Apple Settles Creative Lawsuit for $100 Million 316
E IS mC(Square) writes "CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music player patents for $100 million, the companies announced Wednesday.
The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players.
The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001.
Apple can get back some of the $100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
In Space... (Score:2)
Doesnt it sound like... (Score:5, Funny)
You can almost hear him whispering "motherfuckers!" under his breath after saying this.
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:5, Funny)
What goes around comes around (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it?
It's not like that money comes from nowhere or means nothing.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
Consider that nonsense like this is a direct disincentive to both innovation and copetition.
What you're saying is like saying that it's nice that heroin dealer got shot by herion dealer B. Is this really a good thing?
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Funny)
Just one, but I'll work O/T and weekends too!
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
A thousand perhaps?
The money didn't vanish, it moved. That same $100m should be able to employ equally as many people at Creative, or less better people or more worse people or whatever. For all you know that money was lining some bank account somewhere, which will now be $100m shorter with little affect on employees, whereas Creative will use it to create a thousand jobs (like perhaps a better Linux team)
I see it as the old, fair and friendly neighborhood heroin dealer shot the new fast talkin' "tough guy" heroin dealer (honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil).
I like Apple, honest. I think Creative did an unethical thing with this lawsuit; and I agree with your reamark about it discouraging competition and innovation.
Now ask me if I think Apple did an ethical thing by flying into Creative's camp, pissing on their tent, and taking Creative's fair? share of Rio's MP3 player market. Hmm?
I have to assume Apple wouldn't visciously steal Creative's market share if "business" hadn't demanded that they take that opportunity. I also have to assume that Creative dislikes patents as much as you and I.
I'll bet most athletes, at times, dislike the fact that if they have less points than their opponent, they lose. They may have worked harder. They may have deserved it more. They may have wantedit SO much more. Their eighteen kids may be dying and only wishing to see their mother/father win, whereas their opponent's looking for their eighteenth win.
(point being, everybody has to play by the unfair rules, and $100m never just "vanishes" in a lawsuit between two giants, unless of course it's to a lawyer)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you really "love" Apple that much. Its not good to love any corporation. (And not for the stupid Dr. Phil, they won't love you back, reason, either)
Lets be realistic; Apple and Creative are both large corporations, who are in business to make money and use legal action to due so, where they deem appraise.
Don't believe me? Referee to This [slashdot.org]
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers don't produce anything and are only necessary because we can't just all get along.
Like the police: If everyone were law abiding we wouldn't need police and jails and courts and all the other fine expenses that go along with enforcing the laws.
For me, this is one of the things that is much overlooked in Intellectual Monopoly law: what is the cost of running this system to society?
Even assuming that patents do increase innovation (I don't believe they do) they also cause a drain of production resources in terms of legal costs, both to file and then to protect. This cost (along with other social costs, like increased prices of drugs etc) needs to be deducted from any gains that a patent system gives (and since I don't believe there are any gains to begin with, I think we have an overall loss...but that's just mho)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. It got thrown out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was a design patent (they tried to get the rights to their specific look, not the concept), not a patent.
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Writing software for a Mac and/or Linux is a very different proposition from fabricating hardware for a niche music player.
As expensive as software development is, it doesn't really compare with tooling a factory for making hardware that works with a specific MP3 player, then programming the firmware for said device.
The iPod has been using pretty much the same dock connector for a couple years now, so if you make a gadget for the iPod dock connector there's damn near 50 million potential customers out there.
Creative has clawed it's way to be the biggest of "the rest of them" with the Zen (at least in terms of last year's sales), but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody came out with a statistic that said there were more iRivers out there than Zens. If you are going to go after the "not an iPod" market, your best bet is to make generic gadgets which plug into the headphone jack of any player, and don't rely on the manufacturer-specific features on one niche player.
The iPod is far from perfect. It needs more RAM, and still lacks gapless MP3 playback (a major buzz-kill), but with its market dominance and it's dock connector with standardized pin-outs, it's no surprise that it's what most manufacturers are building accessories for.
If I'm the CEO of "SuperCoolOggAndMP3Players, inc.", I'd be talking to Apple about licensing the iPod dock for my player. It probably would not be a cheap deal, but it would give me a leg up over Creative and all the other also-rans out there, including the upcoming players from Microsoft.
Then again... being a sore loser, rolling on the ground kicking and screaming, and extorting $100,000,000 out of a company would probably make Creative more money than their iRivers ever would. Maybe frivolous corporate lawsuits are the future of "competition".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing software for a Mac and/or Linux is a very different proposition from fabricating hardware for a niche music player."
