MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Worst. Company. Ever.

Oh, did they suddenly discover they had a patent? What a load of s**t.

I invented the idea of pressing buttons to make things work, back in 1932.

As an AAPL investor I say NO NO NO!!! to buying CREAF - what a waste of a company

mdn:pattern

Grasping at straws?? Absolutely! How long till Creative just curls up & dies like Rio did?

"I invented the idea of pressing buttons to make things work, back in 1932."

Yeah well, I patented the finger, so anyone who uses their finger to control their iPod owes me a royalty. However feel free to use other appendages.

MW 'cars'. Pixars next films is called Cars.

Creative will probably attempt an injunction to halt iPod sales.

if you can't compete, don't bother making a better product. litigate!

MDN: "taking," as in Creative taking the low road....

Not sure how they are able to get a patent on what amounts to heirarchial menu browsing. This has been around for a long time. Making it specific to a particualr category (music selection) seems a bit far fetched.

MW 'little' as in Creative will only be around for a little while longer.

hammer

In that case, I would like to license a finger under the terms of your patent to send Creative a message.

Not sure how they are able to get a patent on what amounts to heirarchial menu browsing. This has been around for a long time

--

*looks at Mac menu bar..

Oh yeah.. oops

Apple buy Creative, smart move? No, but it would allow Apple to not worry about their crap with the patent. Maybe Apple could buy the patent for a couple billion and shut Creative up, and allow them to use the patent royalty-free. Apple becomes the patent holder.

tisk, tisk, tisk...

hammer, we have been here before I think. We all know you invented the finger, but I invented the hand, without which the finger would be useless.

Please get your facts straight before you waste another $5 using your finger (my royalty fee for hand invention).

"In that case, I would like to license a finger under the terms of your patent to send Creative a message."

Im sure we can work that out Dave, as long as it's the middle one ;^)

Jamie

My patent doesnt require the finger to be attached to a hand. Sorry.

Hey 'Creative',

Microsoft already tried this about three weeks ago.

Try DOING something after your namesake.

Oh yeah. I patented the arm and the hand the carries and moves the finger. Anyway, which finger did you patent? MDN = "did" like in did so

But it's OK for Apple to submit a similar patent (which obstensively be enforced against others)?

Creative did sumbit the patent and have working prior art long before Apple's iPod. And the patent has very recently been granted. Tough to protect a patent which hasn't been granted yet (for those wondering why it took so long for Creative to go this route).

That said, Creative obviously has it's back against the wall with the MP3 player business. Much like Apple 20 years ago, it's squandered it's first-to-market advantage to a more able competitor.

Didn't iTunes come before Creative??

While buying Creative might make this little problem go away (and get rid of the second place market leader - at least I imagine they are) there are likely two sticky issues: 1) would the acquisition be allowed (anti-competitive and all) and 2) if it were allowed, I would imagine MS would jump in and offer more. The odd thing is, even if Apple had to license this patent (and the MS one) and have to charge more, they would probably still sell more than Creative - kind of sad for Creative really.

I thought creative was belegured... what gives MDN?

just look at column view in any finder window...

even microsoft utilises this sort of interface...

in fact - its a no brainer system - i have 'real' folders here on my desk that use the same method!
Client > Contact Name > Correspondence...

does this mean that sim wong who(?) is going to be knocking on my door to 'protect its work'?

The very fact that the press release then goes on to talk about the ipod and basically says 'hey! we did it first ner-ner- ner ner -ner!' - what moron sends out a PR and then devotes an entire paragragh to your competitor in a just light?! they dont even say 'hey! and we did it better than ipod!'

One day, all of the parts of the body got to talking about which of them should be the boss.

The brain piped up first. "I think I am most important, because I do all of the thinking for the man. I tell him right from wrong, I tell him when it's time to go to sleep and when it's time to wake up. Thanks to me, the man was able to learn and because of my education, he now holds a good paying job that helps to support all of you. That's why I should be boss"

The eyes chuckled, "Oh surely you jest! We are by far the most important and should be boss. We let the man see! If it weren't for us, he would be walking into everything and all of you would be bumped and bruised every day of his life."

"Wait a minute!", chimed the stomach. "I am the most important part of his body! I digest the food that he eats and because of me, you are nourished and are able to stay healthy and strong. Of all the parts of a man's body, I am the most important... and should be boss!"

The legs twitched a bit and spoke up, "Oh sure, all of you do play an important role in the man's body, but we am by far the most important. We carry all of you where the man wishes to go. We jog for you in the morning, walk you to his job and even dance for you when he takes his ladies out on the town. Because of us you are well taken care of and entertained! We are the most important and should be boss."

