MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Well of course they're going to be vigorous. They've saved up all their vigor from NOT fighting the iPod by coming up with a better product.

hey so.. like.. is the company worth something now.. wow.. all thanks to Apple.. ? Cool..

George Bush Rocks!

Get 'em, Creative. Make 'em pay just like they strung up that college kid who shared Tiger with his buddies!

"Pundits wonder if Creative's controversy is a joint attempt by the company and Microsoft to shake Apple from its perch."

Pretty obvious, no?

Apple should sue Creative on the behalf of all the customers who got a virus from using a Zen.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/30/0118252&from=rss


Apple could always buy Creative in a hostile takeover, they are only worth $600 million, Apple has billions in cash.

Perhaps that's what Creative wants, they know they lost and are going the way of Rio.

If Apple buys Creative they will get 3DLabs, which makes awesome video cards.

creative's just a bunch of korean faggots with small penises

It's like someone patenting a database search... wooo, look I can sort it by artist, genre, album etc.

B'jeez, I wish I was the judge in this case... Creative is not very creative are they?

Hey japan is neat, Creative isn't even a korean company you jackass!!!!

Hierarchical File System Wikipedia
HFS DeveloperApple
Full NameHierarchical File System
Introduced1985 (System 2.0)

Hierarchical File syste (HFS), is a file system developed by Apple Computer for use on computers running Mac OS. Originally designed for use on floppy and hard disks, it can also be found on read-only media such as CD-ROMs.

HFS was introduced in September 1985 as a new file system for Macintosh computers. It superseded the Macintosh File syste (MFS) which was a flat file system, used only on the earliest Mac models. Because Macintosh computers use richer data than other commonly available file systems such as FAT used by DOS or the original Unix file system would allow, Apple developed a new more appropriate file system, rather than adopting an existing specification. For example, HFS permits filenames up to 31 characters in length, supports metadata and dual forked (separate data and resource forks per file) files.
While HFS like most other file systems may be seen as a proprietary format, because it was so well documented there are usually solutions available to access HFS formatted disks from most modern operating systems.
In 1998, Apple introduced HFS Plus to address inefficient allocation of disk space in HFS and to add other improvements. HFS is still supported by current versions of Mac OS, but starting with Mac OS X an HFS volume cannot be used for booting.

The UI is nothing more than a Nested Folder GUI structure for navigating the HFS.

Since Creative had this interface since late 2000, why didn't they complain about the iPod's interface in 2001 when it first came out? I know they only just got the patent, but they could have said something about iPod before now. To complain about something that has been in existence for almost four years sounds fishy to me.

Apple could litigate Creative into oblivion if Steve wanted.

He may just release the ninjas instead.

MaWo: 'mind'. As in, Sim Wong Hoo must be out of his.

I am officialy boycotting the new creative soud cards.

I am in the retail hardware biz, and I will deter all my customers away from the creative brand.

Thats right I am a Mac user stuck selling PCs... and you wonder why I need theropy.

Okay, that's it, no more MDN comment-reading for me. MacDude's comment is relevant and interesting, but Andrew and "japan is neat" just took this place down one more notch into stupidity.

Why doesn't Apple just open it's wallet and buy Creative? That would settle everything real fast.

Creative is from Singapore and claim to be a a worldwide leader in digital entertainment products. However, it is well known they produce crappy products made in China.

I don't think Creative has a chance in hell.

and Microsoft will never run out of cash.

Monopoly abuse here we come! Thanks, George.

Fredpp,

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

hi, i am a 15 year old kid in high school andi think this is terrible news.

my whole family has been mac users and apple lovers for as far back as i can remember. i know apple isn't a perfect company but i love them to death, and i hate it when i hear bad news like this that can affect them.

can a legal expert give me some reassurance as to how apple can come out on top of this?

i see there are a lot of people that think this will end up not affecting apple in any bad way, but i'm a kid so i don't know much.

hearing all of this news makes me want to become a politician so i can fire all of the people that work at the patent office. theyre a bunch of idiots if you ask me.

How can you be allowed to Patent "Logical" idea that anyone could have come up with... Of course, you would want your music sortable by Artist and Album. Oh my G.., Creative's going to sue me for my 15 year old FileMaker Pro Database and my CDs are actually in wall rack alphabetically by artist (they might get me for that, also).

I hope there is a lot more to this Patent than what is being listed in the media articles.

"U.S. law is designed to encourage the maximum inventiveness."

Is this a joke ? Patents destroy inventiveness...

What if Microsoft just BOUGHT creative? Then THEY would own the company and all of it's IP.

Creative is in bad shape, theyre selling a decent amount of their players, but look at their recent quarterly loss and nobody in their right mind would choose a creative player over an ipod. At the rate they are going, Creative has a bleak outlook on the future.

I can see Gates orchestrating a Microsoft buyout of Creative at an overvalued rate to please Creative shareholders and winning their prized patent to gain leverage against the iPod.

There are three requirements for an invention to be patentable:

1) It must be useful (i.e. it must produce a desireable result, solve a problem, improve on or propose a new use for an existing development or show potential of doing so) -- while it is doubtful whether Creative's products meet this claim in actual use, they probably do satisfy the Patent Office requirements.

2) It must be novel (i.e., it must not already be patented or described in public literature, or be in public use for more than a year) -- it is extremely doubtful whether Creative's patent meets this test. This type of interface has been used in databases for quite some time, and there is also some question as to the length of time that similar products had been in use before they applied for the patent.

