What is Digg?195 Comments
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -19/+139"At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuit."
lol, of course they didn't. It would be stupid to reveal your cards in a poker game.
Apple nicely asked you to back off, and you refuses. It's too late to cry, payback is a bitch. - superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -13/+64Apple isn't throwing rocks, Creative is throwing rocks, Apples launching missles. Not only does Apple have the market behind them, they have the money, and more patents than Creative.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -11/+56Apple is basically saying "you want a piece of this, bitch? We can play hardball too".
- jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+56Sounds like Apple has more rocks...
- darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49"payback is a bitch."
wow, I had the same thought when I saw this. - HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+49Well, Creative started it. Apple has to defend itself, so they are fighting back - the only logical choice.
- carebearwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Exactly. It has begun, the great battle of our time.
Funny when companies are so desperate that they'll try anything (eg. Tiger Direct vs. Apple - infringement of Tiger.) - DannyPage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
- SnapETom, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35@jarcoal
In the future, please preface your statements with "IANAL." Discovery is a formal phase that occurs after a filing of a lawsuit. Apple doesn't have to say squat until then. Now Creative and it's one ICBM is staring at a whole fleet of nukes from Apple. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37@GNiMeLF
Your arguments are not valid with the Creative and iRiver players. Creative always uses their proprietary format to transfer files (you must use a Creative program, not even WMP). Their current offerings (Zen, Zen Vision, etc) now use MTP and you MUST use Windows Media Player 10 to transfer your stuff. Windows Media Player 9 works somewhat, and WMP11 Beta breaks it (you must System Restore back to WMP10 if you can). I should know, I have a Zen Vision: M. It also is completely DRM'd.
At least iPods can be used with both Windows AND Macs (they both have iTunes, and Linux has many iPod programs, too). Zens you MUST use Windows XP. No Macs, no Linux, not even older versions of Windows (2000 can only use WMP9).
The Zen also ignores track numbers and displays all songs alphabetically. The touch-pad sensor is too sensative. They're more expensive GB for GB than iPods. Certain Podcasts don't show up in the list. The headaches aren't worth it when the only "bonus" is FM radio.
In other words, everything youi find annoying about the iPod is present and at least 30% more annoying on Creative players.
iRiver used to have UMS (Universal drag-n-drop USB interface) but now their current products it also uses MTP and DRM (PlayForSure). So your argument is invalid for iRiver, too.
Pretty much iAudio is all that's left for Drag-n-Drop, DRM-free, hard drive based MP3 players. - ani-pockdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Can anyone find a more informative article? Thanks in advance, I am interested in the details.
- dkocolin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32@GNiMeLF
i'll take apple's "connect it and itunes automatically puts all your music on it" over your "drag and drop" any day
and i'm not sure what DRM you speak of. if i dont buy music from iTMS i have no DRM. just like your PlaysForSure DRM doesn't apply if you don't buy windows media encoded music. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25All of you idiots telling them to grow up do not get it. If Creative wins, they can sue Apple for a percentage every iPod they have sold retroactively. Apple got into the business to make a profit selling iPod hardware, not to sell music online. Taking a percentage of their profits would not only mean lower profits, but also a huge hit to their stock value. That said, Creative doesn't have a chance in hell at beating Apple in this lawsuit. Apple put the bait out there and they ate it. Now this will be the straw that breaks their backs.
So it's not about immaturity, its about the bottom line. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32"(but in this case, the rocks are lawsuits)."
thanks for clarifying that... man I was seeing two companies throwing rocks at each other..hahaha.. for a second there.. haahha... but when you said lawsuits.. I realized how it all tied together.. whew.. thanks..hahahah - retral, on 10/12/2007, -14/+36Companies are acting like children it seems; one throws a rock, and the other throws another rock right back (but in this case, the rocks are lawsuits).
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28"i myself don't own a Creative player,"
Everything you have to say about Creative is invalid then. And you did mention Creative.
"i own a H320 Iriver and my argument is perfectly valid, notice how u completely ignore the comment on transfering files at friends places. and why would Creative/Iriver need to Look after the patheticaly Small Niche market of Apple computers.."
Hey just because your friends have Windows XP with WMP10 doesn't mean it's a standard.
"Hence, Bootcamp, fkn tool.. your argument is just as weak as mine"
Wow, people in the computer industry should really listen to you. So insightful. I guess that's why Apple doesn't make billions of dollars. Oh wait, I forgot, they do. Sounds like you understand Macs and Bootcamp completely. Sounds like you definitely got a firm grasp on Apple's influence in the music industry. Maybe the guys at ProTools should hire you for consulting, though.
"apple fanfagboy"
I don't own a Mac nor an iPod. But keep those witty comebacks coming. I've obviously attacked you personally. You obviously aren't an anti-Apple troll who just flames anything Apple and anyone who might possibly praise anything they do.
