By Tom Krazit, 24 August 2006 08:15
NEWS
Apple and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music player patents for $100m, the companies announced on Wednesday.
The $100m, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a licence to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players. After months of hinting it would be coming after rival music player companies, Creative sued Apple in May, claiming the iPod maker was infringing on its patents.
A week later, Apple countersued, claiming Creative was infringing on Apple patents for user interfaces. As a result of the settlement, all legal disputes between the two companies related to the patent will disappear. Creative had also asked the International Trade Commission to investigate Apple for patent infringement.
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, said a Creative spokesman. The patent applies to portable media players, which includes devices such as the iPod or mobile phones that have the ability to play music, he said. Creative filed for the patent on 5 January, 2001.
Apple can get back some of the $100m payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals with other MP3 player manufacturers, said an Apple spokesman. He declined to specify exactly how much Apple could recoup or how many deals it would take to trigger the payments.
Under US patent law, the first inventor to file a patent generally holds the rights to that technology, said Rod Thompson, an intellectual property lawyer with Farella Braun and Martell in San Francisco. This isn't always the case, as another inventor can attempt to prove they were working on the invention before the other inventor filed for a patent but that's a long, expensive legal process with no certainties, he added.
Thompson said: "This had the makings of a big battle, because the stakes are so high." Apple obviously couldn't afford to have an injunction slapped on imports of the iPod, and $100m is a pittance compared to the $1.5bn in revenue Apple garnered on iPod sales just in the last quarter, he said.
Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release: "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent." Apple was eager to move beyond the legal dispute caused by the patent, which could have eventually cost the company as much as the $100m settlement amount, the Apple spokeman said.
The Creative spokesman said: "We're very pleased to have reached a broad agreement with Apple." Creative plans to speak with other MP3 player companies about its patent, he said, but is not providing details on whether it has entered discussions with other companies.
As part of the agreement, Creative will also enter Apple's Made for iPod programme as an authorised seller of iPod accessories. Creative will be able to affix the 'Made for iPod' logo to its speakers, headphones and other related products, said its spokesman.
Creative is one of many companies attempting to chip away at Apple's runaway lead in the market for portable MP3 players. Its Zen products haven't translated into profits, however: earlier this month, Creative reported a $12.7m loss on slowing sales for its fourth quarter. The company expects the $100m settlement to add 85 cents to its profits per share figures for its current quarter.
Tom Krazit writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ian Sargent
What a stupid patent.
Most people have been organising their LPs and CDs by artist, then by album for years. As Creative has just taken this idea and applied it to a piece of electronic equipment how can they get a patent on it.
Can every record collector now sue for compensation on the basis of prior use?
2. Graham Coles
So the protection racket is alive and kicking in the states. Pay us the money or we stop you from selling your goods.
Add this to the ever increasing list of why Software Patents are a really dumb idea. $100m for DOS menu system, not exactly value for money.
3. anonymous
How on earth can you patent the idea of a filtered list. This has been used in computer interfaces for the last 20 yrs.
What else did Creative add to this that makes it patentable?
On the face of it, it's disputes like this that bring the whole area of software patents into disrepute. It would be very interesting to see a follow-up article that explored the patent in detail.
4. anonymous
It just goes to show that you can patent anything in the US, even if there is loads of prior art.
Every restaurant in the US must now be trembling, if they organise their offerings grouped as Starters, Mains and Desserts.... because *that* is a heirarchical menu system...
The patent system in the US is nothing but legalised fraud, enabled by obvious back-handers. And I don't think ours is much better. The whole system is geared to protecting only those who can afford big offices full of expensive lawyers...