All the body parts sat in silence for a moment, angry with each other, when from down below, came a tiny little voice. It was the asshole, speaking up as to it's importance.

"I am the asshole, and I think that out of all the parts of a man's body, that I am the most important."

The other body parts went into hysterics...this upset the asshole so much that he clammed up tighter than a drum, vowing that he would never open up and speak again.

After a few days, the brain got foggy, the eyes glassed over, the stomach got queazy and the knees got a bit wobbly.

The other parts of the body got together and had a secret meeting, voting unanimously that indeed, the asshole was the most important part of the man's body and should always be the boss.

That is why the asshole is the boss.

And that is why you should not patent the finger, the hand, or the arm. Just the asshole. And it helps if that's what you already are. Step forward, Creative execs...

LOL a site devoted to ipod SURROUNDED by creative zen ads.

I LOVE MDN

There are quite a few makers of automobiles. They all have an engine, seats, steering wheels, etc. Does each company have a patent on an "engine." They are basically the same.

Wait....didn't Microsoft have the patent filed before Apple last week??

Harumph! Harumph!

Indeed. How dare Creative assert (they haven't yet, btw) their intellectual property rights, having been first to both implement and file the patent for the inerface!?

For the record, there's been no litigation to date.

And hasn't Apple brought suits against individuals for violating their IP rights *without* turning a profit? I seem to remember a lot of thumbscrew talk back then...

"The so-called 'Zen Patent' was filed on January 5, 2001 and awarded August 9, 2005. The interface referenced in the patent was used in Creative's NOMAD Jukebox, which debuted in September 2000."

While I'm not a patent attorney (and don't want to be one) I do have a few patents issued of my own. My understanding after spending well over 100 hours with patent attorneys over the years is that you cannot patent any part of an already selling product. Thus if the NOMAD Jukebox included this capability and even one sold before the patent filing then the patent is invalid. It does not matter if the patent was issued. (I've also been told the fine line is offering it for sale even if none are sold, but I'm not too sure on that technicality.)

Many invalid patents get issued. The patent examiner just does not have time to independently investigate all the possible cases of prior art and prior sales. (If Creative did not tell the examiner that it was selling items based upon the patented concept then the examiner might have issued the patent unaware of the sales.) Invalid patents like this then get killed in court when someone tries to enforce it or kill it.

Shadowelf -

I'm also not a lawyer. But I believe you're wrong.

Cloudwall -

You don't even have to RTFA to see that the patent application was filed in 2001 and awarded yesterday, prompting the press release.

Well, I guess Creative is going to go the way of SCO - down the toilet.

When developing the iPod, I am sure Apple did not send corporate spies over to Korea to look at what Creative was doing. The interface is a common-sense way of navigating through music. If you are not going to be able to view by artist, genre, song, etc., then what can you view by - song lyric? I don't think so.

I've patented a design where all you have to do is open your eyelids and look at something and you can see it. Cool huh? You ALL owe me 25 cents. Except Steve Jobs, he only sees what he believes, not the other way around

Didn't Sony have some sort of song navigation scheme with its MD players?

"I invented the idea of pressing buttons to make things work, back in 1932."

I invented fingers for pressing buttons, and I'll sue all of you. -- God

This just in from Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.com):

"An anonymous reader writes "Engadget reports about 3700 Creative Zen "Neeons" shipped with a virus. The virus in question was the W32.Wullik.B@mm worm. Creative released a statement today to help consumers pinpoint the possibly effected devices."

I wonder if Creative will try to patent this too...

[Much like Apple 20 years ago, it's (sic) squandered it's first-to-market advantage to a more able competitor.]

Keep saying this. But, it won't change history.

[LOL a site devoted to ipod SURROUNDED by creative zen ads.]

Really. Where? I see ads for: Girl Guides; CafeShops; Amnesty Widget Browser; several Apple Store items; .dot mac; MDN T-Shirts; PowerMax; MissingBite; and Crucial.

Did you mean the Google ads - which refer to 'MP3 Players'?

JEEZUZ! We get it. You hate Apple, and everyone that uses Apple products.

I truly wonder why it is that the 'MacZealots' are so unsuccessful in recruiting more Mac users from the 88.4% of the world who are Windows users.

Is it because Windows users spend so much time hanging out here - trying to recruit us!

Man! Haven't you got your toaster yet?

FWIW, MDN can only report about iPods or Macs or My Little Ponies for all you care. It's their site.

Maybe you can get your toaster from the B of A. If they do that anymore.

<<you cannot patent any part of an already selling product. >>

You have one year from the date shipments commence to file your patent application. The key here is when Creative products incorporating this technology began shipping.

As an aside, Creative is bleeding cash like a stuck pig. Patent litigation is very expensive. The bigger the stakes the more expensive it gets.

