Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Creative Threatens Apple with UI Patent

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

August 30, 2005, 8:29 AM

While it struggles to compete with Apple in the marketplace, Creative is exploring a new avenue for dethroning the digital music king: patent litigation. Creative announced Tuesday it had been granted a patent covering the user interface for portable media players, including the iPod.

Specifically, the patent involves the method for selecting at least one track on a portable player as a user sequentially browses through a hierarchy of three or more screens on the display. For example, the patent would cover a user navigating from an artist, to a list of albums, to a list of songs on an album.

"According to one aspect of the present invention, a technique is provided for organizing tracks on a portable music player by automatically filing tracks in a hierarchical order based on attributes of the tracks," patent application 6,928,433 reads.

"According to another aspect of the invention, the hierarchy is derived by using metadata associated with the audio content that was obtained through any source of metadata (e.g. CDDB metadata, id3v2 metadata, other obtainable metadata) and subsequently stored with or alongside the file that stores the track."

Apple's iPod and iPod mini employ a similar interface, Creative claims. The company says that interface was invented by "Creative research and development engineers in our Advanced Technology Center in Scotts Valley, California."

The so-called "Zen Patent" was filed on January 5, 2001 and awarded August 9, 2005. The interface referenced in the patent was used in Creative's NOMAD Jukebox, which debuted in September 2000. Creative points out that the iPod did not ship for another 13 months.

Although Creative did not say whether it planned to ask Apple to license the Zen Patent and pay a fee for each iPod sold, company CEO Sim Wong Hoo hinted that Creative would protect its work. "Before this invention, there was no intuitive and efficient way to deal with the large number of tracks that could be stored on a high-capacity player," noted Hoo.

Hoo also took the time to point out that Apple's patent application for the iPod interface was not filed until October 28, 2002.

"A related provisional application was filed by Apple on July 30, 2002, eighteen months after our filing date for the Zen Patent and over twenty months after our NOMAD Jukebox based upon our user interface was on the market," he said.

Creative will soon launch its new Zen Vision player and the long-awaited Zen Micro Photo with OLED screen - both of which utilize the interface described in the Zen Patent, company officials say.

Add a Comment (40 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By mbruno

edited Nov 28, 2005 - 8:00 PM

I like both Apple and Creative, but when it comes to sound quality, Creative kicks ass! I've been using Creative soundcards and digital music players and the Apple iPod for a few years now and the iPod is fancier, but in my opinion the Creative products are better. And another thing, Why are Apple users so stubbern? On every forum I've been to that involves Apple I read apple people's comments and all they do is b**** and complain about how everything sucks except Apple. Well I can saftly and honestly say that I like Creative, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, and any other things you can think of. And Apple isn't superior in every way!

Score: 0

By easyos2000

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 8:47 AM

Lets face it - Apple rocks when it comes to UI design hands down. Don't get me wrong I am a devoted Microsoft fan - but ipods just rock. Every company like Creative is simply craving for a slice from the MP3 market pie. Apple were just there first. If the Creative players were better than ipods then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Lets not forget that Apple has been through some very rough times.

Score: 0

By heat_fan1

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 8:18 PM

You know, the new subscription things are not such a good thing for users. Here's the problem with them: you have the subscription for 1 year. In that time, you go download crazy and amass 2000 songs in that time, all legal of course. However, at the end of the year, you realize you can't afford it anymore or for some other reason decide you don't want to keep it. Well, you just lost those 2000 songs! The songs are only good if you're paying for the service. Once you stop paying, even for a month, you lose access to your songs.

So, for the service providers like Yahoo!, Rhapsody, and Napster, it's a really good deal because they know you will keep paying to keep those songs.

But hey, unless people realize this or simply don't care, the praises for subscriptions will continue to rain down. I for one would rather own my songs and pay the $.99 for them. Using MSN Music, of course.

