[baw]

Originally Posted by digg.com

Creative Technology, a maker of portable music players, has accused Apple Computer of violating a newly granted software patent covering the way users navigate music selections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/te...F6FUF+zDp28org

[Kevin]

Wont go anywhere. Creative is just wants some attention.

[rickey939]

Yeah, that's not even a creative attempt for attention by Creative Technology.

[demograph68]

Apple would do the same if they were in Creative's shoes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Apple would do the same if they were in Creative's shoes.

Only if they thought they could win.

[Randman]

If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Apple would do the same if they were in Creative's shoes.

Apple has bigger feet.

[Millennium]

What ever happened to the first-to-invent policy which is (at least for the time being) still used in the US? Creative's patent is invalid if it can be shown that someone else invented it first, and I rather think this can be shown.

[Big Mac]

Millennium, you are of course correct - the same thing applies to that ridiculous patent filed by Microsoft against the iPod. It appears to me that Creative is screaming at Apple, BUY ME, I'M A CHEAP WHORE! IANAL, but it appears to me that the USPTO has gotten really lazy and allows bogus patents to get through based on the presumption that those with preexisting art will have the ability to invalidate said patents in court.

[michaeljohn63]

Originally Posted by Millennium

What ever happened to the first-to-invent policy which is (at least for the time being) still used in the US? Creative's patent is invalid if it can be shown that someone else invented it first, and I rather think this can be shown.

I had the same question, with this patent, and with Microsoft's. Is it even possible the idiots at the patent office are unaware of the iPod, and how long its been around. Frankly, the whole idea of being able to patent "the" process for automatically creating a hierarchical menu of audio files based on metadata seems really stupid. I mean, as if this is an original idea. If this is patentable, then I suppose someone can get a patent for creating an OS file system based on file path specification and file metadata. Duh! What I really don't understand is, how did Creative and Microsoft get these patents, while Apple didn't? I've seen Creative's cheap hack of the iPod OS. It looks just like that. Reminds me of Windows 95--a cheap hack of Mac OS 6.

[Big Mac]

First of all, as far as the iPod is concerned, Apple has a lot of patents on it, so M$'s and Creative's new patents don't constitute much of a threat, AFAIK. If you take a look at the way the process has worked out in these recent cases, it appears that the USPTO goes through a series of rounds with the corporations while they attempt to get their patents through. In many cases they are rejected at least once - M$ anti-iPod patent was rejected a little while before they let it through. In the event of a rejection the company just files additional forms to continue the process, and then it's apparently granted fairly quickly thereafter. If you have deep pockets, you can exploit the system. In the case of that M$ patent, Apple had a very similar patent filed a months after M$. Happily, the iPod predates the M$ patent by six months, so M$ and Creative are just screwing around with Apple here.

[michaeljohn63]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Apple would do the same if they were in Creative's shoes.

No, they wouldn't. Have you ever heard of Apple taking issue with another company for something Apple did not invent? Creative didn't deserve this patent, and it knows it. If it did, it would have sued Apple long ago, and it would have won. The story as I remember reading a long time ago, between Apple and Microsoft goes something like this. Apple sued Microsoft, and very nearly won (until Apple and Microsoft settled for a very large sum of money--Microsoft knew it was going to lose). Also, when Apple sued Microsoft, it had a reason. Microsoft pretty much stole Apple's OS right down to the Trash (um, "Recycle") bin. This could have been a slam dunk. The problem Apple had was not that it did not invent what Microsoft stole, it was that John Scully, former CEO of Apple, gave Bill Gates a limited use development agreement, Gates completely abused its intent (stole Apple's technology), and the agreement was vague enough that Microsoft got away with it (and that agreement, by the way, is the reason Steve Jobs was booted from Apple the first time around--he vehemently disagreed with giving it to Gates because he rightly mistrusted Gates). One last thing here, for those who will say: "yeah, but, didn't Apple steal from PARC for the original Mac OS?" The answer is no. Apple PAID Parc for the right to review and use of its ideas in the form of a stock purchase of something like a million shares of Apple (which at the time may have been worth as much as $40 million). Xerox, the owner of PARC, had no idea what to do with its idea at the time. Apple took that idea, modified it (greatly) and figured out a way to use it. PARC's OS was a concept. The Mac was a reality, and with permission.

So, Apple would not do the same thing Creative is doing. Apple has always had a history of actually inventing what it produces, and to my knowledge has never sued anyone to claim exclusive rights for something it did not legitimately create on its own. That's why its common (and accepted) knowledge in the industry (finally) that Apple survives based on innovation--its own innovations. Apple (the Steve) would rather shut its doors than steal someone else's idea, call the idea its own and then sue the company it stole from.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I think one of the issues is that Creative had MP3 players a few years before Apple.

I personally owned a Nomad up to 2 years before my iPod. I forgot exactly what the OS was like on it but it did use the ID3 tags (meta data) in the files like the patent states (i could be wrong)

Isn't this like patenting folders in OSX? Or the use of a mouse?

[olePigeon]

More like patenting "a process for purchasing items on the internet."

I hate the USPTO right now.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

I think one of the issues is that Creative had MP3 players a few years before Apple.

Yeah... too many in the Steve-Jobs-is-God congregation act as if mp3 players failed to exist before the iPod.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah... too many in the Steve-Jobs-is-God congregation act as if mp3 players failed to exist before the iPod.

I also had a Nomad before my first iPod. For all intents and purposes, the iPod was the first practical drive-based MP3 player.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I also had a Nomad before my first iPod. For all intents and purposes, the iPod was the first practical drive-based MP3 player.

Yup. And now, with the shuffle and future minis, the move is back to flash-based.

[Kevin]

Until Flash based mp3 players can hold 30+ gigs of music, I wont be interested.

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

I don't think the date the patent was granted or filed matters, it's who has the proof that it was invented first.... right? Or wrong?

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yup. And now, with the shuffle and future minis, the move is back to flash-based.

There will be room for both for the foreseeable future.