May 16th, 2006
Creative Sues Apple
By Michael Santo
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews
In this case I would ask, “What took you so long?”, as Creative was awarded the so-called “Zen Patent” last year (August 2005). It seemed apparent then that if they couldn’t beat Apple in the marketplace, the courtroom might be a place to try. Yesterday Creative filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging patent infringement over the iPod, as well as filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission.
At issue is the so-called “Zen Patent,” which Creative was awarded in August 2005. The company says that it engineered and demonstrated the interface that Creative’s players, as well as competing players, use well before the first iPods were shipped.
Creative has asked the ITC to investigate whether or not Apple has violated tariff laws through the sale of iPods. Specifically, the company refers to the portion of the law that pertains to the prohibition of the importations and sale of products in the U.S. that infringe on another companies patents. Source: BetaNews
We Say: Quite possibly any delay in litigation to this point has involved behind-the-scenes negotiation, though that’s all speculation on my part. At any rate, in their latest quarter Creative reported a $114.33 million loss, which it largely blamed on its media player woes … so they need to do something.
Bryan Henry says:
Looks like an attempt for Creative to cash in on the Ipod popularity. I doubt the courts will give anything to this company unless they have some great evidence. My only fear is that the Ipod may be forced to stop production while the case is heard.
Bryan Henry
http://techntoons.blogspot.com
May 16th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Jasper says:
“which it largely blamed on its media player woes … so they need to do something.”
Drop it ? and do what the did well the last 20 years that kind of in the spirit of doing something, get back into the embedded sound chip and DX market ? that’s kind of also doing something
May 17th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Mike says:
WOOHOO - no more ipod!!!! YES!!!
Mike
A guy can dream cant he :p
May 17th, 2006 at 1:59 am
OMAC says:
“Looks like an attempt for Creative to cash in on the Ipod popularity. I doubt the courts will give anything to this company unless they have some great evidence. My only fear is that the Ipod may be forced to stop production while the case is heard.”
Well Creative did have their product out over a year before Apple, and they applied for a patent before the iPod came out. They were just awarded the patent last year, while at the same time Apples patent was denied.
Is this an attempt to cash in on the iPods popularity? Maybe, but part of the iPods success is because of the UI, which it looks like they ripped from Creative. It’s a matter of protecting their own interests.
Apple has shot themselves in both feet with this one. The first thing the Creative lawyers will do is establish a pattern of Apple copying from Creative. Creative had a product out before Apple, Apple rips Creatives interface, Apple uses the nano designation after Creative uses it, Creative had a video player out before Apple and so on.
When the patent was awarded and Apples patent was denied, I suspect there was some negotiating behind the scenes, and it obviously fell through.
Will Apple stop making iPods? Nope, this will be settled out of court long before a judge has to intervene. Unless of course Creative or Apple is too stubborn.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:29 am
PodPerson says:
Seems to me the first thing the court will look at is the fact that the patent was awarded well after other people were using this technology. It might go something like this….
Judge: So tell me again, you got this patent AFTER other people were already making things using this “technology”?
Creative: Ummmm, yes, but we applied for it before Apple came out with the iPod.
Judge: Well actually, I’m not thinking about the iPod, I was thing more about libraries. You know, those places that categorise books, videos, music by Author/Composer/Singer, Subject matter, recent releases etc?
Creative: Ummmm, yeah, but no-one ever called it Zen before!
Judge: Well, actually, the Buddhists came up with that one didn’t they?
Creative: Ummm, yeah, but we were the first to put a religious name on an already established music library system and make it portable.
Judge: So you want to claim patent infringement on a mash-up?
Creative: Ummm….well….
Judge: Dismissed….with costs awarded against the plaintiff.
May 20th, 2006 at 1:08 am