“Apple could be in for a bruising legal fight with rival Creative over the technology used in iPod music players,” Alfred Hermida reports for BBC News. “Creative boss Sim Wong Hoo has told the BBC he plans to ‘pursue aggressively’ a US patent it owns on a system used to navigate music on digital players. Mr Sim was speaking at the launch of Creative’s latest rival to the iPod video, the Zen Vision: M. Creative was one of the first to market digital music players in 2000, but has since been overshadowed by Apple.”
“Creative chairman Sim Wong Hoo told the BBC News website that the company was already talking to various parties about the patent but refused to be drawn on specifics,” Hermida reports. “Mr Sim was in London for the launch of the Creative Zen Vision: M in time for the seasonal Christmas rush. The gadget is a direct competitor to Apple’s iPod video. It bears a striking resemblance, and is about the width and weight of the previous iPod model. But Mr Sim denied the company had copied the design, saying it had been working on the look for more than a year. ‘”We are focused on the technology… This is still a technology marketplace. This is the key difference between a technology company and a branding company,’ he said, taking a side-swipe at Apple’s successful marketing campaign for its iPod.”
Full article here.
“Apple could not be very excited about paying royalties on its popular device, but it is clear that Creative will make a bid for a cross-licensing arrangement at the very least,” Red Herring reports. “Analyst Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, believes the strategic way for Apple to play this challenge is to go the hardball route. ‘Getting a patent agency to say you have a patent is one thing, but getting a court to say that it is enforceable is something else,’ said Mr. Kay. ‘It would pay for Apple to hang in through litigation. If it takes three years to settle, Apple would’ve made millions in the interim. It would make more sense than settling and paying millions in back royalties right off the bat.’”
Red Herring reports, “Mr. Hoo did not indicate whether his company had begun patent and royalty negotiations with Apple. But at the time Creative was awarded the patent, Mr. Hoo gave a timeline of events that showed Apple was on his company’s radar. ‘By January of 2001, we announced that we had already sold 100,000 NOMAD Jukeboxes,’ he said. ‘The Apple iPod was only announced in October 2001, 13 months after we had been shipping the NOMAD Jukebox based upon the user interface covered by our Zen Patent.’”
Full article here.
Advertisements: The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
Related articles:
Creative Technology’s official press relase for Zen Vision:M Apple iPod knockoff – December 08, 2005
Creative’s Sim Wong Hoo vows to ‘aggressively pursue’ Apple over iPod patent – December 08, 2005
Creative announces 30GB Zen Vision:M video-enabled ‘iPod killer’ – December 07, 2005
Beleaguered Creative waves white flag, surrenders self-declared MP3 player war to Apple iPod – November 07, 2005
Beleaguered Creative shifts promotional efforts from music players to new sound card line – September 21, 2005
Apple debuts iPod nano, iTunes 5: how are Microsoft, Napster, Real, Creative, Sony feeling today? – September 08, 2005
Creative explores new way to beat Apple iPod: patent litigation – August 30, 2005
Creative plans ‘very vigorous defense’ of iPod navigation patent – August 31, 2005
Beleaguered Creative Technology’s ‘war’ on Apple iPod not faring well – August 15, 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
What a non-story on a totally socked-in blizzard day in the northeast of America.
Sim Wong Hoo has always said a LOT of things. Very few have turned out to be correct.
The only way I see Creative actually earning their name is to come up with something as well-integrated as the iTunes/iTunes Music Store/iPod triumvirate.
It just seems that — unless Apple makes a misstep of Cube-like proportions — the ship has sailed.
In the U.S. patent arena it does not matter who shipped first. It matters who invented first and has the documentation to back it up. If Apple can show through documentation (engineer’s notes, annotated software source code, meeting notes, etc.) that it invented first or that Creative’s patents are a simple logical derivative of something they invented before Creative did then Apple will win.
What a non-story is right. Creative won’t get anywhere with this. It’s just more FUD laden saber rattling from a dying company. They’ve lost and now Hoo is simply trying a CYA maneuver, that’s all.
Well, Sim Wong Hoo’s trash talking has achieved the desired effect: a few media stories. Now this will migrate to the back burner and we won’t hear anything about it for months.
(I mean, for crying out loud, Creative hasn’t even filed suit yet!! They’re just threatening to do so. To which Apple’s legal department is sure to reply “bring it on”, in between yawns.)
And what the hell is this business about the Nomad Jukebox? Isn’t that the heavy monster that was the only HD-based MP3 player before the iPod? I thought it had a one-line screen? When the iPod came out, one thing frequently noted by reviewers was how much easier to navigate the iPod was than any of its competitors, including the Nomad. So it Creative were using “their technology”, they weren’t doing it very well.
Again, this is news when Creative actually files a lawsuit. Not before.
So is it Mr. Sim or Mr. Hoo? (MW = either)
Hey, lay off the Cube. It was a good computer in its day, they just had the price point all wrong.
Mine is running 10.4.3 like a champ. A bit slower than my new guys but for most things you can’t really tell the difference.
MW: “attack” Don’t attack my Cube!
Creative doesn’t stand much of a chance prevailing in this battle. They are bleeding to much cash fighting the iPod, to put lots of money into litigation that may not result in a decision for another 3 – 5 years.
This is corporate woofing at its finest.