3) It must not be obvious (i.e., a person with experience or skill in the particular art of the patent would not be expected to achieve the same invention with a normal amount of effort) -- Creative's patent almost certainly fails this test; there are only a few possible logical designs for the interface for a mp3 player, given that it stores info about album, artist, playlist, etc. So most anyone in the field could (and did) reasonable invent the same thing.

Other disqualifiers:
* Substituting one material for another (i.e., plastic for metal.
* Merely changing the size of an already existing device.
* Making something more portable.
* Substituting an element for an equivalent element.
* Altering an item's shape.

It would appear to me that Creative's patent fails the second and third test here; since similar interfaces were already in use in software packages that ran on the computers; merely reducing the size and placing it on a more portable device are not sufficiently new to warrant a patent.

It seems to me that Apple should be able to win this one; however, the Patent Office is terribly short-handed, especially with regards to "experts" in relatively new fields, like software and interface design. And after a patent is awarded, it is more difficult to get it invalidated.

Aron S. Spencer, Ph.D.

(Patent information from Shilling, Melissa, "Management of Technological Innovation", McGraw-Hill 2004, p. 169)

hey! my ipods from china

r8ix, thanks a lot! that's the kind of info that i was looking for.

Hey, this reminds me of when Apple sued Microsoft over it's UI patents....

What goes around comes around.

The way I see it now is that Creative have had their Press Conference under false pretences and they will now go back to their can go back to their more normal un-Creative downward spiral to join Rio.

Err-ugg-glo--sorry for the ugly English language post above!

US Patents only gives the assignee (Creative) the right to sue company who may be infringing on their patent. Having US Patent does not necessary mean the patent has met all three requirements listed by Aron (r8ix). US Patent office relies on the information provided by the applicant and also some internal experties. However, no patent office can afford to do full search on prior arts, so they try their best and allow some bad idea to get patents, but then let court decide if some of ideas are worth patent or not. Now Creative will sue the Apple and Apple will defend by proving the patent do not meet the requirements and patent will be revoked. Lawyers work away with money and both Creative and Apple loses time and money. If Creative is smart, they will just stop and think about if the patent has any merit and stop while they are ahead (or may be they have nothing to lose, so they go to court).

More reasoned analysis both here and on Slashdot has made it clear Apple has nothing to fear here. Patent litigation is horrifically expensive. Apple has a huge war chest and Creative doesn't. Since this is far from a slam-dunk case, Apple could drag it out for years. In the end, more likely than not Apple would win, or in the worst case, the two would settle with a one-time payment. And in the meantime Creative's balance sheet would suffer greatly.

No, trust me: this is one big publicity stunt by Creative as they try desperately to remain relevant. The fact the "patent" conference call turned into a sales pitch for their products surprises me not a bit.

The absolute worst that could happen would be if Creative sold the patent to someone who could afford the litigation, say Microsoft. But then, that would appear so slimy that I have to doubt even the Beast of Redmond would touch that one.

Its time for the SEC to get involved here. These sleazy companies are getting patents they know will never hold up in court, but they publicize the heck out of the fact that they have them in order boost there stock prices fraudulently.

Thanks for that info Aron. It seems as though this idea was in use for many years by a number products and companies. Because the iPod is an extension of iTunes, and iTunes came out before their first player and their patent filing, I'd think Apple would be able to show prior art. This seems like a last gasp for air by Creative. I bet they close up shop on DMP's within the year.

It looks like Creative is taking a cue from it's master (Microsoft). The only innovation going on in the company is in the legal department.

One for you...1 million for me. One for you...3 million for me. One for
you...10 million for me. Etc., etc., etc.

It's called "The LION's Share". Apple desrves it!

The Apple Mac OS has made the computing world much more
approachable to the average user. You wouldn't have the vast number
of computer sales currently without them. The (sometimes) ridiculous
and often cumbersome world of computer programming became much
more approachable through Apple's innovations.

When the majority accepts and believes in any system...it becomes a
standard. Apple's technology has become today's standard in the
computing world. Most people crawl before they walk then run, jump,
climb. You get the picture. Apple achieved simplicity first and the
computing world knows it!


CT ======]------------- I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but we like hot butter on our breakfast toast.

Well if you can't beat them fairly, sue them! It seems that might be the only thing they are good at.

Still I think they have little to no chance other than
maybe getting some publicity for themselves.

So, both Microsoft and Creative got patents? How come these two patents are different?

- Mark

Fly's the best.


CT ======]-------- Gettin Jiggy With It

This does look like an SCO-style pump and dump, and we know how well that worked.

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

While I didn't read the Creative patent yet, I did read the MS patent. It seems to me that the Creative patent would possibly invalidate the MS patent. Wouldn't that be funny?

I think both patents are trying to patent a database function - seems like there is a ton of prior art here.....

of this whole thing is that creative used a conference call to push it's new line of player. how week and opertunistic.

Relax people, who cares ? What ? Are we all gonna rush out and buy a Creative Mp3 player all of a sudden. No.

I don't think Creative is even compatable with Mac. I may be wrong but last I looked it wasn't.

Her name is Rio and she don’t need to understand,
And I might find her it I’m looking like I can,
Oh Rio Rio hear them shout across the land,
From mountains in the north down to the rio grande.

NOT!