Print - Creative Accuses Apple of Violating Patent in iPod

Less than a month after it was an awarded a software patent that covers the user interface Apple uses in its market-leading iPod portable MP3 players, Creative Technologies is accusing Apple of violating that patent. Apple released its first iPod in October 2001. But Creative was first to market with hard drive-based MP3 players over a year earlier, and the UI Apple uses is almost identical to that Creative pioneered.

"We are looking at all our alternatives right now," Craig McHugh, president of Creative's United States operations said, noting that while Apple was the only company it had identified as a patent violator so far, it was investigating others. "We're going to be very vigorous in bringing our new products to market and are going to be very diligent in protecting our intellectual property and our patent rights."

Despite obvious examples of prior art, Apple attempted to patent the iPod user interface in October 2002. But Creative had applied for its MP3 player UI patent in January 2001, before Apple's iPod was even a rumor. Apple's patent request was denied.

Creative hasn't decided yet if it will sue Apple or attempt to collect license fees for Apple's use of Creative's patented design. The potential upside for Creative is huge: though sales of the company's MP3 player products are dwarfed by those of Apple (Creative has sold 6 million hard drive-based MP3 since 2000, while Apple sells that many each quarter), Creative could use this patent to take part financially in Apple's iPod success, which arguably was driven in large measure by the easy-to-use interface it allegedly copied from Creative.

Apple has a few avenues of defense. It could ask the US Patent & Trademark office to re-examine the patent. Or, the company could risk a court battle if it can find examples of prior art that predate Creative's design (none of them, however, would have come from Apple, leading to the possibility that another company could attempt to patent the UI). Apple has refused to comment on Creative's patent thus far.

In related news, Creative's latest MP3 player includes an innovation that Apple is unlikely to copy. 4,000 of Creative's Zen Neon MP3 players inadvertently shipped to Japan from the factory with a functioning copy of the Wullik.b worm, which affects Windows PCs. Creative has temporarily ceased shipments of the device.

We live in a world where idea are forbidden because someone else might have had the same idea as you. You don't want to create something because it might look like something someone else did and then you get sued. This is so pathetic. Welcome to the US.

Creative is dying, after last quarters losses in the millions this is a desperate attempt for survival. If Apple wins this battle Creative will not doubt join Rio and soon Napster at the digital music tech graveyard, all thanks to the killer iTMS and iPod revolution! "Creative's Zen Neon MP3 players inadvertently shipped to Japan from the factory with a functioning copy of the Wullik.b worm, which affects Windows PCs." - HAHAAHA!!! Where is the outrage?!

I am one that patenting simple user interfaces that are menu based should not be done. In my interpretation winamp, is a portable mp3 player, that is menu based and runs on portable machines (noteooks). This will in a way help balance out the universe in the mp3 market etween the two companies. It can also make creative a monopoly driving mp3 player prices up aain up to new levels. Think aout it, Creative sells thier units for a reasonable price, and charges other manufactuers a hefty licence fee, causing higer prices and less profits, jsut think about the end result. This case is similar to microsoft copying Apples GUI, a while back. Imagine if microsoft had to pay licence fees. The pattent office should have placed this in the same bracket as that answer GUI's that are common practices should be public domain. Cell phone manufactuers, PDA manufactuers are all subject to investigation now since the use a menu to play MP3 Music, even talet PC'c Are subject. THis is such a general patent it's rediculious.

Another victim of the innovative, creative Apple. No wonder Microsoft is also dying. Vista is going to be the biggest flop since Windows ME. Windows--for playing videogames in your admin account while anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, and registry cleaner software runs in your system tray. Macs--for getting real work done.

I guess this is the only way competitors will be able to try and topple the rising Apple behemoth. It will fail, of course, but expect whining M$ defenders and Creative defenders to rally behind it.

"We're going to be very vigorous in bringing our new products to market and are going to be very diligent in protecting our intellectual property and our patent rights." LOL. Is this the only way Creative can compete? Patent litigation? Expect this to get tossed out due to prior art. List-based interfaces aren't exactly something new. It's sickening that Paul would say Creative "pioneered" list-based interfaces.