Score: 0

By netwiz562

posted Aug 31, 2005 - 10:09 PM

I understand your perspective on subscription vs purchase, however for those who can afford continuing to pay, it can be a lot more affordable and allow you to try a lot more music. A lot of products are service based: broadband, cell, cable/satt tv, phone etc. It would be worse to lose any of these IMO if I could no longer afford to pay, therefore losing my music would not be my highest concern when in that financial situation.

Score: 0

By netwiz562

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 6:44 PM

I've never owned a Creative MP3 player, but I've used them and they are pretty impressive.

I own an Ipod, but it was a gift, and I have to admit if I bought a hard drive mp3 player on my own I would have probably purchased an Ipod (1 yr ago). However, today I'm not so sure, especially with all these WMA Janus subscription services. They really are attractive in pricing, and I can't use them because Apple only supports AAC/Freeplay. Even today, if I didn't have one I might have bought an Ipod because of its cool factor, I probably wouldn't have thought about it's lack of Janus support at purchase time.

Eventually people will realize this and switch over to Creative or other Janus WMA players as Microsoft wants. Creative just needs a cool factor to their players and the rest will fall in place.

This patent seems legit, but it seems frivolous at the same time. I just wish Creative did something to actually gain market share instead of just suing. They just need to admit that Apple is good at marketing and design, and they need to improve on that. That is what sells, not the best feature set.

However, if Creative doesn't do this soon enough Apple will eventually realize its downfall and do:
A) Come out with a cheap subscription service
OR
B) Open up to other music dl services.

At the end Apple is a Hardware company, the music store is not their source of profit. Once Apple changes its strategy, they will be even more difficult to compete with.

Creative has an opportunity right now, and they have to take it before Apple does.

Score: 0

By Americruzano

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 4:27 PM

Here's my take on the Zen Vs iPod debate.

I own a Zen myself. The facts are simple. Better price, better sound quality, more options/features, etc. I use my Zen mostly in my car along with my High-end car stereo, or at home with my surround sound reciever, and the sound quality is easily noticable between the two players.

On the other hand I just bought an iPod Mini for my wife, because its pink, cute, small, user-friendly, and is iTunes sompatible.

she uses iTunes, and I use more powerfull MP3 cataloging software for my MP3 collection, which allows me to easily manage metatags, convert bitrates and formats, etc.

iPod for girls and fags, Creative for everyone else.

As for the lawsuit... It's low, but they do have a case, and it's business.

Oh, and dont even try to tell me that more than 5% of consumers even consider another MP3 player, because they dont. They are all blinded by the trediness of the iPod

Score: 0

By heat_fan1

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 6:29 PM

Thank you! I agree with you 100%. Especially your last statement. I've been saying for the longest time that a lot of iPod users might not even know that other players even exist!

I've used iTunes, and I don't think it's very special at all. Whoever mentioned Smart Folders below obviously hasn't used WMP because it's had Auto-Playlists longer than iTunes has. So yes, I don't see why iTunes is any easier to use than WMP is. If I want to sync with my player, I drag files into the sync column and click sync! Done! How easy is that?! Same with burning! iTunes is no easier to use than WMP is.

Score: 0

By gettinbranded

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 5:00 PM

>>I use more powerfull MP3 cataloging software for my MP3 collection, which allows me to easily manage metatags, convert bitrates and formats, etc.<<

Whats the name of it?

Score: 0

By VipexIII

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 3:43 PM

The thing I find funny about this is why noone is paying attention to the actual issue. Creative has patented a file structure that existed previously but was never specifically applied to a mobile device. Should adding where a file system is to be used really make the idea "new"? The problem you all seem to be stepping around is in our patent system, and has nothing to do with specific companies. Oh by the way we the voters are the ones who can change that!!!

Score: 0

By mr foo

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 2:32 PM

i'm going to patent the menu
and files and folders while i'm at it

Score: 0

By gettinbranded

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 1:48 PM

Apple would simply buy Creative.

