News Apple coughs up $100m to Creative for iPod patent

How does the start menu fall foul of it? The patent specifically singles out the artist>album>track hierarchy, not hierarchical menus in general. I wish people would actually read into things before commenting, it's getting like engadget in here...

<A88>

 

Cool I mean they couldn't single out hierachical menus in general or they would have loads less cases to debate over. I mean someone could sue pretty much any electronics device with some sort of menu system for this idea.

Absolutely absurd case, just like the whole control pad saga of last month.

Better hope nobody invents the time machine or the egyptians will be suing our asses back to the early ages for all the ideas of theirs we've ripped off.Oh but wait, they didn't patent them, they just put all the hard work in to actually manufacturing their ideas. All it seems you need to do now is suggest something obvious that we need to use and hey presto you're a millionaire over night.

 

Just as a response to all the people who are saying that this is as intelligent as "patenting common sense," take a look at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's website (http://www.uspto.gov). I think you'll find that hundreds of thousands of people have successfully patented ideas that make the heierarchial menu structure look like a mastermind invention.

However, Creative isn't just going after Apple for using the heierarchy in their design, they're going after them for the basic user interface that they own the patent for. How would you feel if your design team designed the interface (software, output, etc) and then another company used exactly that design in their product, paying you no royalties whatsoever? You'd be pretty mad, as I'm sure the original designers were when they first realized of Apple's encroachment on their territory.

Yeah, you might be pretty much able to patent common sense these days, but there are more details in the mix than most people think of. And you guys are right, Apple won this battle. They're free & clear on their ability to sell, and they've got nearly free advertising from Creative. To Creative: Good move, slick. You just screwed up the best thing that could've happened to you.

EDIT:

You're right, and I bet you wouldn't be complaining if you thought of one of those "obvious" ideas and made a few million.

 

Simple the start menu is more than customisable to do this as was stated earlier it’s the menu->artist->play situation. Besides that its not like they were the first people to arange their music in that manner, music match jukebox done this long before hd players were a glimmer in creatives eye.

 

Alright, you guys aren't realizing the major point. Think about this: why can't Creative sue Microsoft, for example, for using the heierarchial structure in the design of its software Start Menu? It's simple. Because Creative didn't patent the heierarchial menu structure in its entirety. They patented the use of this structure on portable media players. It's patent #6,928,433 in the US Patent and Trademark Office. If you want to argue with the technicalities of the trademark, check it out first, and then stake your case for why Creative was wrong.

 

Its still just software and organisation how can you possibly get away with it just becuase its in a portable device. The closest thing i can think would be putting a deseil engine in a car and patenting it becuase at the time the only place a deseil engine was used was in factories or boats. Can't see any difference between it as a deticated portable media device or a laptop with winamp or one of many other non HD based portable devices. Still got to wish you had a army of lawyer to think these things up!

 

Apple got off easy and they know it, creative probably knew that they wouldnt have had the perfect case and they let it slide.

Im not a fan of ipods mostly because of the controls and they look kinda stupid, the creative that I borrowed was a much better mp3 player in my opinion, other than being as large as a 2.5"hd, it worked great and never crashed unlike any ipod I have had experience with.

 

TBH, you should really get off your soapbox about technicalities if you're going to confuse a patent and a trademark. Yes, I know USPTO includes both, but Creative has a patent on this, NOT a trademark.

And regardless of the other BS that's been patented, it doesn't make Creative's patent on logic any less stupid. Like millions of others, I organize my music by artist/album/track, and if I were to design a portable, I'd most certainly continue with that completely intuitive and logical common-sense approach, rather than come up with some new idea that's just downright stupid. Until software can categorize tracks by which mood they'd suit best (which would be damn well worthy of a patent), there's NO better way to do it. And regardless of how many BS patents are out there, you're not allowed to patent common sense (this just shows that the USPTO is incompetent)

BTW, my original comment was more of 'why are they only going after Apple when every MP3 player on the market has the same infringement? Because Apple has the money'. Why was France's proposed 'iPod law' only targeted at Apple? Because they're the biggest. Thankfully, in that case, it WAS worded in such a way that affected everyone, but you didn't see the WMA junkies freaking out over it.

 

I'm hearing you.

You know, apple used to have a slogan, "Think different"...