"Expect this to get tossed out due to prior art. List-based interfaces aren't exactly something new. It's sickening that Paul would say Creative "pioneered" list-based interfaces." I must agree creative did not pioneer this, winamp gets the crown. to me. This will get thrown out, I like creative not the ipod, but I don't belive this patent should have been awarded to creative. Doesn't seem right, they didn;t invent the interface in the first place. I belive the patent should be alterd to very specific, or throw the darn thing out. Creative made it's mistake by making the darn things so ig to begin with, then they were so expensive. Apple stepped in and did the right thing. Used the right tactics and made it work. Fraun hoffer should go after creative with heftier licence fees. anywas --Trancey --0ggVorbis --Linux --Gnome

"Look! All the Apple bigots have something to cry about...' People who are against ridiculously dumb patent battles are suddenly "Apple bigots?" Regardless of the fact OS X trumps Windows (even Paul Thurrott believes this), this is about Creative being stupid.

"People who are against ridiculously dumb patent battles are suddenly "Apple bigots?" " Nope - the idiots that turn everything into Apple vs Microsoft are the "Apple bigots". Just that now they have something to cry about. Sorry, what was that??? Something about Apple being "innovators". Don't make me laugh !

"I thought that this site was WinInformant?" It used to be when Windows Longhorn was actually promised to be something big. Then it came out that it's just a redressed Windows XP SP3 with ripped-off features from OS X Tiger which shipped last, what, March?

"I thought that this site was WinInformant?" iTunes is one of the most popular applications on the Windows platform. The iPod works with iTunes. You do the math.

Meanwhile: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1854769,00.asp "Creative Technology Ltd. ... shipped almost 4,000 digital music players in Japan that contain a Windows worm, according to an advisory from Finnish security company F-Secure Corp. The 5GB Zen Neeon players, which have been shipping for two months, contain the Wullik.B e-mail worm, also known as Rays.A, F-Secure said." I wonder if Creative will patent their "Windows Worm Delivery System?" (Oh...and only 4,000 players shipped in TWO MONTHS? Pathetic.)

Please, If this was the other way around the Apple Biggots would be saying yeah, all fear and tremble before our might. As it goes now buhbye IPidleiddots!

Pathetic indeed, they still think they have some ghusto left form thier market dominating sound blaster days. hehe --Trancey

It's about time someone else besides me decided to complain about this. As a long time creative customer, I have had many creative MP3 players. I am simply 100% in favor of Creative sueing the wholy flaming pants off of apple and I hope they die a slow miserable death. I for one and upset that they continue to leech off of everyone else's ideas, they can't come up with their own, and they make things 10000 times better by daring to accuse others of doing it. Shame on you apple, shame shame shame, shame on you folks for owning an ipod, throw it away and buy two creative devices now.

Apple can't even creative their own office app for christ's sakes. Even Linux has one of those LMFAO!!

Maybe I won't have to see those stupid freaging apple lunatics dancing on my TV anymore with an IPOD plugged in. I think they need real jobs anyways.

Winamp has nothing to do with a device using this design. Winamp is PC based software.

"Maybe I won't have to see those stupid freaging apple lunatics dancing on my TV anymore with an IPOD plugged in. I think they need real jobs anyways." Can't wait to see these lunatics and all iPod users start suing apple for their hearing loss in few years.

Vista is going to be a huge success. Why? Large install base. No new PC OS for years. It will be a ripe market ready for a new OS. The GUI will dazzle and Microsoft will be able to toot myriad features. I bet they'll even sell untold millions of retail 'Upgrade' packages let alone OEM. And it will be a good thing for the computer world because it will generate a lot of activity, jobs etc. It will probably even be good for the competition!

