Reader Comments

apple should get used to following the law. Maybe they get too much praise from their cult for their own good. And same goes for creative.

"Expression Web Designer ... is a FrontPage-based, standards-based Web editing tool." Saying something is FrontPage- and standards-based sounds like an oxymoron to me. The web is littered with garbage sites created by FrontPage that don't conform to any "standards" except the ones created in Redmond. "Amazon's one-click technology" Yeah. Or as we call it around here, "The Patent Office's premier example of wasted paperwork". "Creative Technologies sued Apple Computer, noting (correctly) that Apple ripped off the user interface for its iPod devices " Wow. Paul is judge and jury. Why don't you just drop a line to Apple legal, Paul, and let them know that your extensive investigation concluded that Creative is "correct"? That way they could settle NOW, without all that messy legal stuff getting in the way. BTW, do you have an opinion on Apple's claim? Ah. I thought not.

lotsamystuff, in your own words, Paul has earned the right to be opiniated. He doesn't have an opinion on Apple's claim because, "there aren't many details yet." By the way, do you need a towel? You're drenched in kool-aid, man.

"lotsamystuff, in your own words, Paul has earned the right to be opiniated [sic]." You're absolutely right. And I have the "right" to call BS on his opinion. Isn't it a great country? "He doesn't have an opinion on Apple's claim because, "there aren't many details yet." " That never stopped him before. :-) "By the way, do you need a towel? You're drenched in kool-aid, man." Y'know, I'd borrow one of yours, but they're soaking wet from the hot flashes you get whenever you think of running Vista. So--no thanks. :-)

Thanks for correcting me. "Y'know, I'd borrow one of yours, but they're soaking wet from the hot flashes you get whenever you think of running Vista. So--no thanks. :-)" Naah. It's the worst one liner I've seen from you in a while. Take a break, you need it.

I HATE it when people change the meaning of the word "right" from the way shark47 used it to the way lotsa interpreted it. Every person has the right to free speech; me, lotsa, Paul, everyone. What a revelation. Let their be dancing in the streets, and for the love of God, no one ever mention it again. What shark47 meant is that Paul has earned the respect that makes his opinion valuable. Conversely, neither I nor lotsa have. It's called context people. And besides, patent cases are among the most Byzentine [sp?] of all lawsuits. Paul's not offering a legal opinion, he's just saying that Apple ripped off Creative's design, because they did.

Wow. How embarrasing. I meant "Let *there* be dancing in the streets."

> How embarrasing. I meant "Let *there* be dancing in the streets." Ahem... "It's called context people." I couldn't resist. :)

About Paul's adverb "correctly:" Rubbish. The column view in Apple's Finder (which is exactly what the iPod uses; it just shows one column at a time) was part of the NeXT OS way back in the 90's. As such, it certainly qualifies as prior art! And besides, I doubt Creative has the financial muscle to take on Apple in a full-blown legal shootout. Last I heard, Creative was sinking fast. When's the last time anyone here bought a SoundBlaster?

"But a New Zealand motion-capture actor who worked on "The Lord of the Rings" says he decided to investigate Amazon's one-click technology after the company delayed a book shipment to him. " Sweet mother of crap! And to think, all I've ever done was send them a nasty email.

"Rubbish. The column view in Apple's Finder (which is exactly what the iPod uses; it just shows one column at a time) was part of the NeXT OS way back in the 90's. As such, it certainly qualifies as prior art!" So? The finder came out after Creative bought the patent. I'm sure if Craetive had thought of it they would sue Apple over Finder too. Well, maybe they have thought of it but then realised that no one uses OSX and figured they'd go after the iPod Big Gun.