In a worst case scenario, Apple buys the patent, and gives a royalty free license back to Creative.
Creative gets a shot of desperately needed cash without going through the expense of a protracted elgal fight (that they may lose) and the right to use the patent at no charge going forward.
Without a transfer of title, this is essentially what happened between MSFT and RWNK.
I hope nothing comes of it, but there are no guarantees. To me, the larger issue is that a patent could be issued for a thought process which is really what this is about. This is hierarchical thinking. If toasters had displays, we could see a menu about how the toast is inserted/browns/ejects/emits oder/is eaten.
Quick… to the patent cave!
I hope that apple will fight it and get the patent invalidated. Software patents are getting ridiculous? What did Creative invent here? Tree menu systems – no they have been around as long as i have been involved in computers (1980). Using them on small screens, well not how long have we used our ATM’s? What about scrolling windows? Ever use a list box. The patent should have never been awarded because there is nothing significantly new about it? Is applying it to music a patentable thing? If so i wish I had applied for if after I wrote one of my first BASIC program.
The truth is in all of computing history i can only think of a half dozen truly patentable ideas
I always loved the cube.
My NOKIA handset has had a similar menu system for years. Substituting Album List for Messages is hardly patentable. Does the scrolling system on Creative devices have an accelerating scrolling function – or was that an Apple innovation?
Cube owner and fan.
Whatever. This is almost as stupid as the guy who sued eBay because he claims to have patented the “Buy It Now” concept.
Patents are getting out of hand.
TimT
No creativity is getting out of hand
“We are focused on the technology… …This is still a technology marketplace. This is the key difference between a technology company and a branding company”
This line sums up exactly why thier players are constantly looked over and why they didn’t carve out a chunk of hte industry before hte iPod came to be. They focus to much on adding more technology to their player and not if they should add the technology. Until Apple came in and took a user foucused product development model instead of an engineer based development model these guys were busily trying to figure out how to cram a sandwich maker into the Zen line.
Seriously if this is the face of Creative then everyone of the share holders should be selling.
so i guess this is the end.
apple is dead
Yeah, another very happy Cube owner here. The reason that Apple creates such great things like the iPod and all their other great stuff is because of the same thing that made the Cube so good. It’s a damn good design. They put design first.
I love my Cube and wouldn’t part with it for anything. The fact that it didn’t sell is no indication that it wasnt good.
The thing I find interesting about this is that Creative basically just slapped Apple in the face by ripping off their *hardware* design wholesale and then makes noise about filing a lawsuit about Apple’s iPod interface. This is a very, very dumb move on Creative’s part. Considering the fact that Apple won it’s lawsuit against eMachine when the had the eOne out over “Trade dress” infringement (i.e., it is likely consumers will see Creative’s product and think Apple made it since it looks *exactly* like an iPod minus the scroll wheel) and the eOne looked even more dissimilar to an iMac than this device looks to an iPod. Here’s my guess as to what will happen.
Apple sues Creative over trade dress infringement (regardless of whether Creative sues over patent infringement).
Creative counter-sues over patent infringement.
Apple pulls out prior art all over the place and shows that they had the interface design way before Creative. Apple then counter-sues claiming Creative copied THEIR interface on trade dress grounds (just look at the freaking pictures! they didn’t even bother changing the menu names or selection color).
Creative loses both lawsuits and has to pull their new product off the shelves for several months while they retool the design. All-in-all it leaves Creative royally screwed.
I think Apple will show that the iPod UI is basically a logical extension of the column view used in the OSX Finder app, which if one digs a little deeper was in use years prior in the NeXTSTEP OS. Essentially the Creative navigation structure is an adaptation of another firm’s existing technology.
Creative is pathetic. Get your own design. If anyone should be taken down, its Creative for copying the iPod’s design. Becides, Creatives new ‘iPod’ is about as thick as the last iPod Photo. Get with the times Creative. Get Original.
It’s a pre-emptive strike by Creative. They know they should get sued up the wazoo for copying the iPod, so they wave around the menu patent to try to frighten Apple away. Of course, knowing Apple’s lawyers, they could care less about Creative’s threats.
In many ways, I think the music industry is doing the same thing. They worry that Apple, being the WalMart, of the download business, will force down wholesale music prices, just like WM did to CD prices. Steve will ask to reduce wholesale prices on tracks to 50 cents instead of 65, so Apple can make money not only on the razors, iPods, but also the blades, the tracks. Of course, Steve will pass some of those savings on to the consumer, by moving the retail price to 89 instead of 99. The pre-emptive part is the labels squawking about raising retail prices, to change the discussion. I think again, Steve will hold to his guns.
The cube was a great computer sold at the wrong price point. It retailed for $1799, which made no sense. If it had been sold for $1299 it would have been Apple’s top-seller. When Apple discontinued it and dropped the price to $1100, I recommended it to numerous of my friends.
If I worked for Apple legal, I would browse through my own patent catalogue to see how Creative are in violation, then trade this case away to a stalemate.
Creative must defend their patent or they lose it. It doesn’t mean they have a winning position though.
I love the title of this article. Bruising. LOL
The only thing that will be bruised is Sim Wong Hoo-de-Doo’s shins as he trips over cases of unsold Creative players that will overwhelm their warehouses.