Americans seem sue too much. People in other countries usually do not sue each other at the rate Yankees do. In one sense it is a good thing to have recourse to courts, sure, for legimtate grievance, but in the States it seems to be just another way to do business. I don't think "the American people" owe the business community a riduclous level of access to the court system. Why should the taxpayers there support that? Maybe you guys need an honest-to-goodness grievance test for companies to pass before they can take an issue to court. Or perhaps the judiciary there should be made to be a bit more prudent.

I think that, if nothing else, this whole issue should point out to Apple fanatics that the company is not the sole source of innovation in the industry. While Apple would have you believe that they just came up with some new product or feature completely out of the blue, the facts are that they borrow and build upon other people's ideas just like everyone else does. I am personally amused by this whole situation simply because you KNOW Apple would be doing the same thing had they won the patent, being that they already accuse everyone of ripping off their ideas.

"iTunes is one of the most popular applications on the Windows platform. The iPod works with iTunes." Once again, you Apple ninnies don't see the big picture. iTunes and the iPod may be popular, but in terms of whether it is Windows new is not a question. It is not. Notice that WinInformant is on a site called Windows IT Pro. That name should mean something. I want news centered around Windows, and catered towards the IT Pro. Hence the name. iPod copyright infringement is NOT news that should be on this site. iTunes is not an enterprise app, nor does it have the install base that you so blissfully think it has. Since this is a site for IT Pros, I know that iTunes will NOT be installed on the majority of Windows PC's in corporate America. Paul, please keep this kind of news on your personal blog. Hence that is the reason why you have it.

Am I missing something here? Isn't the iPod interface simply an example of a classic tree structure? How can you patent a tree?

The one reason @pple is doing well is because of IPod. If they didn't steal the interface then Creative would be leader and @pple would be dead.

"We live in a world where idea are forbidden because someone else might have had the same idea as you." Patents are designed to promote the exploration of ideas, because when you finally get a good one, you can actually claim it as yours, like Creative is trying to do now. You're all criticizing Creative because it's inconveinent that they came up with the idea used on the ipod you all love, but how would you like it if YOU came up with the idea, Steve Jobs stole it as his own, and there was no recourse? Don't bash a great idea (patents) because they're minorly annoying to you personally.

If the UI was the reason it was a success, and Creative already had the UI in their products, why isn't Creative the market leader now?

"If the UI was the reason it was a success, and Creative already had the UI in their products, why isn't Creative the market leader now?" To expensive, bad support bad drivers in the begining, and a horrble marketing campaing. I to this day have not seen one comercial with the nomad as the feature. I own a Nomad Jukebox Zen Extra my self love it. I had the original it was no beuty. it is a bit hefty in terms of dimensions. Creative lost out for not investing into the product and using reasonable prices. Today you can get an ipod at a low price and media gropus are giving them away for free all the time, rappers movie stars, MTV, athlets. It has a full fleged marketing beast behind the product. --Trancey I don't like being an anonymoys coward So Here is my email: bambamm20@yahoo.com

"Creative's Zen Neon MP3 players inadvertently shipped to Japan from the factory with a functioning copy of the Wullik.b worm, which affects Windows PCs." - HAHAAHA!!! I don't think the idea of people buying stuff with worms on it is funny. Ever heard of "shameful joy"? "Look! All the Apple bigots have something to cry about..." Not with all the attention Paul gives them :X. He's admitted he's somewhat of an Apple fan, but he's not jerk when it comes to Windows :P. "Apple can't even creative their own office app for christ's sakes. Even Linux has one of those LMFAO!!" Erm, There's NeoOffice/J (OpenOffice Port) for Mac OS X, and there's also iWork . I bet the Apple guy's surprised I knew that :|.

"Maybe I won't have to see those stupid freaging apple lunatics dancing on my TV anymore with an IPOD plugged in. I think they need real jobs anyways." You either have a job or un-poor parents to own Apple stuff (with the exception of the over-priced Apple cube).