Obviously.
"As expensive as software development is, it doesn't really compare with tooling a factory for making hardware that works with a specific MP3 player, then programming the firmware for said device."
Obviously.
But the patent in question is not for any invention in hardware fabrication technology or even for an invention that solves some problem specific to firmware
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesnt it sound like... (Score:4, Funny)
"It could have been us screwing Creative..." (Score:2)
Re:The camel, the back, the straw... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them.
Good for you, and I will join you. Bad Corp, No Dollar.
Bless Apple Computers [i-bless.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The camel, the back, the straw... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"No, you are not over reacting. This is the feedback system for corps. If they misbehave, we the customers, have the option -the obligation- to vote with our wallets. Lawsuits, and petitions, and letters to the board are nowhere as simple and effective as not spending money with them."
Interesting. Given that Apple tried to file a similar patent and Creative was simply faster -- if things had been a little different and Apple had been awarded the patent, what do you think would be happening now?
OK then, $100mill question (Score:5, Interesting)
cuz billions of programs out there may be affected by this.
Re:OK then, $100mill question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
they patented a utilization of technology in a specific way.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I am not sure if this is a design or utility patent!?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It means they were the first to patent it with regards to a music player. They wouldn't be going after software developers over this. I'm not defending Creative's patent specifically. I'm just pointing out that the 'for a music player' bit makes a big difference.
Pay. Counter License. Smile. (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2. License offending patents to Creative for 150M.
Step 3. There is no step 3.
I suppose it's a new version of Rip. Burn. Mix.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think Creative or Apple are going to eat that cost do you?
B.
Somebody is soon going to get a patent ... (Score:5, Funny)
This is BS (Score:5, Interesting)
100 million is a pretty big payout for an obvious way to navigate through music that I myself invented when I was a kid. This method is: "The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
I mean, isn't that how the stuff is organized in the record store too?
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." 100 million dollars in patent taxes lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This case proves how busted the US patent system is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its also conceivable Apple could have spend more than $100 million in legal fees for all of this. Entering into a partnership with Creative is a better way to spend that money. TFA also says Apple could get some of that money back if Creative succ
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
and yes, it's a pretty fucking obvious way to categorize and navigate through digitally stored music.
just about every ripper i've used has an option to create artist then album directories to contain the actual song files - so just putting a folder of ripped tunes behind a web server infringes on creative's patent? that's BS, completely fucking obvious, and never should have been granted as a patent.
the question now is, who has the patent on doing this with video?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is there anyone out there who still thinks that patents foster more innovati
Enlighten us then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple test for beneficial patents (Score:3, Insightful)
In the software industry, developers actively avoid patent searches - because they are all stupid (with a few exceptions like RSA), and to avoid triple damages from s
Re:This is BS (Score:4, Interesting)
"Check your assumptions."
Check your own. Over the years I have read many hundreds of patents, discussed patent law and economics at length with experts in both patent law and patent system economics and read more books and papers on those subjects than I care to recall. Certainly enough to know when I am reading absolute twaddle:
"The patent is very simple, broad, and blindingly obvious." etc.
None of which are grounds for expecting that such a patent would not be granted or that it would be easy or even possible to have it invalidated (let alone cost effective). Indeed the simplicity or broadness of a patent are utterly irrelevant to its validity and the meaning of "obvious", in the patent legal sense, has little to do with its colloquial meaning. There are no "contradictory facts" here and it has nothing to do with Apple's lawyers not being smart enough. If you know bugger all about patents and patent law, (or any other subject) don't assume that just because someone is posting on slashdot that they must be equally ignorant.
What amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
1) that something *SO* obvious was granted a patent, or
2) that it was probably cheaper for Apple to pay $100 million rather than to try to prove it was that obvious in court.
probably wrong motivation (Score:2)
Sheesh, talk about ridiculous...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone should patent 'A method for being an asshole while wearing a turtleneck' and see how Jobs reacts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
prior art? (Score:2)
The SnowBlind Alliance was the place to get you linux friendly rio software at that time and they had lots of users asking for new features.
Re:prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Didn't Apple's leagl team search the internet archives for prior art on this?"
Occam's razor, my friend. Which is more likely to you:
Whenever the subject comes up, various Slashdotters come up with lots of (sometimes laughable) claims of prior art. If only the patent were as simple as Slashdotters made it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been involved with breaking several bad patents in the past. This one should have never been issued.