Creative Technology's market cap is currently US$667.73 million. Apple Computer's market cap is currently $38.64 billion. Apple has approximately $9.3 billion in liquid assets on hand and is a debt-free company.

Problem solved.

Score: 0

By PhantomRider

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 4:53 PM

Creative would have to agree to be sold to Apple. Since the two companies don't see eye to eye, I don't forsee this happening. I especially don't see a merger since Creative has invested hundreds of millions in their new products lines (X-Fi, Zen Vision, DTS-610).


The iPod has turned into a fashion accessory and will have a short enough life span. No fashion trend lasts forever.


Creative plans to incorporate the X-Fi components in their portable media/MP3 players. This will raise their products to a semi-pro audio soluction since their DAC's on the X-Fi Elite are already found on $2000 DVD players.

If you all remember...Steve Jobs himself admitted that the original iPod was only a few third party components thrown together. HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE ONLY THREW TOGETHER OTHER PEOPLES' WORK FOR HIS FRANKENSTEIN INVENTION!!!!!


The only thing that Creative is missing is a flashy exterior case. Creative is slowly evolving and building up their assets. The company is planning on licensing their X-Fi technology for third party use also. It's just a matter of time until Apple hits rock bottom again. What was it?? ...about $7/share back in 2002-2003. Reminiscent of Creative's current fresh jump of $1/share to $8.06. Creative is steadily advancing while Apple enjoys a volatile fluctuation of $1/share almost everyday and slowly dropping.


I'd sell all of my AAPL shares and hit up CREAF if I were any of you. Just my $.02.

Score: 0

By shank2002

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 1:49 PM

Pathetic... this shows the true colors of Creative. They have lost me forever as a customer, too bad because I was planning on getting their new x-fi based soundcard, and have owned many Creative products, including mp3 players, until I got my iPod, and now I will never want a different MP3 player (yes the iPod is THAT good). Too bad Creative decided to fight dirty instead of make a better product to win market share. Sorry Creative, until you make a product better than the iPod/iTunes, you are never going to make much market share despite this pathetic tactic. And right now, nothing in the marketplace comes close to the power of the iPod in combo with iTunes!

Score: 0

By MOGua

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 11:05 PM

having your patent infringed is fighting dirty?

(Zen Micro Photo + Yahoo Music Unlimited) > (iPod + iTunes)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 11:31 AM

I'll admit it. I thought this was ridiculous at first. I mean, I like Creative, but I thought this was a pretty cruel and unfounded move.

But in light of this:
"The so-called "Zen Patent" was filed on January 5, 2001 and awarded August 9, 2005. The interface referenced in the patent was used in Creative's NOMAD Jukebox, which debuted in September 2000. Creative points out that the iPod did not ship for another 13 months."

And this:
"Hoo also took the time to point out that Apple's patent application for the iPod interface was not filed until October 28, 2002."

They have a case people. This one's legit.

I hope they win. Creative is one of Apple's only major competitors, and according to other news, they aren't doing too well. For the sake of competition, better products, and better prices, I'm cheering Creative on. Plus, I think they have a better product anyway.

Score: 0

By heat_fan1

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 10:16 AM

Haha! Someone else is taking a shot at the iPod's interface (Microsoft with the click-wheel, now Creative here). This is great! I hope they have to start paying royalties on every iPod sold, which drives the price back up, which makes people rethink the iPod and discover that, Hey, there are other players out there!

Man, who am I kidding. If iPod prices go up, that'll just be more money consumers fork over for them. Open your eyes people! There are better, cheaper players out there!

Score: 0

By Wibble

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 1:54 PM

And they are . . . ?

I enjoy it when people employ fallacies. This one is particularly astounding. If you are going to make a claim, provide evidence.

