Apple files second copyright suit against Creative | iLounge News

Apple files second copyright suit against Creative

Apple has filed a second copyright lawsuit and a U.S. trade complaint against Creative Technology, according to Channel NewsAsia. “In its latest lawsuit, Apple claims Creative is infringing three patents relating to using icons, and displaying and editing data,” reports the publication. “It is asking for cash damages and a court order to stop Creative from further breaches. At the same time, Apple wants the International Trade Commission in Washington to block imports of Creative’s music players.” Creative sued Apple last month for infringing on its “Zen Patent.” Following the company’s legal actions, Apple countersued Creative.

Related Stories



You think Apple’s strategy is to hit Creative with as many lawsuits as possible until they drop the original lawsuit?

Posted by ahMEmon on June 6, 2006 at 10:51 AM (CDT)


Hell hath no fury like the unleashed mass of Apple’s lawyers ...

Posted by bipto on June 6, 2006 at 10:56 AM (CDT)


That’s why they get paid the big bucks !!!

Posted by ydkjman on June 6, 2006 at 11:21 AM (CDT)


Can’t we all get along… :)

On a serious note - I’m tired of all these lawsuites.  Seems like there’s a new one everyweek.  Most of them trying to sew apple.  It’s rediculous!  these companies need to put that money to building better products.

Posted by 3rdEye on June 6, 2006 at 11:55 AM (CDT)


Bye bye creative.  You sucked anyway.

Posted by George Dubya on June 6, 2006 at 11:55 AM (CDT)


I think we’re going to see a bunch more of these until Creative drops their suit against Apple.  Notice that it was Creative who made the first move and then Apple slammed them pretty hard.  My question is if Creative drops their suit do you think Apple will drop all of theirs, or will they continue until Creative is dead?

Posted by linedpaper on June 6, 2006 at 12:08 PM (CDT)


WOW, Looks like Apple is going in for the kill and clean up.

You shot yourself in the foot Creative.

Posted by Real Reply on June 6, 2006 at 12:11 PM (CDT)


Hell hath no fury like a Steven scorned…

Posted by Rene on June 6, 2006 at 12:15 PM (CDT)


Looks like Apple is fighting fire with fire. Or, fighting fire with a complete inferno of fury.
And since Apple came out with their player before Creative came out with theirs, they’ve got the upper hand when it comes to design claims.
I can see how the tactic could work. Creative sues Apple on a technicality (since they designed an interface like Apple’s after Apple designed theirs—though it is a common and expected sort of interface—but Creative got the patent first). So Creative found one small technicality to sue on. Chances are, since the iPod existed first, Apple can find many of their designs mirrored in the Creative player.
I get the tactic and think it might work.
I know some people are saying they’re sick of the legal stuff, but legal is legal. When companies start attacking others legally in order to hurt the other company, both are going to have to hit the other with everything they have legally in order to protect themselves.

Posted by T.L. on June 6, 2006 at 12:25 PM (CDT)


So when Apple release an update that completely trashes your iPOD, would Creative then sue because they did that first…

Yeesh - I agree with everyone else, quit the lawsuits already and understand that iPOD has somewhat cornered the portable music player market.

Posted by XOR on June 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM (CDT)


Creative actually came out with an MP3 player before the iPod…...and it has the interface BEFORE the iPod

Posted by hoho on June 6, 2006 at 1:12 PM (CDT)


Its not a second copyright suit.  Its a patent suit.  Lets not mix our IP.

Posted by Geof on June 6, 2006 at 1:57 PM (CDT)


first, do some of you think that Creative makes MP3 players only? go check their website, or rather check your sound card in your computer.
second, assuming that the iPod came out first, it is possible that creative started developing first (or about the same time) and took them a while to get a product.
Creative’s DAPs are poor in physical design (bulky and uncomfortable controls) and if they do stop making them that does not mean they are out of business.

Posted by slayer on June 6, 2006 at 2:06 PM (CDT)


Creative’s Nomad was available before the iPod. However, it is unlikely that they’ll win the lawsuit. Not only is their patent incredibly obvious, a victory would mean that every MP3 manufacturer should pay them for it.

Anyway, unless they win this could certainly be a big blow to Creative. Although they sell quite a few different products, their main benefits come from MP3 players and from sound cards, and lately Creative has been loosing market quite fast in the later market, thanks to motherboards with integrated soundcards.

Posted by S. on June 6, 2006 at 2:25 PM (CDT)


Hoho - Creative’s player and interface that they claim Apple stole came out AFTER Apple already had their interface and iPod out. Get your facts straight.

Posted by Fluent . . . on June 6, 2006 at 2:40 PM (CDT)



Ummm. his facts are straight unless you have a different definition of “Before” than the rest of the world.

Creative released their Jukebox 1 (with this interface) in Dec 99’.  The patent was filed a little over a YEAR after that in Jan 2001, and Apple released the iPod 9month AFTER that patent was filed.  So that is at least 1 year 9months after Creative has a shipping product.

Also, don’t forget that Apple also tried to file for this patent.  It was denied for prior art.  Who’s prior art?  Creative’s.

Basically you have a big company stealing an interface from a much smaller company, running with it, and when brought to court about it, is trying to stomp the little guy into being quiet.

Posted by MikeTV on June 6, 2006 at 3:35 PM (CDT)


“Basically you have a big company stealing an interface from a much smaller company, running with it, and when brought to court about it, is trying to stomp the little guy into being quiet.”

No, basically you have a little company that was granted a patent for a navigation system that has existed in many forms before.  The patent will be revoked if this thing ever gets to court, which isn’t likely.

Posted by The Raven on June 6, 2006 at 3:48 PM (CDT)


The Raven,

I’m sorry, I must have missed that.  Which portable music player from 1999 or before used a heirarchy meta-tag based interface?

Don’t forget that one must consider the products at the time, and how obvious the patent “at that time” was, not how obvious it seems today, 5 years of iPod’s and other MP3 players later.

At that time, I believe the only other portable players were using folder structures to navigate the music contained.  Not an automated meta-tag sorting system.

Posted by MikeTV on June 6, 2006 at 4:05 PM (CDT)


Look at their Nomand player (1999), which their patent was based and compare it to the iPod (2001-2006). The iPod basicle has the same UI from its introduction, while the Creative players looked more and more like the iPod over the years.

Posted by dave95 on June 6, 2006 at 4:56 PM (CDT)



The Diamond Rio used a heirarchy meta-tag based interface, prior to the Nomad in 12/98.

Posted by NickH on June 6, 2006 at 5:54 PM (CDT)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2019 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy