928433, which is defined as "automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata", and was apparently filed in 2001 — before the first iPod was released.

If this patent is legit, it seems pretty clear that it covers the iPod interface. Interesting.
 
Mikuro said:
If this patent is legit, it seems pretty clear that it covers the iPod interface. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the iTunes interface... and Windows Media Player interface... and all of RIO's interfaces... and just about any interface that organizes data into categories where one particular piece of data can be accessed via multiple categories (think a "Marilyn Manson" song being accessed in both the "Marilyn Manson" playlist as well as the "Artists" playlist).

My VCR has this same kind of hierarchial categorizing interface. My guess is that any sane court will throw out the case, calling the patent "too broad" to be enforceable.

Hey, one of us might as well patent "suing the business that made a better product and put you out of business," then we could all sue Creative for being whiny babies.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Yeah, and the iTunes interface... and Windows Media Player interface... and all of RIO's interfaces...
Click to expand...
Actually, it wouldn't cover any of those. The patent is specific to software run on a portable music player. To quote the claim:
A method, performed by software executing on the processor of a portable music playback device, that automatically files tracks according to hierarchical structure of categories to organize tracks in a logical order. A user interface is utilized to change the hierarchy, view track names, and select tracks for playback or other operations.
Click to expand...
Still, you could be right. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts decide that the patent is null and void. Also, I'm fairly certain that Apple holds similar patents regarding desktop software (iTunes, etc.). That ought to help their case.


Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure that even covers the iPod, strictly speaking. Does the iPod's own software, running on the iPod's processor, do the sorting, or is all of that handled by iTunes? I think iTunes pre-builds the database, and the iPod just displays the contents of that database. I could be wrong, though.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
My VCR has this same kind of hierarchial categorizing interface. My guess is that any sane court will throw out the case, calling the patent "too broad" to be enforceable.
Click to expand...

I wonder why they approved the patent in the first place with so many blantant overlaps and inconsistencies…or maybe that's just typical?
 
I look at this as a failure of the U.S.'s current patent laws as they apply to todays technology. The patent on moving screens for portable music players small screen is just way to broad for my taste.
 
If you think about it logically it makes sense. Satcomer is right. The way patents are taken care of today isn't up-to-date with the technology we are coming up with now.

AppleRumors.com had a bit more to say on the topic, sounds really scary!

Creative also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission and is seeking an investigation into whether Apple violated the Tarrif Act by importing and selling iPods (iPods are manufactured overseas before being sold in the U.S. and elsewhere). If Creative is granted a cease-and-desist order against Apple, Apple would be forced to stop importing, selling, and marketing the iPod in the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
if they pull that off, i say we sue creative for interfering with our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, because it made me very unhappy that i couldn't go buy an ipod when i wanted to!
 
From what I've been reading, the dispute claims the patent was granted before the iPod was released.... but not before it was developed. I'm sure Apple can just turn in their R&D documents to show that the interface was developed LONG before Creative was granted a patent for it.
 
...and now Apple are counter-suing! :D

I know I should probably not take pleasure in this and should see the whole situation as petty, but Creative's opportunist law suit annoys me and so I was happy to see Apple "reply" in this way.

http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/06/05/18/apple.vs.creative/
iPodNN said:
Apple this week filed a lawsuit against its smaller rival Creative Technologies, after it publicized its lawsuit and government complaint against the Cupertino-based iPod maker earlier this week. According to Bloomberg News, Apple has sued Creative in federal court in Wisconsin on Monday, the same day Creative filed its patent suit against Apple, alleging that Creative has infringed on four of Apple's patents. Earlier this week, Creative announced it had filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) as well as filed a lawsuit for in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and increased damages for Apple's willful infringement of U.S. Patent 6,928,433 (the "Zen Patent"), while the USITC complaint requests that the Commission begin an investigation of whether Apple has violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 through its importation and sale after importation into the United States of iPods and iPod Nanos that infringe the Zen Patent.


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

Meanwhile, Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo told the BBC that he will aggressively protect his company's US "Zen Patent" relating to the navigation of music on MP3 or other audio players and hopes to earn royalties from other manufacturers that use the patented navigations system. He also noted that Creative is already in talks with parties over the Zen Patent, which was awarded in August of last year.

"Hopefully this will be friendly, but people have to respect intellectual property," Sim said.
Click to expand...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/18/business/ipod.php

International Herald Tribune said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
It's absolutely ridiculous. First they declare war on the iPod, then they don't come out with anything that actually can compete, so they sue instead. Very lame. I thought you couldn't patent blatantly obvious things, but I guess not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top