not sure if it has been mentioned here. apple still has a pending case from microsoft and now creative has won its patent suit. looks like the next time you buy an ipod, some of it will go towards creative and possibly microsoft. that is unless apple totally revamp the ipod's design.
Well they did have the menu from 2000. Atleast people can't go 'omgz tehy stoelzd applz intarface!11one' anymore... ah who am I kidding, ofcourse they will
Originally Posted by scorpian007 Well they did have the menu from 2000. Atleast people can't go 'omgz tehy stoelzd applz intarface!11one' anymore... ah who am I kidding, ofcourse they will
Originally Posted by DigDub not sure if it has been mentioned here. apple still has a pending case from microsoft and now creative has won its patent suit. looks like the next time you buy an ipod, some of it will go towards creative and possibly microsoft. that is unless apple totally revamp the ipod's design.
Not a problem for Apple. They will simply buy the company that REALLY came up with the UI first, have Creative's patent overturned because of "prior art," and then make Creative pay royalties.
I assume you fellows know that Creative's patent is so broad that if you attached a power cord to a CD you'd probably violate it, right? It's only slightly more credible than Donald Trump's attempt to patent the phrase "You're fired." Odds are that Creative's patent grant will be overturned if the issue is ever litigated.
Originally Posted by Spad I assume you fellows know that Creative's patent is so broad that if you attached a power cord to a CD you'd probably violate it, right? It's only slightly more credible than Donald Trump's attempt to patent the phrase "You're fired." Odds are that Creative's patent grant will be overturned if the issue is ever litigated.
It's not quite that broad, but close. I actually bothered reading it, and what makes sense of it basically boils down to this:
"We have a small LCD screen. Here's a patent for tree-like navigation that changes this whole screen you're looking at as you down each level. We have a bunch of stuff here to say how we do that, because otherwise, there would be so clearly prior art that we'd have never gotten this."
If you remove the talk about the physical display, or the specifics of the data structure (which is pretty close to what I can find in the back of a C++ or Java book or three I have laying around), it's basically talking about how Explorer works by default (or xffm4, or Nautlius). How this pans out will basically be based on how well our courts can deal with it, or if anyone even has the balls to take Creative to court. Apple is really the only one big enough in the market to try. Creative will use every trick their lawyers are willing to think of.
I agree with you and for that matter, Apple has FAR more experience in this type of stuff.
Now what would be interesting if this is true would be for Apple to buy creative. Before you scoff, that might not be that far fetched. There was a rumor before the micro was released that creative shopped around the mp3 player division to sell, including to apple.
But if I were sony, i would claim that I invented the idea of a battery based music player that uses magnetic media. They would own them all.
As much as I dislike several Apple and MS patents of late, calling this one the "Zen Patent" may point to the true reason for it.
I was sad to see Rio go. I don't think I'll be when Creative exits (though the first gen NJB was my first MP3 player - and wasn't that where the Creative menus really appeared ... the "Nomad", not the "Zen"?). Now I hope Creatives financial hemorrhaging contines.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.