- Related Stories
-
Creative sues Apple over iPod interface
May 15, 2006 -
Creative wants to make Apple pay
December 9, 2005
The suit was initiated in a Wisconsin federal court on May 15, the same day that the Singapore-based electronics maker said it had sued Apple in U.S. District Court in California, seeking an injunction against the iPod and damages.
In its complaint, Apple accuses the company of infringing on four of its patents related to user interfaces and icon displays for digital media players. The company is requesting monetary damages and an injunction barring continued use of its patents.
In a separate complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission filed this week, Creative is also seeking an injunction that would stop Apple from selling the iPod and iPod Nano in the United States.
Creative's complaints center on a patent describing a system for organizing music and songs used in its Zen MP3 player, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded it last August. The company's chief executive hinted a few months later that he planned to assert the company's patents against suspected infringers and seek royalties.
Apple declined to comment on Friday. Creative did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
See more CNET content tagged:
injunction, patent, Creative Labs Inc., Singapore, electronics company
will issue an injunction against Apple selling iPods. But, even if
such a thing were possible,, I don't think many consumers would
buy Creative MP3 players. They would just wait for the iPod to
become available again.
will issue an injunction against Apple selling iPods. But, even if
such a thing were possible,, I don't think many consumers would
buy Creative MP3 players. They would just wait for the iPod to
become available again.
User Interfaces for 30 years and hold numerous patents of their
own.
Creative is now, rightfully so in my opinion, locked in a dance to
the finish on this one.
Creative will emerge weaker and less "creative," Their original
suite was without merit in my view and just one more example
of the wasteful "legaleeze" that pervades our cultures.
DJO
This is what you get
This is what you get
When you meeeessssssss with us
User Interfaces for 30 years and hold numerous patents of their
own.
Creative is now, rightfully so in my opinion, locked in a dance to
the finish on this one.
Creative will emerge weaker and less "creative," Their original
suite was without merit in my view and just one more example
of the wasteful "legaleeze" that pervades our cultures.
DJO
This is what you get
This is what you get
When you meeeessssssss with us
There are lots of people out there who would buy other MP3 players if they knew they existed. The type who don't care if they fit in with the 'Abercrombie Kids' and have an Ipod like everyone else. Units from iRiver, Cowon, and Creative often have more features like FM tuners and voice recorders, more supported file formats, better audio quality (although only by a small margin that most people don't notice), and are usually cheaper (And they don't usually build in the battery so you have to pay an absurd fee or buy an extended warranty to have it replaced-Yes, that is how Apple instructs salespeople to pitch Applecare, it primarily hinges on the battery going bad...I work at a major electronics retailer and we have a full-time Apple rep in the store).
And for what it's worth, Creative does hold the more important patent, the music categorization(And rightly so, the Nomad came out well before the Ipod). It would be easier for Creative to change their players to not infringe on Apple's patents than for Apple to change the Ipod. My guess is Creative and Apple will settle for some cash going Creative's direction....a lump sum, not royalty per unit.
is that Windows sits on 95% of desktops in the same that the
iPod has the digital audio player market.
One of the reasons that people may not know that OTHER
players exists is because they don't advertise where the average
people may view them. ON TV. When was the last time you've
seen a commercial for a Creative or iRiver player? EXACTLY!!!
Don't fault Apple because the other companies aren't doing as
good a job at marketing their wares.
Also, I hear a lot of you rant on how much better the other
players are. Since when does having MORE features actually
make something BETTER. Built in FM radio, if you need that,
that's fine. Alot us don't need or even want built in FM or Voice
Recorders. It's nice, but it's not a necesity.
If you don't like the iPod, good that's you. Don't buy one. I'm not
a fan of Windows so I don't own a windows machine, but I don't
come on here and knock everyone else that does.
From the carping of people like you, one would think that there
are armed Steve Jobs commandos standing at the not-a-Pod
displays in big box stores preventing customers from buying
Creative and other also rans. That is not the case. Consumers
are choosing to buy iPods.
I was just over at Amazon gifting a friend an iPod. Took a
glance at the top 25 items sold in electronics. Seven of them
were iPods. One was a Zen.
There are lots of people out there who would buy other MP3 players if they knew they existed. The type who don't care if they fit in with the 'Abercrombie Kids' and have an Ipod like everyone else. Units from iRiver, Cowon, and Creative often have more features like FM tuners and voice recorders, more supported file formats, better audio quality (although only by a small margin that most people don't notice), and are usually cheaper (And they don't usually build in the battery so you have to pay an absurd fee or buy an extended warranty to have it replaced-Yes, that is how Apple instructs salespeople to pitch Applecare, it primarily hinges on the battery going bad...I work at a major electronics retailer and we have a full-time Apple rep in the store).