The real problem is that once the new patent rules come into place, 1st to invent won't save your company form being sued out of excistance by someone else. One
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what your experience is with legal costs - but I'll give you mine, as an inhouse technology expert at a tier-1 law firm: Ok Tedi Mining and BHP - pollution of a river, the suing of a multinational (one that just yesterday posted a US$10 BILLION profit) in multiple states of Australia, involving the government considering legislation to prevent the lawsuit, had legal costs at the time of settlement, for both parties, of under US$15M (the settlement was for $110M).
Factoring in other things I find it very, very unlikely that the cost of proving such a claim would even come remotely close to exceeding $100M. If you look at a legal team billing $5,000 an hour (which would be a reasonable figure including paralegals, clerks, ancillary support staff as well as lawyers), for, say 60% of the cost, 10% as being court fees, and the remaining 40% as "expert/proof costs" (ie the technical research and findings, as opposed to the legals), that's still in the order of 5 years FULLTIME work by that entire legal team to even use up that.
Not impossible, but exceptionally unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in Australia, and most likely in the US, at least to an extent, if not more, corporates aren't hugely concerned with a lot of legal costs, for one important reason, a large amount of them are tax deductions. Corporate lawyers are happy, charging $500/hr. Corporations are happy footing the bill, because it's a deduction come end of FY.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh.. yeah... but it's still 100 million dollars. It's difficult to imagine the tax deductions from that would come anywhere close to break even. Somewhere, Apple still had to think that Creative was going to win. Don't forget that Apple plays the silly patent game as well.
Legal costs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What good is the current patent system to our society (in reguard to computer science)?
For instance, this patent should be stricken by just looking at any ordinary file cabinet. The things these stupid patents cover benefit neither science nor the arts.
If you ever wondered what is wrong with patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents like this are not helping the public interest, but are simply ways for companies to lock out ideas without having to pay to develop them.
Time for the open source community to make "open patents" that are used to attack companies like creative that abuses them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
disgusting! (Score:2)
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work. Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with your proposal with one addition: mandatory licensing of technology and 3-5 ye
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it.
The danger with that system is that there is no value to the patent, and any patent would be granted to anyone with the money to buy one.
False. If the patent describes a true invention it would be valuable since it would be easy to prove that the invention is novel and non-obvious. The patent would also describe what was invented and when -- both of those things are important if you were to sue someone over it. Finally, the patent filing fee should be very modest so that almost anyone
Re:disgusting! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent [uspto.gov]
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
All your patents are belong to us (Score:5, Interesting)
- It is buggy
- A better block of code already exists in SourceForge or somewhere else on the Internet
- It is stepping on one or more patents for completely obvious or barely novel ideas
I believe at this point paranoia is not only rational but optimistic and gin and tonic are my only defense since I can't afford lawyers, guns, and money.
Re:All your patents are belong to us (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe at this point paranoia is not only rational but optimistic and gin and tonic are my only defense
If it can be demonstrated that the current law is HAMPERING the progress of science, would that not make overreaching patent law unconstitutional? That may be a hard case to make, but I bet there is a ton of evidence to support the premise, from scientists who are afraid to invent or publish, programmers who are afraid to release code, corporations which sit on inventions rather than exploit them, etc. Would not a climate of fear engendered amongst Authors and Inventors not be hampering the progress of science and the useful arts?
Incidentally, I note that the constitution specifically refers to "writings and discoveries." What is the "discovery" related to this particular patent?
W
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not, this isn't about law, it's about money and power. Law is always about preserving money and power. Should anyone question that fact, it generally means that they do not understand who's money and power is being affected.
What is the "discovery" related to this particular patent?
I know it's a rhetorical question, but for the younguns among us, writings
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The price you pay in order for people not being allowed to own guns, and for companies not being allowed to advertise cola when kids might be watching on television, and for throwing U.S. citizens in prison without trial as "enemy combatants", or whatever convientient unconstitutional laws that hav
patent law already blocks the "obvious" (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if your fear #3 is grounds for challenging current patent law.
Patent law doesn't need changing, as it already bars 'obvious to someone in the field' ideas, which is what the parent poster was complaining about. We need more people to take a stand against patents that clearly aren't valid. If more people/companies challenged the 'fork and knife' patents, fewer companies would abuse them.
