Creative Preps for More Zen Patent Lawsuits to "Protect" Itself

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/30/creative-preps-for-more-zen-patent-lawsuits-to-protect-itself/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/30/creative-preps-for-more-zen-patent-lawsuits-to-protect-itself/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Fresh off their victory in getting Apple to cough up a hundred million dollars for potential infringement on their Zen patent (which outlines hierarchical menu systems for portable media devices), it should come as no surprise that Creative's legal team is mounting up, and the company has issued a statement that they intend to pursue cases of the patent's infringement elsewhere. The President of Creative Labs Inc., Craig McHugh, told DowJones, "There many MP3 player makers in the US market that are currently using the Zen technology, and there are also several cellphones that are music-enabled that are using the Zen patent," following up with, "We are also ready to take the necessary steps to protect our intellectual property." Yeah, we're sure they are; but as Steve said himself, "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent...""</i><br /><br />Oh c'mon, this is insanity. I do not believe that Creative should be looking to go after more patents. In my opinion, this is a low way to try and make up revenue when they couldn't do it by selling players themselves. It is not like I don't understand patent infringement, but I just feel that this is taking the low-ground and looking for infringements instead of working towards innovation. Bah, maybe I am just an idealist!

[randalllewis]

I agree. Creative has produced some excellant MP3 and media players. If they spent half the effort on marketing these products that they have spent obtaining this silly patent and pursuing legal action related to it, they might have a significantly larger market share.

One more thing, that quote from Steve Jobs that we've seen so many times since Apple agreed to pay $100 million to Creative. Everyone interprets his comment "Creative is very fotunate to have been granted this early patent." to mean "the only reason we are agreeing to pay them $100 million is they got a patent just as we started selling the iPod." Call me cynical, but I think there is an entirely different meaning. What Jobs was really saying was "Damn! Creative got that patent before we did!"

[bcries]

...and yet, what Creative is doing is completely legal. Why even bother having IP and patent laws that certainly companies aren't "supposed" to use in certain situations?

The hierarchical menu system seems like an obvious menu system for any mp3 player... just like "gold digga" is farily intuitive rhyme with "broke ni***", not to mention the 4/4 time signature in virtually all hip-hop music, or the obvious chord progressions in 95% of today's popular music, or the obvious lines in Hollywood action movies.

...and yet our current IP law grants ownership over all these "ideas" in a way that methodically encourages over-production (without attention to true innovation or quality; rather, the company that files the most patents or copyrights the most songs wins).

Can we admit that there's something seriously flawed in our general structure of intellectual property law? For just as Creative would sell more players if they were truly unique (and uniquely good) designs, so too would customers faithfully attend performances that they knew to be truly original.