"and no, i recently recieved a T30 Iriver player as a gift. and guess what! They still use the good ol USB drag and drop your argument is invaild fkn moron.."
That drag-n-drop in Windows Explorer for the T30 is still done through MTP protocol, from integrated WMP10. Even though to you (who seems to know a TON about computers) it looks like standard drag-n-drop, it's not. It's still proprietary garbage. Plus the T30 doesn't play M4A or FLAC, so it's obviously crippled. You can have your expiring Microsoft DRM PlayForSure files.
Your spelling, grammar and wit is weak, even for MySpace standards (where you've obviously crawled from). - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27How long before Creative has to pay Apple a couple million in legal fees to settle this out of court?
Serves 'em right; such a lame patent anyways. How much did the Bar Association bribe the PTO to grant any and all basic software patents? They're the only winners in this nonsense...
Besides, I'm sure Creative is well-aware that Apple is one of the biggenst intellectual property owners in the World... - AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Does anyone else see 'end of Creative mp3 players' in the horizon?
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18The patent system is so screwed. Every company has broad patents they can use against each other. It's impossible to invent something without infringing on some patent.
- jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20You know what this is? This is a threat. Creative made MP3 players a year or so before Apple - so these claims are bunk. Of course Creative's patent on "heirarchal displays" are bunk too. But what this lawsuit does is drain money - I dare say Apple can afford to hemorrage more money than Creative right now.
An expensive lawsuit like this will just encourage Creative to settle low or drop charges against Apple. - phcreates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18They do??? Thanks for letting me know...
Wait - the fruit, the record label, or the computer company? - obezyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It'd be really nice to get an example, rather than just a comment that "Apple sucks!"
And what's wrong with the comments above anyway? Oooh, people are saying they support Apple's decision to fight back when another company decides to sue them. God forbid a company try to cover their asses when another company tries to take a ton of their money. - HiddenLYNX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@GNiMeLF
why yes you can actually do it in iTunes, the only thing you need 3rd party is for ripping off the ipod
you just have to turn the auto update off and you can use the "drag and drop" to the ipod and use some ripper to get it back. simple as making a complex pie, but it works. I have the patience to do it so, if you dont, sucks for you. - kenfagerdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14But why are they filing suit in the Wisconsin court system?
- AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I'm not supporting Apple against Creative, however, I like their response, as said above, the threw a rock, Apple responded with a nuke :D
- HiddenLYNX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15good, one less stupid member in digg
- Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@millixaw
"You can't use them on max/linux"
Wrong.
http://gnomad2.sourceforge.net/
http://www.wentnet.com/projects/xnjb/index.html
"They're more expensive GB for GB than iPods"
Wrong.
iPod 60gb: $370
Creative ZE: $220
They also have a VERY nice EQ, and MUCH MUCH MUCH better battery life - And yes, I have used both. Extensively. - DannyPage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This is the follow up article where Apple fires back.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Creating something and patenting it may not be that hard. But if your invention becomes enormously successful people will come out of the woodwork with their broad patents trying to suck you dry. It's almost a certainty.
- dssstrkl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13its a little late for Creative to cry foul on Apple, considering that injunction. Face it: the MP3 player market sucked before the iPod (as the former owner of no less than 3 dead Rios, I can definitely attest to that), and no one can beat it in the market. Just another reason why software patents should be abolished.
- beavioso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@superal1394
IANAL, but Apple actually doesn't own a patent on an iPod like most would expect. Creative patented it's User Interface (i.e. the way the menus are related to each other). Apple may have many patents on many different aspects of technology, but mostly they just patented the click wheel for the iPod. However, going back in patents one might find something that is prior art to Creative's UI, and Apple may own that.
Basically, Apple will probably try to get that patent invalidated. It sure sounds like that would be plausible. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Whatever you think about Apple, you have to admit that these shameless attempts to attack the iPod in every way other than directly competing with a better product are embarrassing and should be slammed down hard. Most of these attempts to kill the iPod have been met with little or no response from Apple. It's kind of good to see Apple getting a chance to punch back for once.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10None of em are on the front page though, so it doesn't matter... This is the one that's getting the comments...
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Here's waht I have a problem with: Creative gets a patent for something that is fairly obvious and intuitive, in other words it shouldn't have been granted in the first place... Then they make a product using it. Great, I'm OK with that. A year later Apple comes along and makes a similar product, which might infringe upon their [lame] patent. The time to sue them was in 2001, when the product was introduced. At that point it could have been determined if the patent was valid, and if so come to a licensing arrangement or Apple gets out of the market.
But that's not what they did. They waited for five years to file suit, after Apple has sold 10's if not 100+ million units, so they could sue for retroactive damages. It's complete BS. They KNEW that Apple was selling the iPod, it's not like they hid it. If they had a problem with it then they should have said something back then. But, they waited so they could get the most possible cash out of it, which is a stupid thing to allow.
