Hi, just for your information, Mr Sim Wong Hoo should be addressed as Mr. Sim. The surname for Chinese names are usually in the front, which is the first word, unless they happen to be funky and have an english name, i.e. Jay Chou, where Chou is the surname. Well, actually if you want to put it in full Jay's name would be something like Jay Chou Jie Lun, or Chou Jie Lun, Jay. Kinda confusing is it? Ah, you'll get used to it.

Thanks Annonymous Coward, I corrected it =)

Just because using an invention is intuitive does not necessarily mean the invention itself is obvious. Having patented in the past, I was taught that there are several arguments for non-obviousness, including combining other inventions in a new way with unexpected results, prior art teaching away from the invention, etc. In this case it might be argued that once the invention is made it becomes an obvious solution ("Duh, why didn't I think of that!")

As far as I can tell, Apple has used Creative's patent better than Creative has.

I just want to second Tdog "Just because using an invention is intuitive does not necessarily mean the invention itself is obvious."

I think Apple was more creative than Creative at the end. =)

The fact is that the same (or extremely similar) interfaces were in other non-MP3 products years ago. On example - but certainly not the earliest - the Sky TV program guide, complete with program reminders that are near-enough playlists by another name.

It IS an obvious way of doing things. How else would you do it? Have a great long list of tunes?. All the Creative patent did was apply an existing idea specifically to music content.

come on, lets face it. Apple hasn't had an original invention yet why shold the iPod put a stop to that

Well, the most interesting thing about all of this is that Apple has been using hierarchical menu based navigation within the Mac OS for easily 10 years. I remember seeing it in Macintosh System 7.1 and possibly before.

The way the iPod navigates is based on that system, which was taken even farther in the UNIX based Mac OS X and it's column view.

So, in other words, one could argue that Creative looked at a Mac and said, "Hey, this interface is pretty cool, let's steal it and use it on the Zen".

I really don't see this suit going anywhere except, ultimately to Creative's demise. They're grasping at straws because they missed the boat. The iPod won not just because of the device itself, but because of the integration of technologies, both hardware and software.

Every iPod ships with both digital PDF and printed manuals. iTunes, for both platforms, has manuals and a sophisticated help system. I don't know anyone who's actually had to read the iPod or the iTunes manuals. That's why the iPod/iTunes combination won.

'The fact is that the same (or extremely similar) interfaces were in other non-MP3 products years ago. On example - but certainly not the earliest - the Sky TV program guide, complete with program reminders that are near-enough playlists by another name.'

I don't see how the Sky Digiguide reminders have anything to do with MP3 player software, but in any event the reminder function was only added to the Sky EPG software probably around 2001/2002, maybe later. This was long after Creative were producing MP3 players and probably even after the iPod came about.

iPod's are unfortunately unbeatable in just about every respect, it's a shame that it has to be this way, but there's just no getting around it. Therefore, I agree with that last sentence, mp3 player manufacturers should quit trying to stop the iPod by holding patents and claims of copyright violations in it's face (because those will never work) and focus their efforts on trying to make an mp3 player that's better than the iPod. As impossible as that sounds, there's bound to be someone out there who can do it. If Rome could fall, so can the iPod.

Apple has played very dirty. No matter what a patent is a patent. I hope apple gets its pants sewed of in court. There are other ways to have an interface. Creative should stab apple in the heart now!!!!!

How did Apple play dirty? They're a company that has been concentrating on ease of use and the integration of hardware and software interface since the late seventies.

Creative Labs is a company that made it's first impact in tech by making sound cards and rather good ones at that. They have nowhere near the breadth of experience that Apple has in terms of human interface and consumer technology integration.

The hierarchical menu based information design that Creative is trying to claim is an interface that has been around for a long, long time on various graphical user interface systems. The fact that they somehow were able to patent it is rather amazing.

El Lopez seems to think that Apple has played dirty. Did they play dirty by coming up with a complete and seamless cross platform solution for portable digital music players and the computer based jukebox that supports them? Perhaps they played dirty by being the first company to succesfully negotiate with the RIAA (now there's a group that plays dirty) thus opening the doors to legal web based music downloads? Of course they could have just played dirty by deciding that if Creative didn't want to work with them years ago, they'd just do it themselves, using their own intellectual property and technology and do it better than anyone else.

That's pretty much the story of Apple in every segment they've been in.

Creative was dying years ago. Be kind and let them get on with it.

Seems all you Pro Apple folks were just kidding yourself. I guess there is more to this patent than any of you realized. For Steve Jobs to settle out of course means he knew he would lose in court. Like one poster said a patten it a patten. Jobs said it himself... Creative was fortunately to get a patent so early. Hundred million dollars isn't chump change for a one time license fee. Congrats to Creative. Doesn't seem like they are dying to me.

So iPod fanboys, how would you like your crow? Grilled, fried, or steamed? would you like some BBQ sauce on the side, and a Pabst Blue Ribbon to wash it down with?

