Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute

Burst.com by nother_nix_hacker · 2006-01-06 11:00 · Score: 5, Funny

So do we like Burst.com or not....I a little lost on this one.

Re:Burst.com by springbox · 2006-01-06 11:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Usually when presented with an neutral report, it is best to form your own opinion.
Re:Burst.com by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:23 · Score: 3, Funny

My own opinion? Um... which news site is that on? Link plz!
Re:Burst.com by TubeSteak · 2006-01-06 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

That sounds like something I'd read in a fortune cookie.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Burst.com by coolgeek · 2006-01-06 11:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, all I know is we like Apple, and Apple hates Burst.com, so you do the math.

--

cat /dev/null >sig
Re:Burst.com by strider44 · 2006-01-06 12:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Do you like Apple as a computer/operating systems/music box manufacturer or as a legal entity. I don't mind Apple as a computer/operating systems/music box manufacturer but I hate Apple as a legal entity. It's not that long ago that they sued their own fans for discovering "trade secrets", and it's also not that long ago that they started sueing CSIRO, a non profit pure science organisation, trying to invalidate a few of their patents relating to wireless networking.

I say fuck Apple, go Burst.com (though I admit, that's my first impression and I haven't read the article!)
Re:Burst.com by mjrauhal · 2006-01-06 12:19 · Score: 1

We don't like Burst, but we do like patent problems for the big guys. Lots of problems. More and more, until they get the point that patents are not a Good Idea, and tell their bought and paid for politicians so.

And if outfits like Burst have to make some patent bucks while doing it, so be it. It's a small price to pay, by Apple and Microsoft.
Re:Burst.com by antoinjapan · 2006-01-06 12:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Zapp: "I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."
Re:Burst.com by HiThere · 2006-01-06 12:48 · Score: 1

Well, since Apple is arguing that the patent should be invalidated, I'm on Apple's side in this one.

There may well be exceptions, but there are so many bad patents that my first assumption upon hearing of a request for a patent to be declared invalid is "YEAH!!!". If someone wants to claim that they had an idea that should be protected, I'm a bit LESS likely to give credence to it if they hold a patent on it. I'll require a slightly higher level of proof.

Of course, I'm no lawyer, and no court, either. They tend to hold the opposite presumption, but you did ask for our opinions.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Burst.com by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:53 · Score: 0

It's not that long ago that they sued their own fans for discovering "trade secrets"

And is the damage done any less because the trade secret was disclosed due to fanboyism rather than malice?

I rather like Apple as a legal entity. I mean, all this court drama, it's so fun!
Re:Burst.com by I_Human · 2006-01-06 13:24 · Score: 1

:) Obviously facetious, however I would say 'we' don't like software patents, stifle growth, creativity, etc. Except, they don't really, but, they kinda do. So, yeah, that's our stance.

--
-JP
Re:Burst.com by sconeu · 2006-01-06 14:01 · Score: 1

Tell my wife I said... "Hello".

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Burst.com by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 14:58 · Score: 0

Go talk to Apple about the patents they file then. You'll want those to be invalidated as well yes?
Re:Burst.com by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-06 18:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, speaking only for myself, no.

Burst.com's patent -- at least according to Groklaw -- seems like it's definitely invalidated by prior art. According to this article, both Apple and Real (and possibly Microsoft) had their own versions of the same functionality, predating the patent by Burst.

Honestly the fact that Burst.com (or whatever company it was before it became Burst.com) produced a number of useful products doesn't matter a whit to the fact that they have a crummy patent that they're obviously trying to make a buck off of. That said, I can't blame them either -- the USPTO issued this piece of trash that they're trying to litigate, and there's no way that it's going to go away unless it gets invalidated by a judge.

The MS suit ended in what to me is a draw -- an out of court settlement where MS effectively bought Burst's cooperation. Apple doesn't have a history of doing that, so I think this time we'll see a resolution. Arguably MS's solution happened because Microsoft was under criticism for deleting evidence and not otherwise behaving fairly -- so saying that Burst's patent has been held in prior trials really doesn't wash.

