More on the iPod patent going to Creative

Well I do have apoplectic fits about this but it seems that Creative is starting to go "Hmmmm" and scratching their collective chin at the possibilities... According to a Macworld article, After patent, Creative examines all options they just might demand from Apple a licensing fee or some kind of money on each iPod unit sold.

Craig McHugh, president of Creative Labs, says that his company is "evaluating all alternatives" now that it has received a patent for music player interfaces. The patent, issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, covers the hierarchical display of music information on digital music players that Creative claims can be found not only on its devices but also on Apple's iPod and iPod mini.

The interface that Creative has patented covers the display of music on a digital music player using hierarchical menus that sort content using metadata tags. In a series of slides shown to conference call attendees, McHugh demonstrated how it works on Creative’s Zen Micro player — the screen shows a music library comprising playlists, albums, artists, genres and tracks — navigating the Artists menu, for example, yields a list of artists whose music is on the player. Go to the next level and you’ll find the artist’s albums on the player; the next shows individual tracks. ...

The hierarchical interface has been used by nine generations of Creative music players, said McHugh. That includes the Nomad and black and white Zen line, the Zen MicroPhoto, Creative’s alternative to Apple’s color screen-equipped iPod, and the Zen Vision, which features a larger form factor, color screen and the ability to play back video in addition to music and photos. ...

The US Patent & Trademark Office awarded Creative its patent in the early August, but this is the first time the company has publicly acknowledged it. McHugh said that the recent press coverage regarding Apple and Microsoft’s patent dispute spurred Creative to take action.

Last month the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejected a patent application filed by Apple for some elements of the iPod interface, citing a patent submission made by Microsoft developer five months before.

McHugh explained that Microsoft developer John Platt’s patent covered a different aspect of the interface than the hierarchical display of music. Creative patent application, filed in January of 2001, predates both Apple and Platt’s filings, he added.

Why wasn’t Creative mentioned in the US Patent & Trademark Office’s rejection? As Creative understands it, “the patent office only has to cite one piece of prior art for rejection,” McHugh said. “Not all of them.” ...

Uh oh here we go... Apple Is Accused of Violating Software Patent.

So what will Apple do? This is a very tough spot they're in now... :^(