Patent fees should also be based off the assets of the applicant; ie, if I want to patent something, it sho
Re:patent law already blocks the "obvious" (Score:5, Funny)
I believe you mean: An apparatus to divide food into portions of arbitrary size, by keeping the initial portion in place by holding the handle of the multi-pronged device, while simultaneously grasping the handle of the bladed device, and moving the thin or serated edge back and forth in a sawing motion against the food, and subsequently introducing those portions into an oral oriface using the multi-pronged device, or leaving them in their original position, or thereabouts, as desired, by firmly pressing one part of the bladed device against the portion to facilitate removal of the multi-pronged device from the aforementioned portion. Patent(s) pending.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal courts only accept cases which can be framed within the very narrow confines of an ordinary legal action. They do not hold open-ended legislative hearings and they do not make economic policy.
It is called "Separation of Powers" and it means that the Congress and the Eescutive get to decide the terms and conditions for granting a patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not long ago I was a witness in a patent case against BIGCO (not their real name) for their use of BLINDINGLYOBVIOUSTECHNIQUE (n.i.r.n) in the field of SOMETHINGPROCESSING(n.i.r.n.)
I chatted with BIGCO's lawyers. They said the field of SOMETHINGPROCESSING is paralyzed due to fear of bogus patent lawsuits and there's been no improvement in it for years.
Neutral observers they a
Re: (Score:2)
Why worry? All you've learned from this example is that you can make a good product that violates someone's pattent, make billions off of it, and then pay a fine of $100 million. And, if you don't make any money by selling that product, then nobody will be asking you to pay
Re: (Score:2)
The US patent problem (Score:2, Funny)
I think Despair.com said it best in their half-hearted, but sadly successful attempt in patenting the frowny-face emoticon. [despair.com]
If that's not screaming failure in our U.S. government, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically and pedantically, what they actually got was a trademark on the Frowny emoticon, NOT a patent. But your point is well taken, that the USPTO is too liberal with trademarks as well as patents, as demonstrated by the egregious trademark abuse by Monster Cable against other concerns using the word monster in their names but which have absolutely no relation to Mon
A little obvious don't you think? (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF??
What happened to the "non obvious" requirement for a patent?
Does this patent cover other obvious menus systems? Like say an automobile supply pr
Non-obvious to someone skilled in the art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-obvious to someone skilled in the art? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can get a patent on a method for growing broccoli sprouts, go for it - it will only take the rest of the broccoli sprout industry going to court to get it declared invalid. Yes, it happened, google for the story.
Bad news for the rest of us .... (Score:2)
The battle lines have been drawn. I can almost see people inside Apple debating the use of patents as the Nuclear Weapons of this war - mutually assured destruction - you sue me, I sue you.
And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces ... really.
Re:Bad news for the rest of us .... (Score:5, Informative)
"And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces ... really."
Maybe that's a joke that went right over my head, but Apple is quite well known for patenting user interfaces. For instance, nobody else is allowed to depict a hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo or an illustration of a hard drive, because Apple has the patent on it.
Here are some examples:
This is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
Apple already owns tons of user interface patents. They own a patent on "a system and method for customising appearance and behaviour of graphical user interfaces".. you know, skinning.
You know that little history dropdown that your URL bar has? The one that shows "a list of most recently used URLs"? Apple has a patent on that too.
Well.... there's gotta be a reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well.... there's gotta be a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well.... there's gotta be a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple will pay Creative $100 million for a paid-up license to use Creative's recently awarded patent in all Apple products.
They were in a hurry, though, and not many caught this:
Apple can recoup a portion of its payment if Creative is successful in licensing this patent to others.
So, Creative now has cash in the bank, 'validation' of its patent with a license from Apple, and an incentive to go forth and seek licenses from others...
Then there's this:
In addition, the companies announced that Creative has joined Apple's "Made for iPod" program and will be announcing their own iPod® accessory products later this year.
Apple puts money into Creative, Creative makes iPod accessories, and a cut of the accessory revenue goes back to Apple.
So... Apple gets rid of some lawsuits, sets things up to make trouble for some other music player makers, and gets another revenue stream. All in all, this doesn't look too bad as a business move for Apple.
Watch out!! (Score:3, Funny)
If you sort your CDs alphabetically by artist and album you will be sued for copyright infringement. You have been warned!
That's a lotta cabbage! (Score:5, Funny)
What *I* want to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, come on... does nobody at Apple own a copy of the freaking Petzold book?
</rant>
really good chess move by Apple... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=275275
I think the thing that people are forgetting here is that by settling Apple is pretty much making Creative defend this patent, essentially outsourcing the litigation - they pay nothing for that. If Creative does not defend the patent, or loses any case setting new precedent, Apple could conceivably sue to get the $100 million back.