I respect Burst as a company, but based on what I've read from the Microsoft and now the Apple case, they're a company on their last legs, looking to capitalize on a few shoddy patents that they managed to get issued while someone at the USPTO wasn't doing what ought to be their job: looking for prior art. If Apple wins and Burst goes out of business, I'll be slightly sad, but not terribly upset -- when a company sinks to the level of litigating obviously general patents, they have no place staying in business. The fact that they might have made real contributions to the art of computing in the past only makes the company's death more painful, but no less necessary, to everyone involved.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Burst.com by HiThere · 2006-01-06 20:42 · Score: 1

Yup.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Burst.com by coolgeek · 2006-01-06 21:42 · Score: 1

Heh I was just clowning around, ya know, the enemy of my friend is my enemy kinda thing. I do like Apple for it's technology. I don't like any company that resorts to employing the legal system as a strongarm tool. I don't know either way if Apple is evil in this case or not. I do hope some of these patent-wielding shakedown companies get their asses kicked as many times as it takes until it costs more to wield a patent than they can stand to gain from the shakedown. I think that would be a huge step in the right direction. I am pleased that the NTP (??) (or should I say Plaintiff's against RIM) appears to be getting their patents tossed out. Maybe it's the start of a trend at the USPTO to take out the trash and reverse a lot of patents that should have never been granted in the first place because they are not novel nor innovative nor do they entail a lot of research to discover.

Well, that's a lot of words for 2 cents now, isn't it. Good rappin' with you.

--

cat /dev/null >sig
Re:Burst.com by DumbparameciuM · 2006-01-07 01:22 · Score: 1

No, you like apple.

--
"We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
Re:Burst.com by James_Aguilar · 2006-01-07 05:47 · Score: 1

. . . there are so many bad patents that my first assumption . . .
In other words, you are an nonthinking Slashdot drone who doesn't bother looking at the situation and just responds by saying, "To hell with patents?" You should try forming your own opinion. It's good for you.
Re:Burst.com by PHPfanboy · 2006-01-07 05:53 · Score: 1

I wonder if you'd say this if you were the inventor. I'm not trying to be an arse here (at least not deliberately), but if you had an invention, and larger players copied it and didn't give you any credit (read: licensing money), up to the point where your own company is driven out of business as you don't have the marketing $$ and distribution network, wouldn't you turn to the courts? I know we're all anti-patents and all that, but that's because we don't have any ;-) I'm wondering whether Burst.com inventors (or whoever holds that patent) felt it was obviously general when they submitted - yes, I know we have companies who sit on submarine patents, but these guys have real products (though I have no idea if they are any good).

I'm not saying this is the case here as reading the Apple PR it looks like they have tried to license the technology (though I'm a little confused here as some people here are saying they have prior art and say anyway that the patents being "enforced" are not relevant). Also from the PR it looks like Apple had enough of the discussion and decided it would be cheaper to go to court to set the amount they need to pay, in which case I think that's fair enough.

--
29 mpg. YMMV.
Re:Burst.com by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-07 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course, if I had been issued a patent on something stupid and general, of course I'd try milk the hell out of it. If I were the CEO of a corporation, doing anything less would probably be construed by the shareholders as a failure to do my job.

That wouldn't mean that the patent isn't a bad one, or that it was stupid of the USPTO to issue it in the first place. The mistake here isn't Burst's -- they're just working with the hand of cards they've been dealt -- but the patent clerk's who let this slip through, even though there was reams of prior art: a feature in Apple's Quicktime and possibly something in Windows Media Player also.

Because this patent got issued, and the leadership of Burst.com has an obligation to try to make money (as does Apple), we have go witness this song and dance as the issue is worked out in the courts. Hopefully Apple won't shoot themselves in the foot the same way that Microsoft did, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Burst.com by DGtlRift · 2006-01-07 08:45 · Score: 0

Burst.com's patent -- at least according to Groklaw -- seems like it's definitely invalidated by prior art. According to this article, both Apple and Real (and possibly Microsoft) had their own versions of the same functionality, predating the patent by Burst.

