What is Digg?148 Comments
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56Someone should patent patenting
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55Yay for Patent litigation for obvious patents!
Yep the system works! - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47I don't know whether to laugh or cry: http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9898/applemu4.gif
(TWENTY FIVE) - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -10/+55My point is that they aren't getting a cut of future iPod sales. In fact, Creative is joining Apple's 'Made for iPod' brand, which in turn gives Apple a percentage of what Creative makes on their iPod accessories. Over a period of time, with Creative not getting a straight cut of iPod sales (or licensing fees for their technology) and paying Apple a percentage of what they make, that $100 million doesn't sound so great.
- Lifestory, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34huge win for Creative shares buyer. Prices went up by 2.600, an increase of 27.1%.
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30One of TWENTY submitted articles about the same item! It's like a horse race! I can't wait to see who makes it to homepage first!
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27> Yay for Patent litigation for obvious patents!
While I do agree with you in principle, I'll feel sorry for Apple when they stop doing this themselves. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -20/+37"I think it's a win for both companies. Creative gets $100 M (win) and a valid patent (win). Creative is also on board for providing accessories for the iPod (win). Creative can also continue to see music players (win). Apple forks over $100 M (win. This amount is very small). Both companies do not have to drag this through the courts (win win)."
Hold a sec. You fankids have been ripping Creative for months as being a crappy company, and now, in order to spin this story, are making Creative out to be a great company that will sell great ipod accessories?
I see the fanboy spin is starting to make the rounds. - Darrelc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22No, They went after the big guy (fairly) because they infringed on one of their patents, which they were entirely in right to do.
- bbarnhart, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I think it's a win for both companies. Creative gets $100 M (win) and a valid patent (win). Creative is also on board for providing accessories for the iPod (win). Creative can also continue to see music players (win). Apple forks over $100 M (win. This amount is very small). Both companies do not have to drag this through the courts (win win).
- BillyEveryteen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Come on Lasty!
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22"Because sorting by artist, album, and genre in alphabetical order was so hard to think of,"
Apple apparently couldn't do it before Creative. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20So lame.
Attack the victim of Apple's theft? That will go over real well with people. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Fact: iPod was introduced on October 23. 2001
Fact: Nomad Jukebox Zen is introduced late 2002"
You are confused. The Nomad Jukebox Zen was Creative's third or fourth player in the line. Creative already had a couple of iterations of the Nomad on the market before the iPod showed up.
- alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Hold a sec. You fankids have been ripping Creative for months as being a crappy company, and now, in order to spin this story, are making Creative out to be a great company that will sell great ipod accessories?"
Well I'm not a fanboy of anything, but I do like my Creative Zen Vision, and the customer service Creative provides isn't half bad either.
The description of this Digg entry made me lol. - MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@mrASSMAN
Why didn't you try to help Apple win this one? Maybe you could have gotten that $100M instead of Creative!
People think it's so obvious that the Zen Patent should be invalid...but if it's so, then why would Apple shell out that much money AND give up those other 4 lawsuits they had against Creative?
People should RTFP first before they make a comment. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"It's sleazy because Creative took advantage of a working relationship with Apple, by stealing unpatented technology from them."
The Nomad was launched before Creative and Apple ever met on the subject. There was no "working relationship" vis. MP3 players at that time.
"The Nomad didn't have the UI that Creative would later use after they saw Apple's prototypes."
This is the timeline:
1. Creative launched the Nomad (with the UI in question, of course).
2. Apple sees released product; asks for meeting with Creative.
3. Meetings go poorly; Apple designs their own.
I think you might be confused because you're aware that Creative and Apple were once talking about working together on a player, but you were not of the understanding that these talks happened well after the Nomad was in customers' hands. - Spaceboy492, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19People who don't feel like using up twice the space on their players without noticing a difference at all. I like to keep it at 192kbps or over myself.
PS: Yay for Creative! This won't stop the public from thinking they're ripping off of Apple though, because the public is ignorant. :( - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Apple clearly invented the iPod interface first"
And Apple was so excited about "their invention" that they decided to pay Creative 100 million dollars. - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14The poster of this story doesn't get it. Apple paid out a little to settle a lawsuit that could have cost them $100 million or more to continue to fight (according to the news.com article) but what the settlement has also done is made Creative a licensed "Made For iPod" company. Why does this matter? Because it means that Creative will be shilling for Apple WHILE still trying to sell their own players. While Creative won the settlement battle they lost the war.
$100 million is worth having your competitor advertise for you... - flatboy2016, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10looks like those counter suits get dropped
- MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Why should we stop attacking creative? They got lucky in their patent... There's enough prior art to REALLY invalidate this if you have even the poorest of vision, and Apple just missed the patent by a few months... (which I STILL would've said it was invalid due to prior art...)
The real issue is that Creative can't make a decent product, so they resort to patent litigation....