The hell with all this! I'M SUING YOU ALL FOR SOME REASON TO BE DETERIMED AT A LATER DATE (herein called "jumping on the bandwagon")

There is a lot of misinformation about the Creative patent. People seem to assume it is about a UI, but that's not really true. The Creative patent is for a portable music device that allows searching indexed content. The content is indexed by genre, artist, album, and track. This provides a searchable, intuitive, cross-referenced database via the UI. That is nothing like the "Apple Finder" or anything else. It is basically a relational database patent for a music player. That was never done in any way, shape, or form prior to the Nomads. Relational databases existed, but not on a portable music device with the express intent of doing library organization. Previous players offered a mirror image of a computer hard disk. If the folders on your computer were filed by album, that's the same way they would end up on your MP3 player. Creative developed this system in the late 90s, it was commercially available in 2000 on the Nomad Jukebox, and has been in use ever since. The patent application was filed at that time but was only granted last year. Speaking as someone who has been in the process, a multi-year patent application is completely normal. This is the government we are talking about... Legally you can't sue until you have the patent. There was nothing they could have done in 2001 except sit on their hands and watch their market share get eroded by their ideas. Nonetheless, almost all these high-profile suits settle out of court before trial and Creative will probably license the technology to Apple. Apple also *asked* to license the Creative UI/database technology and Creative denied the request (according to published news). Back in 2001 Creative was *the* dominant player, and it would make no sense to share. Let the slug-fest commence!

Thanks for that excellent post Christopher. One in the eye for all the Apple fans methinks.

alanm999, Christopher's post "might" be excellent if he wasn't 100% WRONG! "A method, performed by software executing on the processor of a portable music playback device, that automatically files tracks according to hierarchical structure of categories to organize tracks in a logical order. A USER INTERFACE is utilized to change the hierarchy, view track names, and select tracks for playback or other operations." "The present invention provides an efficient USER INTERFACE for a small portable music player. The invention is suitable for use with a limited display area and small number of controls to allow a user to efficiently and intuitively navigate among, and select, songs to be played. By using the invention, very large numbers of songs can be easily accessed and played." Sorry, Christopher. You are flatly wrong. Yes, it is a method to organize files (not using a database... database is NEVER mentioned in the patent... It's just a hierarchy) but it is also a USER INTERFACE (this is repeated many, many times throughout the patent.) Maybe you should read it: Search the patent office -- the url string is too long for this site. As for whether or not this was unique and orginal: this too is very much wrong. SoundJam MP used this method FIRST in 98-99 to organize music files. The lack of a portable player is irrelevant since the patent deals with software and user interface.

PFC: I choose to remain anonymous, thus I will not present credentials, but given that you're in the same situation using loaded words in relation to my credibility isn't polite. We disagree, I get that. I did not state the patent is purely about the database; rather it is for a systemic solution that allows for the logical presentation/navigation of material. I'm also keeping the context of this conversation in common terms. I do believe the Nomad devices use a specialized file system with native indexing, it isn't a database per-se but that's by far the most commonly understood and similar technology. Advanced file-systems can yield results like a database but arrive there differently. My words: "This provides a searchable, intuitive, cross-referenced database via the UI." The UI could not exist with the tertiary processes which deal with the low-level file operations, maintain the journal, cross-reference, or other elements of the system. Ultimately the "end result" is the user experience. This collective "experience" is handled by a suite of technologies. Ergo, if Apple used real-time search (much slower), but similar presentation there could still be legal basis for some sort of action. Likewise if they had different presentation, but similar supporting technologies, there could also be a valid basis. Many patents cover a "net result", but supporting innovations are still covered (more difficult to challenge since the infringement is "masked"). There has been software prior to the Nomad which included a song library. The scope of that technology would not cover a portable application since that could be overly-broad. *Those* technologies are also built on a database so the core technology is dissimilar. Patents related to desktop software wouldn't cover custom hardware-based navigation. The courts need to sort this out, but it can't be dismissed out of hand because users have a consumer preference.

Christopher, I don't know what to say since your second post is highly contradictory to your first post. Yes, the patent is about creating a hierarchical tree structure based on metadata. It is also about the display and selection of data from this hierarchy (in act, primarily so). As I said... But ... as I also said ... Apple already had SoundJam's assets by the time Creative was producing any of these products and even prior to that SoundJam MP existed. What did SJ bring to the digital audio market? A hierarchical system for organizing files based on metadata displaying panes broken down by music, genre, artist, album. So... however longwindedly you want to say it or however much you want to contradict yourself, my point remains. You were wrong to claim this is not an interface patent, and you are wrong to claim that Creative was first to do so.

