Why would a patent case involving a method idea that anyone can think of take years to solve? Why cannot a judge solve the case and determine who is right in a few minutes when the issues are so simple?

Imagine then how long a case that involves a patented idea for an airplane with 3 wings, one on each side and one in the front (an idea used by the hammerhead shark). A patent dispute would take centuries instead of years.

It is all a lwayering business thing that has nothing to do with patents.

BTW, the patent at issue in this case is really a wish someone had, for an obvious perhaps desirable feature.

Anyonw can come up with a wish. As I write this I have come up with a wish: I wish that after I read an email, the message would then automatically be moved to a read message folder with the senders’s name, automatically. That is a wish. It is an idea. It would save me time, It is ovious. To make that idea into reality with en existing program a programmer would have to solve many problems, until the auto-move function becomes a reality.

So how does this work out, I patent my obvious idea and become wealthy from royalties and lawsuits while the programmer who really did all the dirty work gets gets nothing more than a few day’s salary.

What a corruption of an idea to incentivate, patents. It is incentivating and rewarding the wrong people while creating patent wars that benefir mostly lawyers while hurting those that want to do creative work. The law is working backwards to what was intended.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

The Creative patent in question is “Automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata”, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/ netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,928,433.WKU.&OS=PN/6,928,433&RS=PN/6,928, 433

Now, the first claim covers any three level hierarchy:

“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, second, and third level of the hierarchy, ”

That’s NOT the invention, though. That starts around Claim 7, where they start adding ‘novel’ behaviors to what is otherwise a vanilla three column Miller Browser:

“7. The method of selecting a track as recited in claim 1 wherein the accessing at least one track is made after the presentation of the third display screen by reverting back to one of the second and first display screens, the second display screen presented sequentially after the third display screen. ”

This claim covers their ’soft button’ mechanism where selecting a button for a particular artist or album flips the views around to show a list by artist or album, as explained in the Summary of the Invention:

“Advantageous use is made of the overlapping hierarchy to allow the user to quickly designate a song for playback. The device uses three “soft” pushbuttons that have assignable functions. The interface maintains consistent button functionality whenever possible and uses uniform command names and operations in different types of items so that the interface is more intuitive. For example, the user can open and queue both albums and songs with predictable results. ”

They are also trying to claim multiple functions for a single control, but anyone with a VCR is familiar with that (annoying and frustrating) art.

They are considering suing Apple for royalties on ‘navigation of music on a portable mp3 players.’ That sentence is enough to cause a roar of laughter, slaps to the foreheads and brains to explode for a variety of reasons from the patents process 200 years out of date to just general disbelief. Of course, the legal merits are hard to say as the courts could and have ruled in both directions.

But of course, that’s why companies have lawyers and will sue each other at the drop of a hat. Unlike some smaller companies who will settle for financial reasons, Apple is large enough to withstand any decision and rich enough to fight this for years.

But then as the “opening gambit” of their lawsuit/royalty process, they go and release a new line of MP3/WMA video players that gives new meaning to the word UNCANNY or as others might deem it – ripoff.

There are few clearer examples (short of a counterfeit factory cranking out Louis Vuitton’s) of a violation of the “trade dress” protection laws (as legally defined – “Trade Dress is a distinctive, nonfunctional feature, which distinguishes a merchant’s or manufacturer’s goods or services from those of another.”).

You have to ask yourself – why?

On the verge of suing a competitor for allegedly stealing their navigation system, they go and release a thicker but visually (from the front) a design that clearly copies the hardware and look of the competitors mp3 player?

What kind of strategy is that?

To settle? To “swap” Apple’s alledged patent infringment for their trade dress “violation?”

I’m sure Apple is willing to let someone sell something that is visually and from 10 feet away 90% of an iPod … that sure sounds like Steve Jobs and Apple to me … bwahahahaha.

That sounds like something lawyers would dream up, this is brilliant, they’ll be forced to settle … of course, if they’re wrong and bankrupt Creative, what do they care – they already have billed and been paid.

What does it really say about your business? The only way we can compete is by manipulation and legal manuvering? That the ipod simply cannot be out designed in any aspect so our ONLY recourse is to try and copy it in as many ways possible and then sit back and hope they settle with other legal manueverings that we’re attempting?

Why would you name a company CREATIVE then?

Certainly the lawyers apparently running the company are creative but design, manufacturing and marketing – not so much?