06/07/2006, 9:05pm, EDT
Wednesday, June 7th
Apple turned to Creative for iPod help
According to the report, the lawsuit says that in early 2001, Apple was hoping to either license Creative's technology or jointly invest in a new company that would further develop Creative's MP3 player products.
A protracted legal battle could hurt the chances of the Singapore-based Creative Technology as Apple could try to outspend Creative, according to analysts. Analysts told the publication that, if true, the inability to strike a deal with Apple in 2001 cost the company dearly. Through the end of April, Apple had a 77 percent share of the U.S. portable-MP3-player market, according to the report: the remaining four competitors, including Creative, have less than 10 percent each, according to market-research group NPD.
According to documents obtained by the WSJ, the lawsuit claims that Jobs "approached a Creative employee at the January 2001 MacWorld trade show and praised the Nomad MP3 player. The two discussed a possible meeting, and Mr. Jobs 'indicated Apple wanted a smaller version' of the Nomad, according to Creative's filings. The next month, according to the suit, Creative executives met again with Mr. Jobs. The suit says Apple offered its two proposals at this time, but Creative declined both overtures." In October of the same year, Apple introduced its first iPod.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 18
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
Once he lost the patent, and when technology advanced, other's took his idea and made a bundle from it. The guy himself did not make a dime. Creative's patent, however, is over it's user interface, not the hardware.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/talktime/story/0,13274,1315599,00.html
It’s not like Apple had a go-it-alone/our way or the highway strategy - it just came about out of necessity.
CVB
As for Sony, I'm sure the decisionmakers there didn't lose any sleep over it-- those guys will never admit (or learn from) mistakes, that's why they keep doing dumb things trying to foist proprietary formats on the market and shipping music discs with rootkits on them.
~Philly
The Apple patents which are hardware design based and easy to copy write and prove, will stand.
The user interface was patent should never have been awarded. It's a most hierarchical database, the most simple database ever designed and is in use in one form or another all over the world. All Creative did was use it on a music player.
Where do the people in these patent offices come from?
One thing is certain. If Apple had not innovated music players, they would still be in the dark ages.
Listen, the real story here is that the LAWYERS for Creative think that they can extort money from Apple. It's the way things are done. The Beatles are even doing it, so why not Creative?
LAWYERS are vampires.