Score: 0

By shank2001

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 1:32 PM

Uhhh no there isn't anything better on the market!. I have had many mp3 players (archos, creative, etc. etc.) before being given an Ipod as a gift, and let me tell you THERE IS NOTHING ELSE EVEN CLOSE! All the ipod haters have never used one I guess. There is NOTHING like the combination of iTunes and iPod for ease of use and power for the user over their media. Get over it. I hope Apple wins, this is getting ridiculous! Apple get successful, and other companies get greedy... what ever happened with competing with a better product? If your product sucks no one buys is. Why is creative having a hard time competing? Because nothing out on the market can hold a candle to the ipod. What... do you think people are forking over 300 dollars for an ipod because it is cool?! NO, the do so because it is the best.

Score: 0

By Danny7

posted Aug 31, 2005 - 12:32 AM

iriver H320/H340, iAUDIO X5, Zen Sleek, Rio Karma.
All these players sized 20GB-40GB and are better than IPOD IMO.
Especially the first two.

Score: 0

By DarkHound

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 8:46 AM

Hrm.. well I still won't buy a creative media player. Aside from the fact that I hate it when companies patent something blatently obvious, and already used by every software media player on the planet.. Creative can't even keep from distributing malware with thier own software.

It seems to me that companies should stop blaming/suing the other companies and other users, and instead maybe.. oh.. PRODUCE A BETTER PRODUCT FOR A FAIR PRICE!

Sorry.. I needed that.

Score: 0

By jab1981

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 10:33 AM

"It seems to me that companies should stop blaming/suing the other companies and other users, and instead maybe.. oh.. PRODUCE A BETTER PRODUCT FOR A FAIR PRICE!"

Hmmm... we're talking about Creative. The company that released a better product at a FAR better price. While 30gig iPods were selling for $499... Creative had a line of Zen players that were larger (40gigs) at less than half that. I picked up my 40 gig Zen Xtra for $179 actually. So that's knocks down the fair price angle. Then better? Creative's Zen line has far better features than Apple. Amazing battery life (atleast compared to the iPod), more supported formats, better audio quality... and those are just the most noticeable differences.

Sorry... I guess I needed that. Never had a read such a horribly misguided post. We really should be backing the companies who are out there producing better products at better prices... but instead, we're met with posts like yours. Supporting a sub-standard mp3 player simply because it's a popular fad.

As far as the topic... I think it's great. It seemed a little unjust to me to watch Creative (with some small help from Archos) to basically create the Hard Drive based MP3 player market... only to watch Apple come in with an inferior player and take all the glory. The only thing Apple did for mp3 players was to turn them into some marketable fad by suggesting buying one includes you in part of some bulls*** image.

Go Creative. It's about time Apple pays up. They've been standing on Creative's shoulders for FAR too long.

Score: 0

By Wibble

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 2:03 PM

You want to talk about bull****? Fine. Do a comparison of current prices, not 2002 prices. Talk about current battery lie, not 2002 battery life.

Yes, Creative's players suppport more formats. After all, we can't listen to music unless it is in the proper format, right? The formats supported on the iPod line aren't enough?

Your note on audio quality leaves me puzzled. How are you measuring audio quality? If it is distortion threshhold or reproduction fidelity, flip a coin. If it is format, get a clue. It is impossible even to discuss such an issue until you provide some basis for measurement.

You can say that Creative makes better products. I have no problem with your opinion. I also disagree with your opinion. Then again, I am fond of facts, and you come up far too many claims you fail to back up with facts.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 12:18 PM

>> Supporting a sub-standard mp3 player simply because it's a popular fad.

I never once heard him say he supports or even likes the IPod. It was you, actually, that came off as a Zen Fanboy.

Me personally...I'd go for a 1gb micro mp3 player with at least 50 hours of battery life, just so I never have to charge it.

Score: 0

By MOGua

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 11:32 PM

That would be the Sony NW-E507

Score: 0

By RogueLegend

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 10:56 AM

"Go Creative. It's about time Apple pays up. They've been standing on Creative's shoulders for FAR too long."

