“Apple Computer, maker of the iPod music player, is suing Creative Technology, raising the stakes in the legal dispute over competing devices,” Bloomberg News reports. “Apple claims Creative Labs, the U.S. division of Creative Technology, infringes four patents in its hand-held digital players. The suit was filed in a Wisconsin District Court on May 15, the same day Creative filed a lawsuit and a trade complaint against Apple.”
“Creative filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking an order to block imports of the iPod, most of which are made in China. A lawsuit the company filed against Apple in District Court in San Francisco is likely to be put on hold while the trade complaint is heard,” Bloomberg reports. “The iPod controls 77 percent of the U.S. market, compared with less than 10 percent for Creative.”
Full article here.
Hoo said they wanted a war?
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Apple suit seen hurting beleaguered Creative in long run – May 17, 2006
a href=”http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9573/”>Beleaguered Creative’s lawsuit against Apple for alleged iPod patent infringement shows desperation – May 16, 2006
Beleaguered Creative sues Apple for alleged iPod patent infringement – May 15, 2006
Beleaguered Creative Technology circles the bowl – May 02, 2006
Beleaguered Creative Technology reports largest operating loss in at least five years – April 10, 2006
Joke of the Day: Red Herring headline: ‘Creative may be iPod threat’ – February 28, 2006
S&P Equity downgrades Creative Technology, cites ‘increased competition from Apple Computer’ – February 14, 2006
Apple unveils new 1GB iPod nano for $149; iPod shuffle now starting at just $69 – February 07, 2006
Beleaguered Creative reports 95-percent slump in quarterly profit – January 26, 2006
Don’t call them podcasts! Derivative, er, Creative introduces ZenCast app for ‘audio & video blogs’ – January 04, 2006
Creative’s Zen Vision:M green with Apple iPod envy – December 09, 2005
Apple faces prospect of bruising iPod patent dispute from Creative Technology – December 09, 2005
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
My understanding is that the patent describes a “heirachical menu.” Can we talk prior art?
Macintosh OS 1-10
Apple II GS OS
Lisa OS
XEROX PARC OS
The fact that the US patent office gave Derivative this patent speaks volumes about the need for overhaul in that office.
Oh Rats. I forgot
NeXt Step
Jimmy: since the ipod is what is keeping apple afloat they have a reason to be concerned.
Uh, last I checked, Macs still provided more revenue than iPods.
Oh, and “Down…”? A hierarchical menu is a hierarchical menu. If such a menu existed previously for organizing anything, that’s prior art. Creative can’t just slap Artist/Album/Title on it and claim it’s an original idea. Apple can show hierarchical “drilling” menus going back decades before Creative filed their patent.
4 > 1
Apple is going to make the best sound cards evar!
This is what creative deserves.
The world is not these lawyers / companies playground.
for the several illigitimate reasons creative filed suit, Apple actually has a case.. creative is going to DIE.
DownInTheLastShower,
I’m sorry but you are the one who’s on drugs.
Creative’s patent obviously violates 4 of Apple’s patents. Apple has them by the balls and they know it.
So, yes, Creative’s patent is invalid. Creative will have to license Apple’s patents to stay in business.
Look for a mutual sharing of patents with Apple gaining Creative’s patent portfolio for the price of Apple’s lawyers’ retainer fees.
DownInLastShower, you don’t know the history of being on drugs…. I do.
DownInLastShower,
The fact that some boob at the patent office granted Creative’s patent doesn’t mean much. Patents have been ruled invalid many times by the courts becuase of patent office errors. Some of these errors are:
1. You cannot patent something that is intuitively obvious, like the wheel (or drop-down menus).
2. You cannot patent prior similar art, like drop-down menus.
3. You must enforce patent violations in a timely manner, not wait to see if the violator makes money with it. (Creative had a patent pending since 2001, but waits 5 years to enforce it).
In short, legally speaking, Creative is up a creek.
Tom Cruise, you’re right.
Zeke, the RIM case should be instructive to you then.
The patent is not for drop down menus, it’s for heirachical menus used in a particular way to navigate music. go look up patent 6,928,433 and actually read it before spouting an opinion.
The patent was awarded August last year. They’re hardly sittng on their rights.
For all those who drew my attention to the fact that the patent could be weak and might be overturned, I draw your attention to the original post where I said “If the patent is weak, look for it to be overturned.”
For those that spouted on how software patents are often granted for things bthey nver should be read the sentence “Software patents as a rule are F***’d up, many should never be granted.”
and finally to restate:
This is a negotiating tactic, nothing more.
Creative have Apple’s balls in that patent. It pretty much describes the iPod’s interface. Whether you agree that it was right to be granted or not is irrelevant in the short term. It was, unless apple can get it overturned, Creative can enforce it.
Sure it might be re-examined but even though RIM’s patents were almost certainly going to be be overturned, didn’t stop them having to pay out as a matter of business praticality.
For Apple it’s a high stakes game. If the case goes against them the patent becomes stronger and they’ll end up paying licensing fees to Creative on iPods.
If it goes badly for Creative, it’s likely they really havn’t lost very much.
I say good luck to Creative, most of Apple’s ideas came from somewhere else first. Apple did try to patent pretty much the same thing and had it rejected, but you can bet they would have gone after Creative if it were granted, so there’s no argument that says Apple is somehow a superior kind of company which doesn’t try to obtain and enforce the same types of software patents.
To close with a Dilbert quite which applies to a lot of people here: When did Ignorance become a point of view?