iLounge

21

And to the poster who said that “Creative won this round”, yes, in a way. Because had it gone to court, the company would probably not have been able to afford the costs of protracted suits. Apple was very smart in doing this - 100 million is chump change for them right now, regardless of who was right or wrong, and clears them to deal with real issues, such as releasing new iPods, instead of worrying about lawsuits (that Creative might not have won…).

Posted by Kirk McElhearn on August 24, 2006 at 12:25 AM (PST)

22

If Apple pays, then Creative must have been right. I dont pay, if I know I will win (and I AM a lawyer (in Germany)).

Posted by Sami on August 24, 2006 at 3:44 AM (PST)

23

...if that’s the way it works in germany, i’m glad for y’all.

that’s not how the cookies crumble here in the states.  in a sense, this could have been a huge, drawn out, frustrating legal wrangling session.  it would have, most likely, been front page news.  apple paid because creative did “have the patent”, and it’s easier to shake hands and move on than to get in a pissing match, where only the stronger company (apple) loses, no matter what the outcome, because of a loss of face in the public forum.

perhaps your media isn’t so blood thirsty as ours is, but that’s the way it would have fallen out.

Posted by OnlyShawn on August 24, 2006 at 4:42 AM (PST)

24

talking madness is wrong yet again.

From Slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194862&cid=15968071

Posted by The Raven on August 24, 2006 at 5:08 AM (PST)

25

>>My, am I glad I don’t live in America>>

Your loss!

Posted by Mark on August 24, 2006 at 5:49 AM (PST)

26

but you forgot some key elements…

I didn’t forget ANY “key” elements; the points you brought up are irrelevant to the contention made in the original posting I responded to. Voting power was not at issue, nor was the tidy profit Redmond made in selling the Apple stock; the act of MSFT “investing” into a sinking AAPL (at that time) was the entire and only point.

Posted by flatline response on August 24, 2006 at 7:49 AM (PST)

27

Raven-

Hey, I miss you, and I see you missed me, but the link you posted is absurd.

For the most part, everyone felt Creative was on its way out of this game, so where’s the downside to leaving with a $100 million payout?  And, Creative will not be fighting any battle on Apple’s behalf, that’s the most out there thing you’ve ever suggested.

If any precedent was set it was that companies are not gonna back down from Apple.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on August 24, 2006 at 9:47 AM (PST)

28

Since the menu system is so damn basic to begin with, they should just CHANGE it already!! With all of the portable processors available, I’m sure they could stick a 3D accelerator chip in there and create a fantastic looking menu.

Posted by kloan on August 24, 2006 at 2:00 PM (PST)

29

kloan,
what do we need 3D accelerators for (unless they help with video playback)?  Who really cares how the menus look?  I care about their ease of use and I care about how the music sounds and how much music the player can hold and how long the battery lasts.  Everything else is secondary.

Posted by mo_storage_please on August 25, 2006 at 4:52 AM (PST)

30

Everything else is secondary.

When it comes to iPods and DAPs in general, a LOT of people don’t think like you, however. Otherwise, Zens and iRivers and several of the rest wouldn’t do as poorly as they have, particularly in the U.S. market.

Posted by flatline response on August 26, 2006 at 7:43 AM (PST)