While I agree the high capacity player is basically Creative's invention, your post is misguided in that it assumes that Creative created the Artist/Album/Song filing system. IT DIDN'T! Look at Circuit City, Best Buy- they all organize their music that way. The metadata label system? MP3's and MP3 player software have been around a whole lot longer than the Zen.

And who says feature(s) make one product better than another. That's YOUR opinion. The reason why I bought an iPod is because I liked the interface, and if I recall, Apple had higher capacities (40 gig) at the time the Zen and the Dell Jukebox were stuck at 20 or 30. There's hardly a difference in sound quality to me, and the Apple iPod headphones are the best I've heard. Formats? I don't give a crap- I only use MP3. Battery life I could complain about- however, I picked up a 70 hour battery lithium ion battery extender for 11 bucks off of ebay new- and it lasted more than 70 hours. iPod has much much better accessory availability and support from what I have seen.

So don't misguide your own post just because you have an opinion on the importance of certain features.

Score: 0

By Wibble

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 2:05 PM

He may be misguided, but he is right that the iPod came out with a 30GB model at the top of its line when Creative had the 40GB nomad. That was one of the original stories in the tech press.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 11:36 AM

"your post is misguided in that it assumes that Creative created the Artist/Album/Song filing system. IT DIDN'T! Look at Circuit City, Best Buy- they all organize their music that way. The metadata label system? MP3's and MP3 player software have been around a whole lot longer than the Zen"

Wrong. Look at the date the patent was filed:

"The so-called "Zen Patent" was filed on January 5, 2001"

He's not misguided. You are.

Score: 0

By RogueLegend

posted Aug 31, 2005 - 9:49 AM

You missed the point- the patent doesn't matter- it simply took the idea from already existing practices and put it into a patent. The date of the patent doesn't matter either- MP3's and software like WinAmp and Music Match have been around and have organized music in this way for a while.

Hell, I started my own filing system on my PC where I store my music in an artist directory under an album subdirectory- is Creative going to sue me?

I may have been wrong about the capacities, but if you note I said "If I recall." Perhaps I remembered wrong, but my point still stands. Different features are important to different people, Creative DIDN'T create the Artist/Album/Song filing system, and it certainly did not know how to market their product against Apple, a brand that has been dominated by PC sales for at least a decade.

Score: 0

By aklschnapps

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 12:31 PM

So MP3s have been around since the early 90s and using the meta data tags for what they were designed for is unique?

Score: 0

By Kramy

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 12:21 PM

Sarcasm>Well, I guess we've determined that everyone here is a moron. What a fascinating discussion.</Sarcasm

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 12:25 PM

lol

Score: 0

By mehvii

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 10:28 AM

@darkhound

it may be blatantly obvious, but remember that they submitted the patent over a year before the iPod came out, so there's a possibility it may have been less obvious back then.

Score: 0

By Wibble

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 2:07 PM

The point is not that it is blatantly obvious but that other people were already organizing materials in that fashion. I have yet to see anyone enter this discussion with evidence of having read USPTO standards. Go check the requirements for patents. Then learn the process for approval. Finally, discover how patents lose force in cases such as these.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 9:34 AM

Amen

Score: 0

By Dinone

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 12:16 PM

In my opinion many of the negative comments about Apple above do not take into consideration that a product is "better" than another also because of the services related to it. It's the human factor that hardware fans often leave behind. None of the iPod competitors has a service comparable to iTunes software, including iTunes Music Store. It is the mix of the two elements (iPod+iTunes) that make the iPod hardware much more playable and desirable than other competing hardware available on the market.
After all, if you hardware fans really want to be practical, is music really necessary for a human being? Can you explain this behaviour based on a simple hardware spec sheet? Again, don't forget the human factor!

Score: 0

By heat_fan1

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 12:36 PM

Who says iTunes is a better program that Yahoo!, Rhapsody, Napster, Windows Media Player, or any other player? Why does iTunes make iPod more playable and desirable than WMP does for a Dell DJ or Creative Zen? Poor argument, my friend.

