How Creative is this settlement?

Apple resolved Creative's patent infringement claim for a cool $100 million.  After a while of 'back and forth" between both companies on who was truly wronged, this is what the former standoff involved:

'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 Phil O'Shaughnessy, a Creative spokesman. The patent applies to portable media players, which includes devices like the iPod or cell phones that have the ability to play music, he said. Creative filed for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001."

Apple may not turn out the real loser in all this depending on how many deals Creative secures with MP3 makers and actually cough up less than the agreed amount.

How this will affect Apple is unclear, given the fact Apple currently faces the 'creative block" with its lack of further iPod offerings, and no real indication of how it plans to proceed in further iPod development.  What is also curious about this is how Jobs worded how 'fortunate" Creative was in securing the patent'”almost as if Apple should have been awarded the patent instead.  At face value, Apple's countersuit against Creative seemed more petty than having standing, as the link to Apple's counter suit stated 'Creative was a distant second to [Apple] in the personal media player market," especially since Apple's countersuit was based on icons and user interface issues, something seemingly less 'injurious" and harder to prove than Creative's claim of both an interface and certain kind of organizational options.  It would almost seem as if Apple attempted to 'strong arm" Creative into submission.  As Creative can now use Apple's logo and become an authorized Apple seller, it seems Creative not only 'scored" on its patent infringement, but also got Apple to 'hand over" its logo'”the very thing Apple countersued for!  The only clear conclusion is that Creative stands to gain far more than Apple stands to potentially avoid paying to Creative.  Also, Creative now established some sort of precedent for 'fighting the big guy" and winning; in the process, it even 'outmaneuvered" Apple at it's own game (over use of the Apple logo).  Combine this with Apple's 'creative doldrums" over what to do next with its iPod, in concert with Apple's seemingly 'lacking" negotiating skills in this settlement, where Creative clearly gains more…  who can say for certain what this means?  It could mean that if Creative gains market share on Apple and if Microsoft's Zune player includes some 'heavy hitters" on the MP3 resource side, Apple could find itself 'squeezed" on more fronts by more than just Creative's legal victory.

Source: C|net