http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4198360.stm

Putting aside the huge scope of this ridiculous patent, I'm trying to think of some prior art.. January 2001 predated the Riot by a year, and non-portable devices don't apply.

Rob

been thinking about this and not knowing the exact details of the patent i can't be sure but i think the HanGo PJB100 has a very simular interface and i think came out sometime around or before jan 2000.

C.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like organizing music by artists, then albums, then tracks fails the "obvious" test.

I guess it's time to get in my patent application for portable book devices that specifies storing them in Author, then Book, then Chapter order.

I'm also late in hearing something back on that "Alphabetical" patent.

I'm waiting on yours to clear so I can get in my Roman numeral extension patent for prefaces, tables of contents, indices, and appendices.

Well!!
Maybe I'll just take out a patent on variations of the 'H' pattern for manual transmission gear selection!
No, wait! I'll patent the wheel! fire! dirt!

Sorry dood, I totally patented a "method of breaking down rock and organic matter over millions of years to form a fine particle substance which can be used to form the ground" last week.

I see what this "intelligent design" thing is all about now! Patent fees!

I thought Microsoft already had the patent for the numbers 0 and 1.

I don't think it will hold up if challenged. The thing was only granted because of the US' lax 1-year grace period allowing filing after disclosure.

They claim the interface was first used on the Nomad Jukebox. If you can find anything that used a similar interface prior to January 5th 2000 or anything that was documented prior to that date, that would be enough to try shooting down this patent.

The whole concept flies in the face of what a patent is for in my opinion anyway. There's not an argument that can be made to say that Creative filed in order to protect the expenses to develop such innovation, nor is it much of a process - it's more of a manual navigation that is very natural. It is TOTALLY obvious and very much fails the basic requirements of any patent. Not only obvious to someone skilled in the arts, but to anyone period.

I dislike software patents in the first place, but since they're here, like everyone else, I'll file them where I can, primarily as defensive weapons rather than offensive. No one wants to sue if they risk getting sued back.

Bruno

I'm almost sure Creative's own earlier Jukebox products predate filing of the patent by at least a year. Not to mention products from SSI (Neo) as well as the original Diamond MP3 players (though I can't remember the dates there).

If it's from Creative, it has to be more than one year before the patent application.

Bruno

There was an interesting article mentioning that the whole thing might be just a marketing gimmick:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050831/1023209_F.shtml

Quote:
and non-portable devices don't apply

That's not actually the case. When we looked at patenting some of the empeg stuff, we were advised that if it had happened on (eg) a PC, moving such a concept to a car player was an "obvious extension". Though you may get the patent (especially in the USA, where it's relatively easy - compared to Europe - to get patents), it wouldn't be enforceable because someone could just point out that it'd been done before in another arena. In essence, you'd pay all those patent fees to get a worthless bit of paper.

The Rio Receiver had hierarchical content selection menus, based on tags, and was shown publically (though not shipped) in 2000. Depending on how you look at it, the carplayer might also apply, though the tree was user-built.

Still, it's definitely a good PR excercise for Creative!

Hugo