The solution, short of completely reforming the patent system in America, is to either only allow damages to be awarded from the date the suit was first filed onward, or to require that patents be actively defended like trademarks must be else you forfeit the patent. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Creative has to stop doing what they were doing with a lot of their 2004-2005 MP3 Players, doing half-assed rip-offs of Apple products. I'm no Apple Fanboy, I love my Cowon A2 but before the Vision: M, Creative was dying in the Mp3 business.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14The only way to fight fire is with fire. If all Creative can do is use lawsuits, Apple can play that game too.
You'd think a company called CREATIVE would be a bit more creative in this mess they're in. - ryan07, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"whoever has more money in the bank wins!!!!!!" - it's called America.
And now they got me curious ... what 4 patents did they infringe upon? Volume, screen, mp3 capability, ... what's the fourth? - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Two words: SoundJam and iTunes. The "zen" interface Creative claims existed in both SoundJam, the predecessor to iTunes, which Apple bought & iTunes 1.0. Both of which were released prior to the patent application. Preceding that in the same vein was Nextstep, whose navigation system is the same idea & preceded them by almost 10 years. Thus prior art existed that is owned by the supposedly offending company. Case closed, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
- AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Very true, and when you have a market share as big as the iPod's with its huge economy behind it, it just sounds logical to protect it even by releasing your lawyers :)
- reject, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Personally, my favorite player was the Intel Pocket Concert, which debuted sometime in late 2000 or early 2001. Dependable, metal framed, sweet and easy interface, and wouldn't care if a bit of rain hit it. But, you're right, the market was nothing before the iPod allowed everyday people to enjoy their MP3's on the go.
What I'm waiting for is the owner of the playlist patent (if there is such a thing) to cry foul on every MP3 player, both software and hardware, and for them to run every other company into the ground with legal fees and the like. If Creative is silly enough (yes, silly, as their 'Zen Patent' is basically used and was used in every MP3 player, except those without an interface, even before Creative was in the market)-- if Creative is silly enough to follow through on their lawsuit of Apple, I can only hope that every other hardware manufacturer of MP3 players takes Apple's side and forces Creative into a corner.
Patents are one thing, but to attack a company that's made you more profit by legitimizing the market, that's just idiotic. Creative won't win this, and, if they do, they'll be the death of the portable MP3 market until a new way to organize music on a device comes to fruition (if it hasn't already.. perhaps voice recognition?). - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah these companies never learn. They've got more money than brains.
Apple is just like Microsoft. They've got a "war chest" full of patents just waiting to bring out when the time is right. - noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Does anybody else think that Apple is the type that would rather not sell another iPod than be forced to give Creative a single cent for future ones?
I hope Creative gets their ass for this. They could have sued several years ago. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To make all the Creative guys fly to Wisconsin to defend themselves.
- NumbCore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8...or expect them to press charges for assault.
- ZekeSulastin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Millixaw, I stopped reading your post (figuratively speaking) when you said Creative players don't read track numbers.
The ONLY thing they read is ID3 information. INCLUDING TRACK NUMBERS. I cant say I own a recent device - Zen Xtra, firmware 1.03.02 (before PFS support), but I frequent a Creative forum, and it's pretty clear to me that the new devices sort mp3s like the old ones - BY TAG INFO. Your filename and directory structure matter not!!!
Yeah, the proprietary software bit sucks, but there are plenty of alternatives, from Winamp to Nomadsync to XNJB. XNJB on macs. Nomadsync on linux. I'll grant that the Vision:M is still being worked on - but there is actually development, and every other device works fine.
Do your research before you spread FUD. - JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Remember when Adobe brought up a suit against Macromedia, acussing them of steailng interface elements, which in turn they countersued over the same issue? We all know how that turned out, with Adobe buying out Macromedia. Apple should just buy out Creative. I recall when Creative was actually a good company. My early SoundBlasters always worked great and lasted for years, but now days, I won't touch any of their products with a 10 foot pole.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The picture is nice but the Vision:M can only sync with Windows XP or higher, due to you NEEDING Windows Media Player 10 to transfer media. No drag-n-drop through a file explorer. No Mac or Linux support either, as it uses Microsoft's MTP proprietary protocol. It's also more DRM'd than iPod.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"i dont wanna be forced to use something to access my music."
How is using Windows Media Player 10+ (or Creative's own proprietary media jukebox) any different than using iTunes? In all cases, you have to use a jukebox program to send your music to your device. Between those three programs, iTunes has the best and easiest interface. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's what creative gets for bringing a knife to Apple's gun fight.
- jotajota3, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7This really looks like Creative's one last desperate attempt before they go the way of 3Dfx.....but in this case Nvidia is Apple....haha
-
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is