I felt the law suit was rather lame myself, but am glad at the same time, to see the better company come out on top. All this iPod's are unbeatable stuff is just down right funny as well.

Unbeatable? LOL

Creative has been making better MP3 players than Apple has for some time now. Open your eyes, or better yet your ears fan boys.

I also like that Creative is going to make iPod accessories soon.That means some poor iPod owners will become familiar with the Creative name, and know there is a better option out there.

Well said Raiders757...I can't believe someone actually likes iTunes??? I have used iPod, Creative, Sandisk and RCA MP3 players and the associated software in the past - and by FAR the worst of all is iTunes. Granted, I was using a PC to try and recognize and sync with the iPod (I guess that's my fault), but I do think windows based PC's probably make up about 95% of all home/work PC's today.

iTunes is full of nothing but sync and RIAA security problems (like erasing your MP3's if you hook it up to any another (non-primary) PC. What the hell is that?

Anyone who has used both an iPod and the Zen M know how much better the Zen M MP3 player is -

1. Drag and Drop. Period.
2. Compatability - Divx, AVI, etc. (ever tried playing a DIVX file on an iPod?)
3. The Screen (picture quality is much better).
4. The sound quality
5. FM Radio/Recorder

To be fair, the only "down side" to the Zen is the size. Yes, it is a bit larger than comparabel iPod.

iPod fans - before you bash, get your hands on one and actually play with it. You will see everything I mentioned above as being advantageous to the iPod. Don't be afraid to open your minds to something new. Don't just say "iPod is better than Creative..." without knowing what you are talking about.

if the idea is obvious, than how about apples "obvious" patent on the scroll wheel? mice have had it before the ipod, sony minidisc recorders used a "scroll wheel" to go through menus LONG before the ipod, and didnt an early creative jukebox @ 6gb have a "scroll wheel" ?

I dont see how apple can hold a patent to an "obvious" idea as well.

aldavis, I can't do anything but agree. Creative players have a wealth of features absent from ipods; give more options to the customer; give flexibility in terms of software and most importantly sound better. (I'm just waiting for a player with an x-fi sound card)

I LIKE ts' IDEA!
What a beauty an player with an x-fi sound card would be?
Let me dream about for a moment... LOL!

kamil:
apple's "scroll wheel" is one thing that, as far as i know, is an original concept (correct me if i'm wrong). yes, it is based strongly in the scrolling concept that has been around for a few years...mice scroll wheels being the most obvious. but that's not the point. the continuous finger scrolling design relies on a capacitance design much more reminiscent of a touchpad on a laptop. so, like someone early stated which can be applied quite aptly here, the click wheel is more of a combination patent than anything...take the concept of a touchpad and apply it to a scroll wheel. pretty nifty if you ask me, even if you don't particularly like it.
i think the ipod user interface is, right now, one of the primary reasons (the other being its size) that it is so popular. but, in my opinion, it's more of a gimmick. while i do really like the interface, there are others that are just as intuitive and functional...and i think creative is doing that.
i'll just say that i think apple is making some great mp3 players...but i also think there's plenty of other alternatives...depending on your needs. for some things, you just can't beat what apple is doing. for others, you'd be surprised how much better a SanDisk, iRiver, or Creative would be.
so really, just keep an open mind and buy what you like. me? i've been using a 20GB 4th gen ipod for a while now...but i'm ditching it in favor of the smaller creative zen V.

"and focus their efforts on trying to make an mp3 player that's better than the iPod"

Creative already have. Their players support more file formats and offer better video resolutions than the iPods.
I personally hate having to convert files to obsolete Mackintosh file formats. Microsoft is a far, far larger company than Apple, so maybe they should think about releasing MP3 players compatible with their default music file formats, hmmm? Such as, say, Creative have.

The only failing of Creative is their promotions/marketing, which we can all agree have been absolute crap. How many of us have to explain to ignorant iPod users what Zens are?
People buy iPods NOT because they are technically superior products but because there are fancy, colourful commercials grabbing their attention. Creative should have made an effort early on to combat that.

"People buy iPods NOT because they are technically superior products but because there are fancy, colourful commercials grabbing their attention. Creative should have made an effort early on to combat that."

agreed. i was in best buy the other day looking at mp3 players, and two young adult guys (somewhere between 18 and 24) came over to the mp3 section. they didn't even look at any other players, they went straight for the nano's. it's as if the nano was their only option.
i think apple did quite well with their campaign. they made a really unique (even if it's just visually) device with unique ads. when people think mp3 player, they instinctively think ipod. good marketing. effective marketing. i believe that if people took the time to research, test, and compare, the percentage of ipod users would be much smaller.

zen nano > ipod mini

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Back in the day I loved my Nomad Jukebox. When iPOD came out I refused to use it. After researching how it worked I didn't want one anyway. The conversion system, the complicated iTUNES, etc.