And for what it's worth, Creative does hold the more important patent, the music categorization(And rightly so, the Nomad came out well before the Ipod). It would be easier for Creative to change their players to not infringe on Apple's patents than for Apple to change the Ipod. My guess is Creative and Apple will settle for some cash going Creative's direction....a lump sum, not royalty per unit.
is that Windows sits on 95% of desktops in the same that the
iPod has the digital audio player market.
One of the reasons that people may not know that OTHER
players exists is because they don't advertise where the average
people may view them. ON TV. When was the last time you've
seen a commercial for a Creative or iRiver player? EXACTLY!!!
Don't fault Apple because the other companies aren't doing as
good a job at marketing their wares.
Also, I hear a lot of you rant on how much better the other
players are. Since when does having MORE features actually
make something BETTER. Built in FM radio, if you need that,
that's fine. Alot us don't need or even want built in FM or Voice
Recorders. It's nice, but it's not a necesity.
If you don't like the iPod, good that's you. Don't buy one. I'm not
a fan of Windows so I don't own a windows machine, but I don't
come on here and knock everyone else that does.
From the carping of people like you, one would think that there
are armed Steve Jobs commandos standing at the not-a-Pod
displays in big box stores preventing customers from buying
Creative and other also rans. That is not the case. Consumers
are choosing to buy iPods.
I was just over at Amazon gifting a friend an iPod. Took a
glance at the top 25 items sold in electronics. Seven of them
were iPods. One was a Zen.
waste precious marketing money trying to fight this court case
instead of marketing their products....
waste precious marketing money trying to fight this court case
instead of marketing their products....
This is what you get
This is what you get
When you meeeeeeeeeessss with us
This is what you get
This is what you get
When you meeeeeeeeeessss with us
All I know is that both parties products are lame. Apple audio/build quality sucks, as does its software. BOY anyone who can say it's 'good code' clearly needs a reality check.
Creative's player while being more open, has serious reliability issues, coupled with imitation of apple designs.
They are both going to suffer, when the mobile phone hits 4Gb+. I and Millions of others carry it everywhere. why duplicate??
All I know is that both parties products are lame. Apple audio/build quality sucks, as does its software. BOY anyone who can say it's 'good code' clearly needs a reality check.
Creative's player while being more open, has serious reliability issues, coupled with imitation of apple designs.
They are both going to suffer, when the mobile phone hits 4Gb+. I and Millions of others carry it everywhere. why duplicate??
pathetic jealous attempt to squeeze some money out of a company
clearly favored by consumers. Just about as lame as the Apple
Corps suit.
pathetic jealous attempt to squeeze some money out of a company
clearly favored by consumers. Just about as lame as the Apple
Corps suit.
The funds Creative has left would have been better used to focus on what they do best. Sound cards, etc.
Apple's Lawyers strategized Creative's sucker punch from the get-go only to go for the knock out.
to do with the merits of the case. When one is issued, rarely in
buisness cases, it prevents some foreseeable harm from
occurring. Creative will be unable to meet that criterion.
This is not the kind of case a corp settles because it involves an
important aspect of the product. Apple will see this one
through and prevail.
It is also key that Creative is not on equal footing with Apple.
The impression that Creative, losing money, is trying to recoup
its losses by strongarming Apple, will influence the judge
hearing Creative's case. Ironically, the market leader will be
cast as the underdog.
The funds Creative has left would have been better used to focus on what they do best. Sound cards, etc.
Apple's Lawyers strategized Creative's sucker punch from the get-go only to go for the knock out.
to do with the merits of the case. When one is issued, rarely in
buisness cases, it prevents some foreseeable harm from
occurring. Creative will be unable to meet that criterion.
This is not the kind of case a corp settles because it involves an
important aspect of the product. Apple will see this one
through and prevail.
It is also key that Creative is not on equal footing with Apple.
The impression that Creative, losing money, is trying to recoup
its losses by strongarming Apple, will influence the judge
hearing Creative's case. Ironically, the market leader will be
cast as the underdog.
HA! HA! I've never seen Stock go down so fast!
Apple started preparing for this case the day Creative won the rights to this minor patent.
Creative though they could finagle money from Apple because of an inconsequential patent they have. Creative's patent has nothing to do with the success of the Ipod. If it did then the Zen would probably as successful--don't you think.
Now greed and trickery will be Creatives undoing.
It's a shame too because they made really good sound cards.
Sell your stock before it's too late...
- Oh, What a Web We Weave...When first we practice to deceive
- by phoenix8603 May 19, 2006 4:24 PM PDT
- Oh, What a Web We Weave...When first we practice to deceive.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (50 Comments)HA! HA! I've never seen Stock go down so fast!
Apple started preparing for this case the day Creative won the rights to this minor patent.
Creative though they could finagle money from Apple because of an inconsequential patent they have. Creative's patent has nothing to do with the success of the Ipod. If it did then the Zen would probably as successful--don't you think.
Now greed and trickery will be Creatives undoing.
It's a shame too because they made really good sound cards.
Sell your stock before it's too late...