QUOTE: "I don't think the idea of people buying stuff with worms on it is funny. Ever heard of "shameful joy"?" Ah, schadenfreude, the malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others. Unfortunately it's commonplace in this industry where there must be winners and losers. Windows wins over the Mac, iPod wins over Zen, the Red Sox win over the Yankess. The MP3-player is big enough for a lot of people -- it's just that the software companies (Apple, MS) want to control the DRM and the distribution. Lock-in is the only way. Apple has locked-in a number of users to the iPod for the sole purpose of sticking it to MS. Ok, not the sole purpose, but a purpose. The main purpose is to make money, then stick it to MS. --mike

LOl, iwork is HARDLY a real office suit. Power point and a crappy word processors don't make an office suite, what about collaboration and communications? Open office was not created by APPLE lol

It would seem another dying company that can't compete based upon their products will use lawsuits to make $$$. SCO, Creative, all the same to me!

"sn't the iPod interface simply an example of a classic tree structure? How can you patent a tree?" It's another example of the patent office losing its freaking mind and becoming more and more irrelevant.

"It's another example of the patent office losing its freaking mind and becoming more and more irrelevant." I do agree the patent office has lost it's mind. You can patent jsut about anythin now a days, from common sense crap right down to something you didn't invent. --Trancey bamamm20@yahoo.com

Shame that creative have been driven to this. It would be sad to see them go belly up because their flash based offerings wipe the floor with anything Apple or anyone else has done. They're an innovative company and make good quality products. Hopefully they find a non-litigous way to stick around.

"Open office was not created by APPLE lol" Good point :P. Misread what you said. Is iWork really that bad? I do think the people that talk up KeyNote haven't used powerpoint since powerpoint 97 or 95. It's come a long way since then (we have motion paths, precise timing, lots of stuff can happen at once, etc.)

"Sorry, what was that??? Something about Apple being "innovators". Don't make me laugh !" Uh, dummy, you think Creative invented playlist-based interfaces? You're just mad WMA has been sunk in the mud by the people's choice, Apple.

I thought that this site was WinInformant? ------------ Yeah well, Paul sees the iPod threatening WMA, which.. apparently courses through Paul's veins. I totally agree that Apple used the same menu system as Creative, we all knew that Creative had its music players out first, but er..since when is a drop down menu-style hierarchy an innovation? I'm kinda surprised that a patent was awarded at all..but hey..whatever.. The secret to the iPod is that Apple is a hardware AND a software company, excellent at both. When Paul talks about the iPod UI, he's being disingenuous: The iPod UI is not the menu system, but rather the clickwheel. It's worth noting, however, (now that I think of it) Apple doesn't use the exact same menu system as Creative.. I remember reading about how Jobs wouldn't release the iPod until you could find the song you were looking for in three clicks or less.. so they definitely worked to make their menus accessible, not just copy what Creative did. They still should pay some money to Creative, but.. pfft.. not much.

Am I missing something here? Isn't the iPod interface simply an example of a classic tree structure? How can you patent a tree? ========== Yup.. look at the menus at the top of your current screen, this is exactly how they work. Nothing original here, just.. in MP3 Player Form. *shrug

LOl, iwork is HARDLY a real office suit. Power point and a crappy word processors don't make an office suite, what about collaboration and communications? ===== Eh? MS Office is for the Mac, so you're complaining that.. er.. there isn't a completely ignorable alternative like...NeoOffice? Oh, you think Apple programmers stink because there's no Excel-wannabe in iWork.. wait no.. that's not it.. Can you think of any downsides to Apple creating a full-fledged Office Bundle... Think really hard (hint: Bill Gates...)

