Creative Sues Apple Over iPod Interface Patents
from the suing-those-more-successful-than-you dept
This one isn't at all surprising, since Creative Technology basically came out and said they planned to sue Apple last year. However, it apparently took them about five months of negotiations to realize that Apple was not going to license their patent, and that they really did need to sue. At issue here is the widely publicized patents Creative received for a hierarchical categorization of music, as used in a music player interface. It's not even worth getting into the question of why such a patent was granted in the first place (again, the lack of a true test for obviousness is an issue), but the bigger issue is why Creative is choosing to take this battle to the courtroom, rather than the market. Obviously, Apple's iPod has done much better in the market than comparable portable music players from Creative -- and there are a variety of reasons for that. The idea that it was because they somehow "stole" this one minor idea from Creative is pretty ridiculous on its face -- but will be a big part of the case. This is clearly yet another patent lawsuit that is not about encouraging innovation, but about causing trouble in the courtroom for a competitor who figured out the market much more successfully. Creative is, not surprisingly, asking for an injunction stopping Apple from selling certain iPods -- a move that may be a little more difficult after today's Supreme Court ruling. Either way, this means both companies now need to spend millions of dollars on patent attorneys, rather than actually innovating newer and better products.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brad's comment
As for the use of opensource innovation to create commercial software, this is not only not unheard of, but indeed common. Heard of Google's operating system that is to be released in the not to distant future? It is a combination of original Google innovation and a Linux distro.
Whats so great about apple? Although being a little pricey at times, they develop vastly superior hardware that is seemlessly integrated with brilliant, revolutionary and innvoative software. They are the only company like it.
So think different, Brad. And get your damn facts straigh, you jargon lobbing skript kiddie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
All it really documents is a hierarchial structure of data collection and how to access it albeit in reference to music. I wrote applications in the 80s for uni that did the same thing and it seems to me that using patents like this is like saying that I woke up one day and decided that a) I inhale and b) I exhale in order to breathe so I shall patent this process. Simplistic, yes, but there are alot of concepts in the programming world that are just as simple if not just plain obvious or logical.
In this case, just how else would you store and access music? Logically as documented by the patent, of course. Unless, I am just missing something obviously unique about the patent. I always thought a patent stated a unique idea, not something logical to most people.
I am no Apple fan but when the lawyers have something to gain and everyone else to lose in the long run, then it just isn't right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Werid
And yes, Apple did go after freelancers for awhile whom were trying to bridge the gap between platforms, so what? Any corporation would have done something simular at that time from the late 80's thru most of the 90's regarding software and did. If we use Microsoft as an example they just went out and bought the competion and dismantled them, does this ring a bell???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it wasn't Microsoft
Windows 3 came out about a year and a half after that, and Apple cried FOUL! from their soap-box-of-hypocracy. When they tried to sue, Microsoft pointed to a three year old Xerox demo and said "It's their idea, and they're the only ones who can sue. And since it's now in the public space, they can't sue either."
At one point, prior art actually applied to patents. Those days are gone now.
And what's so bad about Microsoft going out and buying companies for their technology? A buy-out is one of the best new-venture exit strategies one can hope for. What's wrong with a buy-out? Serriously? I'd love it if MS showed up at my door and said "Your company is worth $16M. We'll buy you and every bit of IP you have and you can just stop working." No one forces you to sign over your company for a check. Google is buying up a bunch of other companies (Blogger?) for their IP and customer base. That's how companies grow. You can either engage in an expensive and mutually destructive compeition, or the big guy can buy the little one out, whcih is when everyone wins.
What's lousy is when a large and capital-heavy company looks at your product and has a team of salaried lawyers with nothing better to do than tie you up in legal battles assures them that they can get away with stealing your idea and not paying for it. This is actually a case where innovation MIGHT be getting squashed for the sake of a larger, more successful company profiting.
Now, lets be clear: I think this patent is inane and meaningless, but I think Creative actually has a legal case against Apple here, and they'll probably draw it out a while, since they've also got a team of salaried lawyers just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a chance to earn a bonus.
This'll be like RIM and NTP all over again, except this time the patent is likely not to be found invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
While I agree that the idea of patenting the idea of hierarchical data is kind of hard to fight for, the fact that Apple looked to have blatantly ripped off Creative's interface is what the case will center on. There could have been any number of ways Apple could have created the iPod interface, and in fact, the iPod interface is really not apple like at all (compared to their OS products). I think if Apple spent a little more time making the interface look less like Creatives, then just keeping it similar, there wouldn't be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standardized interface
Or just take car makers! Mercedes isn't suing Ford, just because Ford cars have a similiar "interface" like their own cars (steering weel, middle console with radio, glove compartment).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now Really... Lawsuits are NOT innovation
Are you saying patent lawsuits encourage innovation? Let me state for the record that Patent Lawsuits DO NOT encourage innovation. Getting paid for your innovation encourages innovation.
Violating patents, trademarks and copyrights is the EXACT OPPOSITE of innovation.
Would YOU let someone copy every article posted here, everyday, and put it in a new website, under their own name, and further let them pass it off as theirs? No... you would begin to piss and moan that someone was stealing your work and violating your copyrights. And you'd tell everyone how bad they were and that they were a thief. And you know what? You'd have every right to do that! That is the point of all this. Your rights are yours!
Innovation is not about stealing others work. It is about innovating.
And stealing is NOT innovation. Market success through stealing is not a sign of intelligence or innovation. It is, often times, a sign of lack of intelligence.
If Apple got the patents first they would be suing Creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now Really... Lawsuits are NOT innovation
Would YOU let someone copy every article posted here, everyday, and put it in a new website, under their own name, and further let them pass it off as theirs?
What's funny is that you asked us this exact question a few weeks ago, and we told you your assumption was wrong. Funny that you ignore that.
We have no problem with others taking the work here and posting it on their own site. Sites like Bloglines already does exactly that.
We do take exception to them posting it without giving us credit, but that's a trademark issue -- not a copyright. The issue there is one of confusion. However, in cases where that has happened we never call our lawyers for two reasons.
1. We will send a nice note, and in most cases, the person will admit it was a mistake and fix it.
2. Any site that posts our content without crediting us is unlikely to be around very long or be taken seriously.
So, you're wrong. Trademarks are to prevent confusion, and we have no problem with them there. However, on the copyright front, we ENCOURAGE others to take our content and post it to their site, so long as it's properly credited. That helps BUILD our reputation and gets us more attention. Why would we be upset that people are helping to promote us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really think that Apple could have stolen Creative's idea, built an entirely new product based upon that idea, ramped up production, created a marketing strategy and gotten it to market in a span of only 10 months? I didn't think so.
The more likely case is that both companies arrived upon a similar solution in parallel. The solution being the obvious one, I don't think Creative's patent will hold up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]