When the Zen Vision came out I grabbed one and I've loved it ever since. It does more than an iPOD can, it has built in radio features, customizable background features, and I prefer the drag-and-drop feature that makes Zen so much easier.

I will never conform to the iPOD phenomenon, and I hope these other companies that are starting to come onto the field blow Apple and it's products out of the water.

White PS3 is as special as you are. Maybe more special...

I have used my wife's Ipod for 2 years now.
I asked for a Zen for Christmas. I'm more than pleased.
For one, I want NOTHING to do with ITunes. I love how Apple for years railed against the 'evil empire' in Redmond who was hellbent on nothing but stealing ideas, turning out crappy product, cornering the market, and making gazillions instead of 'changing the world.'

Now, it appears Apple is hellbent on stealing ideas, making gazillions and cornering the market...albeit with arguably excellent product.

Apple and Itunes have you by the proverbial round spherical biological bits. And if the fanboys who spank it every time "Apple" gets mentioned on Slashdot realized how they were being PWNED by Apple, they'd have a coronary.

I look at ITunes and I think of that old Apple Superbowl commercial. You know millions of drones locked into an overbearing corporate structure. I felt that way, until the Norwegian hammer thrower came along...in the form of a Creative Zen.

What do you think the odds are now that Creative has won the right to make adapters and peripherals for the IPod, of Creative making a Zen to Ipod adapter, that would convert the pins for Ipod accessories to work with Zen?

well, it looks like Apple got sued for using Creative's GUI menu system, Quantum Research Group is suing over the click wheel, Apple settles with Contois Music Technology over patent infringement with iTunes' user interface, and Intertainer is suing over it's patent infringement by the iTMS' video download service.

Haha, is there anything at all about the iPod/iTunes ecosystem that Apple can claim as it's own??

After reading all these slanted posts by Apple/Creative loyalists i have realized that each player (iPod 5g, Zen Vision: M) has its pros and cons. I currently own an ipod and have tested the Zen. The iPod has the better interface and software including the vast amout of songs on the iTunes music store and not to mention the sleekness of the iPod. but on the other hand if you do a side by side comparison of the two you will be blown away by the clarity and sharpness of the Zen's screen when playing videos. Also it has more features such as vioce recorder and radio. but its music software is flawed and somewhat harder to use.

So in perspective Apple is more focused on providing a product that can be used by almost anyone with seamless transfering/downloading of music along with the ubiquitous name of the iPod. While Creative is focused on those who dont want to be like everyone else by providing features unique to it's player such as the voice recorder, radio and customizable menus.

And in my opinion about the whole patent issue is the reason that Apple settled the issue out of court is that they either knew they were going to loose or they didnt want to risk the chance that thier ipod line and company would somehow be tarnished in the view of consumers if they lost the suit.

I (rather we) own 2 Ipods....I bought one for my wife along with mine...

Call it stupidity...or just "going with the trend".... I have had Iriver and the quality of playback and the features were good in Iriver....the sound in ipod is about average...... as far as the usability.... my god...whoever said userfriendly... I am not sure which "USER" they were thinking about... may be an average Joe who just presses the play button an listens to whatever he gets... if I had to change the equalizer on the go... hell i have to wade through so much of crap... just to point one of the many such things... the scroll wheel is good however the interface is itself so steeped in hierarchy of menus it cannot in anyway be called as "intutive and userfriendly"...I fail to understand why people fall for ipod....

I still fume over the lack of support for most video formats and also the way the itunes work... anyway...I have learnt my lesson "not believing the sheeps of the world..."

Hence I think the whole notion of Apple "stole the idea".. is ubsurd .. and to think of settling the crap for 100 Mil... it just makes me mad that these guys who are so called trend setters are churning out crap and still talk of such things...

IPOD's have never been the best product. OK, in the sense a product is the actual product and then all the intangabile crap, maybe the marketing is very very good. When it comes time to buy a product such as an MP3 player, I always hate buying the one with the most advertising. I'd rather a company spend money in R&D and the actual product I will be using everyday than huges amounts on TV ads that bug the hell outta me. Better more researched product vs flashy gimicks & cheaper product.. Oh and wait, creative's stuff is cheaper than Ipods..

I have a creative zen vision:m. I have never owned a MP3 player before this and I wasn't going to buy one until I was sure it had everything I wanted. Which the vision:m has. Video playback from most of the popular codecs, not seen in ipod. One feature I hardly use currently (because I haven't been on another month long holiday yet) is the USB host function on the vision:m. Ipod'ers won't know what that is but when I'm away with my 7mp camera, taking loads of photos and running outta space on my 4 gb's worth of SD cards, I plug my digital camera STRAIGHT into the vision:m. Upload. Now I can take more photos. AND! I can view them straight away on my vision:m.

The pure genius of it.

Creative has won my heart and it sadens me I have to buy the more expensive products via the interenet because stores don't tend to stock them. Marketing is flawed, but maybe thats just a cost thing to get better products.

Good, Quick, Cheap.. Pick two right.