RSS
As Expected, Creative Uses Patent Success Against Apple To Go After Others
from the how-innovative-of-them dept
rijit writes in that following Apple's decision to settle with Creative, despite their not particularly original patent on how to display music in a hierarchical way on an MP3 player, Creative is now taking the settlement as proof that everyone is taking "their technology." They're now preparing to go after plenty of other companies, claiming: "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." This, of course, implies that these other companies somehow "took" the "technology" from Creative, rather than simply recognizing an obvious way to present a music player interface on a portable device. It's really too bad Apple decided to settle, rather than at least challenge the patent. It will make it that much harder for anyone else to challenge it -- though, perhaps that's a good thing for Apple in dealing with its own competitors. Also, since some of the terms of the original agreement mean that Apple pays less if Creative gets others to license the patent, you can begin to see why Apple decided to settle rather than fight. They pay less the more Apple's other (non-Creative) competitors have to pay up.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Smart
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
as stated before
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
we should expect that
And those that don't, well, they may lose out to those that do... that's the meta-meta-game.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
it's simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would it be harder to challenge?
Why will Apple settling make it harder for others to challenge Creative's patent?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would it be harder to challenge?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would it be harder to challenge?
While there's no legal precedent involved, it's quite common for patent holders to use licensees to put pressure on other companies, and even bring it up in jury court cases that others have licensed it. Having a "big fish" like Apple tends to help even more. Often, smaller companies will feel pressured, saying that "well, if Apple didn't think it was worth fighting, we might as well pay up as well..."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would it be harder to challenge?
Can anyone else explain?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would it be harder?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creative can suck my balls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
New way of gaming the patent system??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Sickening
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Creating a patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[Apple's income on iPods] vs. [Apple's settlement amount] = [manufacturer's income on their gadgets] vs. [x]
[x] would in that case be like... $0.85 - problem solved.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah Blah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple's investment in warding off Microsoft?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe. Likely the most important thing when challenging a patent is the quality of prior art you can find. In fact, in its next term the Supreme Court with hear a case about a former/current licensee seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent they have licensed is invalid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment