Apple Admits iPod Rips off Creative Innovations, Pays Creative $100M USD
- Thread starter syadasti
- Start date
- Status
What was the patent on?
Apple iPods infringe on Creative's patent for a navigation system used to organize and access music on digital audio players.
This website explains it:
http://www.creative.com/zenpatent/
Here is a timeline:
This website explains it:
http://www.creative.com/zenpatent/
Here is a timeline:
The navigation patent lawsuit(s) have been in process for a while now... Jobs is right, Creative is lucky and just ended up with a good patent early on. I doubt Apple actually "ripped off" anything, they just designed a system that infringed on an existing patent.
Some of their patent lawyers probably need a kick in the pants for not seeing this coming and informing Apple early in the game that their system infringed.
Some of their patent lawyers probably need a kick in the pants for not seeing this coming and informing Apple early in the game that their system infringed.
Apple's revenue was about $14 billion in 2005.
$100MM / $14BB = 0.7%
I don't think that's going to slow Apple down at all.
I don't think that's going to slow Apple down at all.
haha i find this pretty funny. From what I've gathered, Apple legally licensed the technology from Creative, who thought it would never be worthwhile (hence the licensing to Apple). Then they get pissed when Apple makes billions off the iPod.
I don't own any mp3 players anymore except my Alpine car CD player, PCs, and a Mac.spincrazy said:Please try to keep your masturbation to a minimum. We don't want you to rub it off entirely.
Do you have stock in Creative?
History shows Apple doesn't innovative - just making that clear. Apple isn't much better than MS when it comes to stealing ideas and passing them off as their own new "exciting" products.
Nice sarcasm but really, Xerox invented GUI with a mouse and Apple copied it...sanjuro said:
Early mice
Douglas Engelbart of Stanford Research Institute invented the mouse in 1963 after extensive usability testing. Engelbart's team called it "bug". It was one of several experimental pointing devices developed for Engelbart's oN-Line System (NLS). The other devices were designed to exploit other body movements—for example, head-mounted devices attached to the chin or nose—but ultimately the mouse won out because of its simplicity and convenience.
The first mouse, a bulky device (pictured) used two gear-wheels perpendicular to each other: the rotation of each wheel translated into motion along one axis. Engelbart received patent US3541541 on November 17, 1970 for an "X-Y Position Indicator for a Display System". At the time, Engelbart intended that users would hold the mouse continuously in one hand and type on a five-key chord keyset with the other.
[edit]
Mechanical mice
Bill English invented the so-called "ball mouse" in the early 1970s while working for Xerox PARC. The ball mouse replaced the external wheels with a single ball (that could rotate in any direction). The ball's motion, in turn, was detected using perpendicular wheels housed inside the mouse's body. This variant of the mouse resembled an inverted trackball and was the predominant form used with personal computers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Xerox PARC group also settled on the modern technique of using both hands to type on a full-size keyboard and grabbing the mouse as needed.
Modern computer mice took form at the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) under the inspiration of Professor Jean-Daniel Nicoud and at the hands of engineer and watchmaker André Guignard. A spin-off of EPFL, Logitech, launched the first popular mice.
The major movement translation techniques are by optical, mechanical and inertial sensors.
dont forget that al gore invented the internet.sanjuro said:
by the way, creatives are awesome.
patent or not they let apple use it before the really knew what a piece of awesomeness they had. or so i've heard.syadasti said:
I guess you don't get the idea of patents and patent process. Companies have no legal means to protect their IP until a patent is granted - a process that takes years to occur. This is why DW won't go into detail about the dw-link link until his patents are granted.jonKranked said:
If you have no patent on your idea, your patent is pending, or the patent has expired, anyone is free to copy it.
Well, it was more like Xerox told Apple, "Here's this GUI thing we've been working on, we don't want it, so you can have it." Microsoft was more like, "Hey, can we borrow a couple prototypes so we can... um... write some software for it (he he he)." I think there's a significant difference. As far as the iPod interface goes, Creative was just lucky to get an early patent on an interface that strangely resembles the browser system that iTunes already had, and that Apple incorporated into their music player. The interface is stupidly simple, and it's hard to believe anyone got a patent on it.syadasti said:
Neither were original ideas. Both were prototypes from different companies.kinghami3 said:
Regardless in this case, Apple paid Creative thus they admitted guilt.