Score: 0

By Wibble

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 2:17 PM

Dinone's argument is no worse than your failed rebuttal. Then again, his original post about the iTMS is no better, either. I have tried other download services (I will come back to player-manager integration shortly), and each requires more clicks, more searches, more running around than does the iTMS. I have gotten free downloads for three non-iTMS services, and in every case I have been so frustrated with the time it takes to redeem that free download that I just gave up.

I don't yet bother with podcasts or video downloads, though both risk becoming time sucks I can ill afford, so it is more about survival than anything else. A mobile DJ friend of mine was using WinAMP to organize his files. I talked him into downloading iTunes. Guess what? The file organization that he had spent weeks trying to finish could be done by iTunes automatically in under an hour (not bad, given his then 60GB+ of tracks). He never even got lured by Dell DJ or Creative because neither approached the needs he had.

Sorry, but I will take a mobile DJ over someone who mentions Yahoo! when it comes to music.

Score: 0

By shank2002

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 1:38 PM

Obviously you have never used iTunes.. or if you have you didnt use it long enough to discover the power of smart playlists, or maybe you are too stupid. Plus the fact of the iTunes music store. iTunes and iPod are a combo NOTHING else can touch in the market!

Score: 0

By Dinone

posted Aug 30, 2005 - 1:04 PM

Maybe the single programs you mention may be better than iTunes, and many MP3 devices may be better than iPod, but none of them couples more efficiently and enjoyably than iTunes+iPod, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, many others. Can you suggest a couple of hardware+software that competes with iTunes+iPod in terms of better user experience compatible with a large chunk of population (beyond computer geeks)?
Maybe the mass of people who have decided to skip music solutions proposed within Windows environment and go for an apparently more risky buying decision proposed by a very small MS competitor (Apple) are those who decided that iTunes+iPod is a better software+hardware couple for personal digital music than any other hw+sw couple on the market. Do your proposed alternatives integrate podcasting, music purchasing, video downloading and, possibly in a week, telephony more efficiently, all together?
And again, have you elaborated any argument to explain why people enjoy music? Is such explanation containable in a tech sheet?
I don't see arguments at all on your side, my friend.

Score: 0

By jinkwelby@hotmail.com

edited Aug 30, 2005 - 2:01 PM

The problem here is with the Patent system.
There is no "create"-ivity from Creative in selecting songs based on a hierarchy of the common attributes. This has been done since the dinosaurs by thousands of database/software packages and is simply OBVIOUS. Just cause they stick this on a smaller computer with a smaller screen (portable MP3) does not make it patentable. Apple will have this tossed for sure!!! Patents are a joke. All ideas are built on and depend on ideas that came before them. Creative should be paying the inventor of databases, mp3's, moulded plastic, ASCII character system, CMOS, rechargeable batteries, plug and play, handheld devices, touch-sensitive buttons, GOD etc and on and on.
Greedy and ignorant world we live in .sigh.

Score: 0

Jul 25 - 11:52 AM ET AOL axes weak properties, halts blogs in budget emergency

Jul 25 - 11:32 AM ET Verizon to announce FiOS rollout in New York City

Jul 25 - 10:49 AM ET Sprint hands keys for cellular towers to third-party

Jul 24 - 8:00 PM ET HP ends Voodoo business unit, but not Voodoo gaming PCs

Jul 24 - 5:40 PM ET The danger of DRM: Yahoo will remove keys for authorizing music playback

Jul 24 - 5:20 PM ET Facebook to integrate Microsoft Web search, search ads

Jul 24 - 5:09 PM ET Hitachi introduces third-gen Blu-ray camcorder

Jul 24 - 4:51 PM ET WD's new 10,000 RPM 2.5-inch drives still aren't for laptops

Jul 24 - 4:50 PM ET Scrabulous creators sued in United States by Hasbro

Jul 24 - 4:23 PM ET Windows Live for Mobile updated, but still missing calendar sync