I don't think regulatory agencies would allow Apple to buy Creative (anti-competitive). But what Apple could do, is buy the patent, with a royalty free right to use the technology retained by Creative (non-transfereable), much like Rio did with SigmaTel. This would give Creative the excuse necessary to cease competing in the MP3 market.

In order to work though, Creative must file an action against Apple, before any negotiations to purchase the patent commence. The purchase then becomes part of the settlement and not subject to regulatory approval.

Creative has lost this battle and knows it. The opportunity to genereate some much needed cash (to finance other ventures) would be very desireable.

If it looks threatening, I'd buy Creative, pluck the patent then turn it into a fast food restaurant before you could say "Zen Burger & Fries"..

Patent Lawsuits are a growth industry and have long been a staple in the high technology field. Many large tech firms keep armies of lawyers monitoring the USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office) for new filings and will file for improvements on another individual's patent BEFORE the initial patent is even fully processed. They will also attempt to reverse engineer your invention and file for Patents on those ideas as well. It is a cut-throat and dirty business. My Bro is a Patent Attorney at the USPTO and told me this was the case many years ago.

Magic Word- FACT

Sounds like a bunch of Hooey to me.

Max, I see creative zen links above the mighty mouse ad and also just below the opinion links in the left margin.

And, screw you.

Look at what's happened since this release was let loose...

Most tech sites / News sites with tech sections are reporting it!
Most headlines carry the word 'Creative' - then stories are all about Creative...

Creative know they can't action this patent in any way - this is just a great way to get people to their site AND - more simply - to even recognise them as a MP3 player manufacturer.

It wouldn't be only Apple contesting the patent. It would fast become -

Apple / Samsung / Phillips (insert portable player manufacturer here)
Vs.
Creative

And Creative don't have the clout to fight the entire industry.

They'll reap what 'noise' they can make because of the award in the short term (the next couple of days!) - and then it'll all die down... and nothing will come of it...

[Max, I see creative zen links above the mighty mouse ad and also just below the opinion links in the left margin.]

Like I said, "Google Ads - which refer to 'MP3 Players'". And hardly, 'SURROUNDED'.

BTW, do any of the sites that use the Google Adsense service have actual control over the ads that get placed on their pages?

[And, screw you.]

Go get your toaster! LOL

To me, the iPod's navigation system is highly similar to the contextual menu on the NeXTStep OS. Which was around before any mp3 player.

Ooh, bitch scrap.

My money's on McConnell. Celtic ancestry translates to being better at fighting.



BTW, no ads here, Creative or otherwise. Easy enough to do.

If Creative is relying on patent litigation to beat Apple, they are totally screwed. MDN is right pointing out that Apple has huge cash reserves and would most likely drag out any litigation for years, during which time Creative has a good chance of going out of business. Patent litigation is expensive, and money that it necessary for developing competitive products will instead go to making the lawyers richer.

And in the end, it's probable that Creative's patent will get overturned.

PC Apologist- You're not a lawyer we know, you also can't read. RTFA yourself. It was awarded August 9, 2005. On my calendar yesterday was the 29th.

The Dude thinks that patents are plain and simple bullshit nowadays. Check this out.

"Q: Having a baby is a patent violation because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office routinely grants patents on human gene sequences found in all humans.

A: TRUE. Patents are now routinely awarded for human gene sequences, animals and even seeds found in nature. One U.S. company was awarded a patent on Basmati rice, a grain that has been grown in India for generations. Monsanto recently applied to patent a pig (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111). Hundreds of individuals and companies now own patents on human genes, meaning they have been granted the right to charge royalties on all gene replication (i.e. making babies). This practice of stealing intellectual property from nature and claiming human ownership is called Biopiracy. See this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy) entry to learn more."

This just goes to show how fundamentally flawed the US Patent Office is.

Ohh, and take the gullibility test here.... http://www.newstarget.com/gullibility.html

The Dude abides.

The Patent is for "Automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata". Replace "music" with "documents or files" and what do you get? This seems like old news copied from old Mac OS Finder. Am I right? Only thing different is that it's now performed inside a mp3 player.

MDN, stop being homers. You seem to love it when Apple gets patents for stuff. Now some other company gets a patent on something that could affect Apple and you blast them.

It comes down to this. All these software patents are going to do nothing but destroy the entire software industry in this country. And we can think Microsoft, Apple and all the other greedy corporations for it.

Jeff,

The difference is that Apple does not have a history of obtaining patents for the purpose of suing others for money. This new trend of attacking Apple is becoming gross in that L.A. car chase sort of way. This has become the industry's response to a healthy Apple Computer, the same Apple that the industry wanted dead for so many years.