Apple many innovations aren't their own:
GUI - Xerox
Portable HDD MP3 Players - Compaq spinoff Remote Solutions in 1999, not Apple in 2001
MP3 broadcasting - Nullsoft in 1998, not Apple in 2004
First 64-bit PC - DEC (and later again before Apple - 1997 and AMD also) a decade before Apple had a 64-bit PC designed as a "cheap" PC to run the new WinNT OS
Konfabulator - Konfabulator in 2003, not Apple Dashboard in 2005
Watson-like functionality added Sherlock and on and on..
syadasti said:
no i know very well how the patent process works. i'll see if i can digg up the article later, but what from what i remember, apple didn't come up the technology on their own, nor did they obtain it by questionable methods from creative. they approached creative about using it and creative at the time had no idea what a goldmine of an idea they had, so they said sure why not go ahead, just pay us for the idea. Then when the ipod exploded and made apple billions creative said d'oh!
nah they just marketed itsanjuro said:
The difference is that Shimano isn't known for childish references to the competition and claims of being the first and only innovator. Does the president of Shimano attend large annual public conferences were he spouts his silly smug propaganda?sanjuro said:
Maybe syadasti is really Steve Jobs and he's got some kind of self-loathing personality disorder 
I can't really explain the obsessiveness any other way...
I can't really explain the obsessiveness any other way...
I agree with Syadasti...Apple's stuff doesn't suck, just their corporate policies and neo-liberal hipster propaganda. I just wish I could stab their marketing dept for making people believe Apple is counter-culture and "different".binary visions said:Maybe syadasti is really Steve Jobs and he's got some kind of self-loathing personality disorder
I can't really explain the obsessiveness any other way...
That said, I think I'm getting an iMac for my next PC.
The whole idea of innovation with mp3 players is bit suspect. Especially in the early years technology was the real limitation. Any 13 year old with an intreast in technology could come up with the ideas. It was just a matter of waiting for technology to catch up and make the ideas possible.
Seriously, Shimano is a company which current incantation started post WW2, whereas Apple is a post hippie, pre-Internet boom company.syadasti said:
Do you think Yoshizo Shimano was raised to run his mouth, like Jobs obviously was?
While we might think of cycling as a young business, companies like Campy, Shimano, and SRAM (originally Sachs) are old school as they come...
I will say this, I take the train with many Apple people, and I can tell you the way I dress for my corporate job is much different than Apple employees look.blue said:
However, since I think dressing your lifestyle is a bad move, when one of them acts up, I always think, "Wait'll they get a load of ME!"
You guys are sad.blue said:
MOST marketing campaigns are based in fantasy. Apple's is no different.
It's an extremely effective marketing campaign, and it's very good at depriving the sheep from their money. I applaud Apple.
Marketing is marketing. I didn't buy my bikes because of ads in a magazine, and I didn't buy my Ipod because of the commericals.binary visions said:
I thought the Ipod was superior in many ways, and I feel satisfied, even though I paid the premium.
Good. That wasn't directed at people who have made an informed decision based on their own criteria. Hell, I don't care if you like the iPod because it's white or it has a fun pink sparkly accessory, as long as there's a reason.sanjuro said:
You can't argue that Apple sells a lot of product to people who have purchased it based on their marketing, though.
Do you applaud companies for promoting the "EXTREME" sports lifestyle/image?binary visions said:
Most people dislike marketing bull**** or progapanda in any form. Why would you admire companies or for that matter politicians/governments who use such underhanded devices effectively?
Government propaganda is different, that is public figures using underhanded measures to change public opinion on issues that directly impact their lives and their country.
Are you really comparing a marketing campaign for an MP3 player or "extreme" potato chips to government propaganda?
Way to have perspective.
If an effective marketing campaign seperates a few sheep from their money, big deal. It's what makes the world go 'round.
Are you really comparing a marketing campaign for an MP3 player or "extreme" potato chips to government propaganda?
Way to have perspective.If an effective marketing campaign seperates a few sheep from their money, big deal. It's what makes the world go 'round.
- Status