iLounge

41

You don’t know jack!

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 2, 2005 at 8:29 PM (PDT)

42

Apple’s iPod and its navigational system has been around for a good number of years, as many iPod fans can attest to… And for a very long period of time, though Creative has been working zealously to outdo Apple’s iPod with its own Zen players, it has been left eating Apple’s dust… I can’t help but wonder if this patent dispute is another of Creative’s attempts at being the “iPod-killer”, albeit,in my opinion, a slightly grudgeful manner… Well… maybe desperate times do call for desperate measures…

Posted by pod-mad on September 2, 2005 at 8:41 PM (PDT)

43

In November 2004, three popular websites about Apple rumors released information about two unreleased Apple products, the Mac mini and an as yet unreleased product codenamed Asteroid, also known as Project Q97. Apple Insider, Power Page, and Think Secret were all brought into the suit under the grounds that they published trade secrets. The suit has brought up the current status of bloggers, and whether they hold the same protection that journalists do. In February 2005 it was decided by a court official in California that the bloggers do not have the same shield laws as journalists. They were forced to give up their sources, leading to multiple other lawsuits. In a related case, all three websites have gone on to fight the journalistic status decision, and are also in the process of settling with Apple Computer.

How do you like them Apples?

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 2, 2005 at 8:56 PM (PDT)

44

ummmmm okay, lets see the iPod has been out since 2001, has changed little when it comes to the OS and just now Creative stays they’re “infringing” on a patent?? I say Creative you lose, it took you 4 years to say something, so you lose......case closed.

Posted by matrixsjd on September 4, 2005 at 12:44 AM (PDT)

45

No matrixsjd, and all the other idiots here who say Creative are out for revenge. This patent was filed long before the rise of Ipod sales. Read Demosthenes’ post and learn something. This whole unconditional love of Apple is kind of sad.

Posted by Dirty Idea on September 4, 2005 at 3:37 PM (PDT)

46

OKay I don’t understand how this patent is enforceable, they filed for it a long time ago yes, but it wasn’t awarded to them until last month, how can they sue Apple for using a system for years before it was officially patented??

Posted by OAKTREELIVEPF on September 5, 2005 at 12:39 PM (PDT)

47

The Raven: “WRONG.  The burden is on Creative to prove that Apple violated the patent.”

Creative: “In my right hand I have my patent for a hierarchial menu UI for a portable DAP. In my left hand I have the Apple iPod, which uses a hierachial menu system. If I HAD another hand, it would be empty since nowhere is there any agreement with us that says that Apple can use such a menu system. Our Nomad Jukebox came to market with a hierarchial UI came out almost a year before the first iPod, to which we filed for a patent on the UI design a couple of months thereafter. As a result, our patent application was filed 18 months before theirs, and months before their player even hit store shelves.”

How much more proof do you think Creative will need? Again, if they choose to fight, I think Apple’s only recourse is to try to show prior art, IF they decide not to or can’t negotiate a deal between themselves and Creative.

Frankly, I can’t imagine another UI as straightforward in concept as a hierarchial menu system, but perhaps Apple could come up with something else…

matrixsjd: Prior to the awarding of the patent, Creative could not legally say anything. More than likely their own legal advisors probably TOLD THEM not to push it, either, until the patent was finalized and there was legal ground to stand on.

OAKTREELIVEPF: It can also be argued that Apple didn’t do their patent research prior to issuing the 1G iPod. Patent research attorneys would’ve identified Creative’s early 2001 application, and raised flags for Apple’s management. So either Apple ignored the warnings, thought Creative’s app was without merit, or they didn’t bother to look; I suspect it’s the latter since they filed their own 18 months later. Pending patent applications are almost as powerful as the actual award, since they spell out the process or technology that’s seeking protection at the time of filing. Anyone else proceeding with similar technology and basically ignoring the resources of the Patent Office is opening themselves up for a potential tumble. From what I understand, once the patent is awarded the applicant is protected from the date that the original application was accepted, and not from the date of the award (that takes away any issues and financial hardships due to a slow review process). Creative can argue that Apple SHOULD’VE been researching the Patent Office. They can also insinuate that Apple could easily study the Nomad Jukebox’s UI as well. Creative getting that patent was not one of Apple’s better days.

Posted by flatline response on September 5, 2005 at 1:44 PM (PDT)

48

Flatline-

Great response.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 5, 2005 at 7:22 PM (PDT)

49

As I said many times before on here: Creative only has a leg to stand on because some idiot recognized a poorly-written, pathetic ATTMEMPT at a patent as a real patent. Apple should win if they are taken to court and this judge has even half a brain, and he or she can see this weak try at a patent as just a bunch of paper that could be better served as “diaper wipes.”

Posted by Jack on September 5, 2005 at 8:54 PM (PDT)

50

Jack, it’s better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Once again...you proved you don’t know jack.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 5, 2005 at 11:42 PM (PDT)

51

Link

Craig McHugh, president of Creative’s U.S. unit, aims to use the patent to chip away at Apple’s reputation for being the industry’s only innovator. “When people hear we have the patent that makes these devices so easy to use, who really is the inventive company? It could cause people to reevaluate what they think [about Apple].”

Posted by Demosthenes on September 6, 2005 at 6:14 PM (PDT)

52

Okay let me set something straight. Creative started making players in 1998, apple did so in 2002. creative has the rights because unlike most people think, apple copied creative and its iterface design. the way apple is right now goes against what they used to stand for--breaking away from the ibm’s monopoly-- now their the monopoly and creative’s doing the breaking away with better features etc. the zen vision m kicks the ipod video’s a$$.

Posted by creative on January 29, 2006 at 1:35 AM (PDT)