Apple, Creative are 'Open to Settlement' of Suits

[Damion Chaplin]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFJgmlYAzazs&refer' target='_blank'>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFJgmlYAzazs&refer</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Apple Computer Inc. and Creative Technology Ltd. said in court papers they "remain open to the possibility'' of ending their litigation battles over handheld music players. Apple, whose iPod music player controls about 77 percent of the U.S. market for such devices, and Singapore-based Creative are suing each other in California, Texas and Wisconsin. The International Trade Commission also is investigating complaints each has made accusing the other of infringing patents related to the devices. Shares of Creative have risen 17 percent over the past five days on optimism the lawsuits may be settled. In a July 3 joint court filing in Madison, Wisconsin, the companies said they were in negotiations involving the licensing of Creative's patent to Apple before the suit was filed and were "open'' to reaching an agreement. "The parties will remain open to the possibility of settlement,'' they wrote in the joint report to the judge. "No specific settlement discussions are planned.''"</i><br /><br />Well, it sounds like Apple and Creative are sending out little feelers to see if the other party would be open to settlement. Creative says they've always been interested in settling. Apple of course didn't comment. What might this mean? Well, maybe nothing if they can't come to an agreement before court decisions are reached, but if they can get it together, it can only be a good thing to not have these guys fighting anymore. I think it would be fitting irony if Apple had to start paying Creative for licensing fees, don't you?

[Phronetix]

I think it would be fitting irony if Apple had to start paying Creative for licensing fees, don't you?

I think it would be an injustice. I simply cannot see how either company can claim a patent of a user interface borrowed from the desktop. Nested folders have been around since Windows 3.0, the Apple OS before that, and on a Xerox machine before that. This suit is a cash grab, a strategic attempt to do something, anything to stop the Apple/iPod machine.

War to Steve Jobs and Sim Wong Hoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Wong_Hoo) fighting this one out in a cage match! :P

[Damion Chaplin]

Well, OK, we're conveniently ignoring the fact that it shouldn't have been patented in the first place. :wink:

[Phronetix]

Well, OK, we're conveniently ignoring the fact that it shouldn't have been patented in the first place. :wink:

Well, ok then. In that case, I'm with you on the irony bit. :lol:

[randalllewis]

I agree this should never have been patented, but I don't blame Creative for trying. I blame the USPO, which should learn to say no. Creative played by the rules (bad as they were) and caught Apple napping. I would be delighted to see Apple pay.

[Phronetix]

I agree this should never have been patented, but I don't blame Creative for trying. I blame the USPO, which should learn to say no. Creative played by the rules (bad as they were) and caught Apple napping. I would be delighted to see Apple pay.

Why would you be delighted? Because Apple failed to file a patent for each and every conceivable design issue, build, and morsal of their iPod? Or, as we're seeing in Creative Technologies v. Apple Computer, there was a failure to patent the metaphor that the UI represented.

Brutal. And, yes, I'd be pissed if Apple tried to do the same thing that Creative is doing. This is after Apple did nothing about this piece of plaigerism (http://www.ilounge.com/images/uploads/creative-vision-m.jpg).

Creative's biggest concern shouldn't be the iPod right now. It should be whatever Microsoft is crafting in Redmond.

[ale_ers]

This is after Apple did nothing about this piece of plaigerism (http://www.ilounge.com/images/uploads/creative-vision-m.jpg).


You make great points until you insert this into your argument. Let's face it, they both are a little at fault. You complain about the similarity between the Vision and the iPod, then in the same argument figure that the UI is just obvious, so Apple did not copy. Well who is to say that the vision, mico etc. were not just an evolution of Creative's products. Keep in mind they have been doing this for a very long time.

When I first went to click on your link I did so thinking that you made a typo of some sort and meant to talk about how Apple plagiarised the Nano name from Creative. See what I mean, It takes two...

[Phronetix]

When I first went to click on your link I did so thinking that you made a typo of some sort and meant to talk about how Apple plagiarised the Nano name from Creative.

Ahh, touché. Yes, that was just plain idiocy.