It's as if you lose in the market, you sue to stop others from gaining.
Great... - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Apple clearly invented the iPod interface first; Creative got to see it, and then patented a virtually identical interface right under Apple's nose."
What gives you this idea? The iPod was not a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye when Creative shipped the Nomad. Remember "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." from Slashdot?
"Then Creative sues as soon as the Patent is approved. Sleazy."
How ironic. Remember, Apple is the company that won't let anybody else call the trash can a "trash can" or draw a hard drive icon that looks like a hard drive, because they have the patent on it. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Seeing comments like this reminds me of Middle Eastern terrorist who strap bombs on and needlessly blow up people after they long lost the war.
Dude, Apple lost. you can stop attacking Creative. - QuimZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That's because only iPod owners pay outrageous prices for accessories.
I own an iPod - MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think you should sue for patent infringement.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I like AAC - 192kbit and up.
(what does this have to do with the article) - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Cool! Now creative can say they've made some money in the mp3 player market!
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Those who live by the sword...
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@inkswamp:
"I don't think the original Nomad had the UI in dispute so what's your point?"
It did. You might be confused because it's called the "Zen Patent," but if you look at the patent filing, those are Nomad screens.
"FWIW, Apple went to Creative prior to either company entering this market with a proposition to jointly build a music player."
Partially right. Apple went to Creative, AFTER they had launched the Nomad.
"Who invented what gets very hard to discern with that kind of thing."
It's pretty clear. Creative was in the market first. Hard to believe nowadays with the iPod being so popular and all, but it's true. Apple wasn't even #2, or even #3 in the market. - theprez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I guess this story was the winner. I think this statement is the one that should've gotten to the front page though:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html - EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What I would really like to see come out of this is a better driver programming team from Creative. They seriously have some of the buggiest drivers I have ever used. Plus they always release the stable driver 6 months too late...
- Jacob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@titlesaysitall
He is using a greasmonkey plugin. - MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Shark72
Quite mature of you... guess that's why you're on Digg too.
Read the information about the patent. Apple DID miss the application by a few months.. Apple went to Creative and wanted to partner with them for a music player. Creative snubbed them... Apple made their own... and Creative's patent filing made it in and was approved... Apple's was rejected. I forget the details, but you're a smart guy:
Google is your friend...
And while you're there... look up "prior art" just so you'll get a grasp of what we grownups are talking about. - Docgila, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For those who can remember. Creative came out with the Nomad music player and the Jukebox (1999-2000) 1 to 2 years BEFORE the Ipod.
- xtremesniper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even thought I just bought a Macbook, I have to say Creative deserved this one. Good job on the win.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The patent system is so screwed up. If anything becomes successful, eventually somebody with a broad patent will sue.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Creative initially demanded that Apple stop shipping iPods, a far more drastic demand than $100M. Looks like Apple's countersuits may have proven instrumental in producing a less drastic resolution.
- burntfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What happened to all those suits Apple dropped on Creative?
- themacx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In other news the Dell Diddy is dead.....:)
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So Creative's MP3 division finally made some money!
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Hi-larious!" - flag564
What's even more hilarious, flag, is how this same patent is going to smack your beloved Zune down before it even gets out of the gate. - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5yeah the iPod UI is pretty similar to Creatives, infact I kinda like creatives better, it seems more develped which would lead you to belive apple copied it. Ohwell the iPod is still beter than anything creatives got!
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The Mac Cult called, they are writhing in pan about the decision and have assembled a sniper team outside of Creative HQ.
- DimitroffVodka, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13I think this is so funny you all ripping on Creative. When they make a SUPERIOR product. I owned an Ipod Video and returned it for a Creative Zen M. If you don't believe me it is better than check out: http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.259
It has a better screen and plays more video formats, such as Divx and Xvid. - Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"What are those Sandisk guys up to nowdays? still making memory cards?"
Uhm, they just released a new player: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14448739/from/RS.5/ - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 $100 M / All the iPods sold = fee/iPod. Any ideas about the # of iPods sold?
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Creative gets $100m to shore up their constant annual losses on me-too DAPs, and gets to put "made for iPod" on their products.
Technically a win for Creative, but I wouldn't be too proud of being a Creative exec these days. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And while you're there... look up "prior art" just so you'll get a grasp of what we grownups are talking about."
Precisely my point, MechaFenris. The Mac fanboys are screaming "prior art!" "prior art!" because they haven't grasped that the prior art wasn't valid.
Patent law is apparently more complex than you think. Kudos to you if you think that you're smarter and more observant than Apple's cadre of lawyers, but I assure you that this is not the case. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -15/+17Watch that click wheel spin!
"But, but, Appple really won! See Creative really could have recived more even though we fanboys were saying that they didnt stand a chance"
Fanboys are not good at spin! -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 