Stupid Thurott! If Creative has invented everything, and Apple has copied everything from Creative, why Creative has not been successful as Apple? Why their selling rate lies miserably behind Apple? Do you really think that they wanted to patent this MP3 player interface because they thought that it was a so big invention? Its a common practice that compagnies that are unable to compete againts another one just try the patent way to get some dollars. Thats so disgusting from Creative! For sure apple tried to patent the Ipod interface to avoid such situation where a compagny like creative try to be so coward to compete. They knew that someone will try to patent this kind of interface to knock down any loyal competion, and sure to knock down apple sucess. Such compagnies can not do it by innovating, they do it with the coat. But i doubt that Creative can get any success from such behavior, they dont have the legal power of Apple, it will cost them hell to fight apple in coat. And any judge wont give any credit of their complain,........ But Thurott why can't you understand things or try to do so, instead of just attacking Apple so stupidily????

I think people are getting their panties in a bunch here trying to make it seem like Paul is personally attacking Apple in some way. I don't see it. He reported, as other organizations have reported, that Creative is suing Apple for a patent that they were GRANTED, on a date before the iPod was released. What this means, *IF* they are successful, is that Creative will be able to either get Apple to change the iPod, or to pay some sort of royalty to Creative. We can argue to the hilt about innovation, but the patent office has spoken in Creatives favor. What will happen next is anyones guess.

Let me know when Windows will be able to do ANYTHING on this page: http://www.macworld.com/2005/09/features/tigertips1/index.php

I still find it amazing that people actually carry hardend opinions and "love" for an OS, or processor for that matter(Intel vs AMD). Buy what works for you and if something better comes along, use it. Creative isn't so creative these days I guess.

No I think not, in engineering and other product developments you can patent; if you have the idea and then spend money developing that idea, why should someone be able to just take that idea? patent cases can prove that you have had the idea at the same time then the patent [i believe] is not infringed, but only in that country, that is part of US patent law [again as i understand]; but how do you know Apply simply did not copy it? the question is not time to market, the question is first to patent; that is just life and has been part of engineering for years, I think you choudl grow up and smell the coffee, their is a new methodology out in the world called Fluid, it is fantastic at business and or product development and employs new ways to patent to ensure protection. In effect people go pon about big bad corporartes, but here creative is the little guy by comparison to Apple; so they had more sense than Apple' its a mistake Apple will not make again; or did you ever think Apple may have known they were going to get sued and may have calcualted the cost, reasoned it off against controlling the market and know the Creative would not make them recall the iPods, but woudl take the money? do you think is fair? no it is not it forces you into something you maybe do not wnat to do; how would you feel if you got an idea at work and someone listened and took that idea to your boss? would you be happy - probably not; go on Creative and go on Fluid

No, the success of the iPod is not simply due to the user interface. iPods look nicer than the competition (at least they did in the past) and they have become a fashion item. Now that competitors' products look better and can compete with the iPod, I can't wait for Apple's current success to bottom out. Go on Bill, you can do it...

I hope apple gets the living sh1t sued out of them. I hope they crash and burn and steve jobs dies a miserable slow death.

You are right, the power of the brand and assiocated infrasture is very important when luanching a product and the only way the little guys can complete is with the use of patents. Creative have still to successfully sue Apple; even though Apple could have stolen the menu from Creative. Brand power, pricing policy and yes, good design are key features, it iPod does look better than Creative, but that compounds the issues i.e. Creative market edge over everyone could have been the system menus; thus you have practicality over style; now iPod have style and practicality thus no contest, its a no brainer. The next interesting competition for iPod will be Monstermob and the jukebox; that will certainly turn a page and lets see if iPod really did get the formet right or maybe we will see the iPod Mobile Phone; who knows, jukebox will be interesting; it releases in December [for the UK at least].

Apple deserves to pay multi billion dollar royalties on this. I hope they go bankrupt.

I hope apple gets the living sh1t sued out of them. I hope they crash and burn and steve jobs dies a miserable slow death. -------------- Please, people have the nerve to complain about Apple trolls, whilst ignoring comments like these? I'm sorry total difference between arguing about computer platforms and wishing someones death and those wanting to go bankrupt, sorry to disappoint, not going to happen, worst case, Creative gets bought by Apple

"I hope apple gets the living sh1t sued out of them. I hope they crash and burn and steve jobs dies a miserable slow death." Zealot.