Plus, they get back money, as stated above, for the 'Made for iPod' program that Creative is now a part of, and the iPod ecology is enhanced. They have taken on a partner here.
This is a win for Apple thinking long term. Good chess playing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's not about Apple at all (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if Creative licenses its IP to other manufacturers, Apple gets a slice of the pie. If Creative sues manufacturers who refuse to license, it's got the Apple precedent to tilt things in its favour. Maybe a slice of that pie is part of the unannounced terms, too.
If I were Creative, I'd be miffed that, having joined the Microsoft Playforsure camp, Microsoft then went on to develop its own PMP. In fact, I'd be tempted to piddle in Microsoft's pot by getting MS to pay a hefty licensing fee or suing it, as needs dictated.
MS will be more likely to license (i.e. "pay money to make the problem go away") knowing that the market leader has stumped up.
$100m = $0.12/share (Score:2)
The settlement shouldn't have been for money. (Score:3, Interesting)
Link to the actual patent (Score:2, Informative)
The key claim is the following, plus 15 variations on the theme.
What is claimed is:
1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first,
Hrm... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a trap (Score:2, Interesting)
CHOICE 1: Get the patent squashed, anyone can copy.
CHOICE 2: Settle in order to legitmize the patent, share the toll booth.
This is most likely a move to keep sandisk at bay with that new look alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs Pulls a "Godfather" on Creative (Score:3, Interesting)
We need more patent litigation (Score:3, Interesting)
We know the level of litigation is too little because of positive externalities associated with litigation. If the accusor loses, invalidating a patent benefits everyone, not just the firm that sues for the invalidation. If the accusor wins, clarity in validity also benefits others. So there is a free riding problem with litigation (especially since it is so costly).
Lets say I hold a patent on tennis shoes and I expect to make a million dollars from that patent. If another shoe maker named Nike sues me over the patent, how much would I be willing to spend to defend the patent? $999,999. How much would Nike be willing to spend to invalidate the patent? Invalidating the patent doesn't give Nike a monopoly, so assuming in a competitive model there are no (or lower than monopoly) profits for Nike. So Nike would be willing to spend less to invalidate the patent than I would to keep the patent valid. Thus it may in Nike's best interest to just license a completely ludicrous patent. That seems to be what happened here.
Not only is this litigation costly, but anyone found infringing on a patent in court pays TRIPLE the claimed damages! That is high stakes indeed. To add to this problem, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proof, that the patent is invalid or that they didn't violate the patent. The wording for proof is "clear and convincing evidence," that is strong wording. So it shouldn't be surprising to find that 95% of all defendants settle without going to court.
A good way to produce more clarifying litigation is to create incentives to litigate. One idea (which I think is a bad one) is to allow the government to challenge patents. A better idea is to offer a bounty on invalidated patents. One problem with the bounty idea is that mostly worthless patents would be invalidated this way, but if you limited the bounty to licensed patents, you could eliminate a lot of this problem. The bounty could be grant the patent to the challenger for a few years, or be a flat rate payment. Lastly, there are public interest groups already doing great work towards this end (such as the EFF and Public Patent Foundation), by funding them with incentives or grants we could improve the situation.
Another fix is to force firms to litigation. By capping the dollar value of settling, firms my opt for a court remedy rather than an out of court secret agreement. Limiting settling and other forms of collusion makes more information public, which can benefit more people.
The third option for getting more litigation is to reduce costs of litigation. Removing the 3X payout, decreasing the time in court, and changing the wording from "clear and convincing evidence" to something less strong. Even shifting some of the burden of proof towards the accusor would speed things along. One other option to make litigation more affordable is to penalize accusers for refuted claims--since the general practice is to claim as much as possible and see what sticks (see SCO for an example).
It is a crying shame that Apple just paid off the patent trolls here. Had they put up the $100 million into a legal fund and gotten this rediculous patent invalidated, it would have benefitted society. Who knows who else will get hit with this silly patent claim now? It isn't Apple's job to benefit society, but as long as we keep feeding the trolls, we'll have to keep paying.
In short (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Apple uses something that falls under the patent.
3. Creative sues Apple.
4. Apple fights back.
5. Apple fights back.
6. Apple fights back.
7. Microsoft announces Zune, which uses something that falls under the same patent.
8. Apple settles for $100 million and sets a precedent.
9. Creative uses the precedent to sue Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The downside is that they'll grab back the $100M from their customers at the earliest opportunity. As if their products weren't already expensive enough...
Re: (Score:2)
Melancholy Elephants (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744__