“U.S. law is designed to encourage the maximum inventiveness. And although there has been a cornucopia of independent inventors in the U.S., many important patents today are the property of large corporations capable of exploiting them,” Chris Noon reports for Forbes. “But not this one, and that could mean trouble for Steve Jobs’ Apple Computer. Singapore-based digital audio company Creative Technology has been awarded a U.S. patent for user-interface technology in its portable media players and those of its competitors. The patent apparently covers technology that enables users to navigate among the thousands of songs that can be stored on digital music players.”
“How will Creative enforce the patent? ‘We plan to be very vigorous in the defense of our intellectual property,’ Craig McHugh, president of Creative’s U.S. unit, was quoted as saying. ‘We are going to look at all the alternatives that the patent provides. We can look at legal remedies,’ he added,” Noon reports. “Pundits wonder if Creative’s controversy is a joint attempt by the company and Microsoft to shake Apple from its perch. For Creative’s claims follow hot on the heels of the rejection of Apple’s iPod-related patent application due to archrival Microsoft’s filing of a similar application five months earlier.”
Full article here.
Danit Lidor also reports for Forbes, “The ‘breaking news’ e-mail alert issued to reporters Tuesday morning by Creative Labs was bound to attract attention. It trumpeted news that the company had received a patent for an important interface used in portable media players. The alert named Apple Computer four times, noting that Creative Labs had applied for its patent well before Apple’s iPod hit the market. The implication, as subtle as a freight train, was that Creative planned to assert its patent against Apple.”
“Apple’s iPod has a commanding 80% of the U.S. portable music player market versus 9% for Creative. But McHugh said there was no connection between its trailing sales in that market and any possible legal action against Apple. Creative posted a $32 million loss in its fiscal fourth quarter ended in June, a reversal from a $6.6 million profit last year.”
Lidor explains how Creative used the patent press release to lure media to a conference call where “rather than discuss what was promised, Creative used the opportunity to shill for a new line of handheld digital entertainment products, which were barely mentioned in the patent news alert.”
Full article here.
Very vigorous defense? Like, as “vigorous” as one would be in a “war?” Yawn.
Related articles:
Creative explores new way to beat Apple iPod: patent litigation – August 30, 2005
Microsoft has not, repeat not, patented Apple’s iPod – August 17, 2005
Beleaguered Creative Technology’s ‘war’ on Apple iPod not faring well – August 15, 2005
Microsoft to allow Apple to license iPod patent? – August 15, 2005
The real story on Microsoft’s ‘Apple iPod’ playlist patent – August 12, 2005
Patent lawyer: Microsoft and Apple iPod patent saga is much ado about nothing – August 12, 2005
Microsoft beats Apple in iPod patent race? – August 11, 2005
Microsoft researcher involved in rejected Apple iPod patent – August 10, 2005
Apple’s patent application for Pod’s menu-based software interface rejected – August 09, 2005
Apple’s iPod shine dims beleaguered Creative Technology’s outlook – August 08, 2005
Microsoft not buying stake in Creative Technology – August 02, 2005
Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo adds fronts to war against Apple iPod – August 01, 2005
Analyst: Microsoft could buy Creative Technlogy in bid to compete with Apple iPod – July 14, 2005
Beleaguered Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo ‘optimistic’ the company will survive ‘MP3 war’ – July 01, 2005
Beleaguered Creative may have to write off unsold stock as losses loom – June 28, 2005
Creative Tech’s reduced outlook drags on Apple, PortalPlayer, SigmaTel – June 27, 2005
Creative Tech cuts sales outlook, drags Apple down in early trading – June 27, 2005
Apple passed 20 million iPods sold milestone in early June – June 24, 2005
Apple’s understanding of what really counts makes iPod+iTunes impossible to beat – June 22, 2005
Creative Technology shares slide to lowest mark in almost two years – May 18, 2005
Apple squeezes and Creative’s profit plunges 72-percent – April 23, 2005
Apple iPod pressure forces Creative to drop prices on music players – March 01, 2005
Creative’s self-declared ‘MP3 player war’ against Apple isn’t going very well – January 20, 2005
Creative CEO: Apple iPod shuffle ‘a big let-down, worse than the cheapest Chinese player’ – January 12, 2005
Creative declares ‘war’ on Apple iPod, shoots for 40% market share of MP3 players – December 21, 2004
Creative Technology declares ‘MP3 War’ against market-dominating Apple iPod – November 17, 2004
Mossberg: Dell, Rio, Creative ‘iPod mini killers’ lag badly behind Apple iPod mini – October 27, 2004
Creative pushes to become ‘Pepsi’ to Apple’s ‘Coke’ in digital music player market – August 07, 2004
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
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
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.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
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!