There was no contradiction. The patent is for the totality of technologies that provide the experience and for the experience itself. That's what I said in the first message, and reiterated in the second. Not only is the interface covered but everything forming the basis therein. You keep insisting on mentioning Sound Jam, but that is a software product for a desktop computer. Just because someone, somewhere implemented a music library doesn't mean that constitutes prior art in relationship to implementation on a portable digital player. One cannot patent the concept of sorting music by artist, album, or genre (Microsoft Access has for many years included a sample database for maintaining a CD collection -- predating SoundJam). A company can patent how that particular method of organization gets implemented on either a computer or a specific-funciton device. Patents for desktop software do not cover hardware engineered for specific purposes, and vice versa. The application of the intellectual property is completely distinct. To be more exact, neither you nor I can ever be correct on this point. The courts and/or negotiation will determine the remedy. I frankly don't care, but it drives me nuts when people bend the truth and insist that "infringement couldn't possibly occur" when they are in no position to make such a claim. There can be 3 outcomes. The suit would have a verdict for Apple, which would mean there was no infringement. There would be a pre-suit settlement with Apple paying royalties, which would tacitly acknowledge infringement. Or there will be a verdict for Creative, thus proving infringement. My overarching point, regardless how one feels about this particular case, the case itself is not without merit. Time will provide the outcome. Emotionally vesting oneself in a preferred outcome makes no sense. Frankly it would be better for me if Apple wins because I have their stock.

Christopher, of course, you are contradicting yourself: first you said it was a database, then you said it wasn't, now you are bringing up databases. You say you can't patent sorting, but of course you can: this is what the patent in question is about. (A Sample Access DB has nothing to do with the metadata based hierarchy and interface of SoundJam.) Your simple insistence to keep returning to database when it never appears in the patent... whereas UI appears more than 5 times.... pretty well demonstrates your lack of understanding. Moreover, the patent is not specific to mp3 players. It mentions that it would be the primary and best use of it, but at no pointy is the patent restricted to a particular type of device. "To be more exact, neither you nor I can ever be correct on this point." Of course we can: how can we completely and fundamentally disagree and not one of us be right? "I frankly don't care, but it drives me nuts when people bend the truth and insist that "infringement couldn't possibly occur" when they are in no position to make such a claim." Likewise, you seem pretty predisposed to claim that it did occur which is equally absurd. "There can be 3 outcomes. The suit would have a verdict for Apple, which would mean there was no infringement. There would be a pre-suit settlement with Apple paying royalties, which would tacitly acknowledge infringement. Or there will be a verdict for Creative, thus proving infringement." There's many more outcomes: it's thrown out, Creative dies before its resolved, Apple's own cases could impact it in many ways, etc...

"Of course we can: how can we completely and fundamentally disagree and not one of us be right?" Simple, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. Opinions, are by definition not capable of being correct or incorrect. They can however be in opposition of other opinions. Someone who has an opinion, which later turns out to be correct, is an intuitive guesser. "of course, you are contradicting yourself: first you said it was a database, then you said it wasn't" It is not a database. The creative players use a file system which provides multiple entry-points to the information on the drive. SoundJam *is* a database, not a file system. Access provides a database for cataloging music, not a file system. The *only* time I mentioned a "database" in relationship to the Creative patent was my original posting. I did that for the sake of brevity since drastically more people understand the concept of a database than they do a file system. A graduate degree in Comp-Sci is helpful to properly document and comprehend the differences. "There's many more outcomes" Sure, the sun could explode, California falls off the map. The 3 I mentioned are most likely. Anything beyond those are still plausible, but pointless to include in discussion since they have a small likelihood of occurring. Additionally, the suit being dismissed is considered a positive verdict for Apple as that would be a summary judgment. "Likewise, you seem pretty predisposed to claim that it did occur which is equally absurd." Not at all... My repeated point has been the patent has merit and the courts need to decide. I've concluded each post with that fundamental point. I have no idea if infringement took place, nor are either of us equipped to make that determination unless we happen to be present during trial or work for the USPTO. You refuse to believe Apple could be at fault, I personally don't care. I create IP for a living and suits like this are interesting to me.