I'm probably just really simplifiying the issue but it seems to me that something like Sony's anti skip technology in DiskMan's would be the prior-art for this going back to the early 90's (perhaps even the late 80's?)... fill up a circular fifo cache ram as the disk is read and play out of the fifo rather then directly from disk. When the disk skips (or flash back to now and the packet is lost or delayed) the queue keeps this from being noticed since system rereads the skipped area of the disk (or the server retransmits the packet and the client has enough cache to wait for the packet.) Again it seems obvios to me use a fifo queue on the client end... and I thought that RealAudio had already done this before Burst, Apple, or MS.

--
How about a spell checker for slashdot, or even more impressive, a spell checker for strings in C-Code? Use lint! -DG
Re:Burst.com by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-08 02:19 · Score: 0

Hold on didn't apple use the patent game to sue Microsoft back in the day for using a huge technology called gui, which they had stolen from xerox labs? Ohhhh but wait thats right Apple never gets sued for patent law because they are suppose to be the inovative david while microsoft is the greedy goliath. Ahhhh shit, looks like apple will actually have to pay off yet another company for steeling their technology. Otherwise what do you consider patentable technology? Something that apple doesn't create, because i didn't see you write anything wordy or whole hearted when they sued microsoft for the same damn thing.
Re:Burst.com by gotamd · 2006-01-19 10:22 · Score: 1

Burst's patents date back to 1988 and they're not FIFO's at all. The patents are for creating a local cache of the content that is being watched so that there is no skipping. The cache is filled at the full rate of the connection speed even though the video is not using all that speed. I believe that coming up with this idea in 1988 would have been revolutionary and patent-worthy. If you tried to patent it today, you'd of course fail. However, Burst didn't immediately have to go after Apple and others on patent infringement. They can sue whenever they feel like it.

busy day in apple legal by DarkClown · 2006-01-06 11:00 · Score: 1

what with filing suit and more than likely spending a good chink of the day figuring out whether or not to sue yahoo over the dashboard thing...

Re:busy day in apple legal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 23:51 · Score: 0

Yahoo bought konfabulator, which existed before Apple's dashboard. If anyone, it should be Yahoo sueing Apple.

The patent system is ridiculous by PCM2 · 2006-01-06 11:01 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm so tired of hearing about all these companies whose sole purpose is to hang onto patents and so-called intellectual property. In many ways you can compare these companies to the start-ups of the dot-com bubble. And just like that bubble, sooner or later this bubble ... ...oh, skip it. To hell with it, I can't go through with it. Someone else will pick it up I'm sure.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Cheapy · 2006-01-06 11:02 · Score: 5, Funny

"And just like that bubble, sooner or later this bubble ..." will burst.com?

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:15 · Score: 0

Apple plays the same game themselves holding numerious of shitty patents. This is the way it works and this is the way Apple likes it.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by pete6677 · 2006-01-06 11:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree. This lawsuit is simply an attempt by Apple to gain the upper hand in licensing negotiations; to show that they want to play hard ball. I expect it will be settled or withdrawn soon.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by dunng808 · 2006-01-06 11:35 · Score: 1

Only if used to stream pop music! :P

--
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by jcr · 2006-01-06 11:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

I disagree. The lawsuit is an attempt to get a patent thrown out, because it never should have been awarded in the first place. Sending video at a faster rate than is necessary for real-time streaming, and buffering it on the receiving end, is "obvious to one skilled in the art".

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:00 · Score: 0

"And just like that bubble, sooner or later this bubble ..."

will pop? ;)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by QuietLagoon · 2006-01-06 12:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm so tired of hearing about all these companies whose sole purpose is to hang onto patents and so-called intellectual property.
Burst is not one of those companies that collects patents for the purpose of suing alleged infringers.
Burst themselves had the foresight to develop their technology a number of years ago and patent their ideas. Check out their website and you will see that the "faster than realtime" technology that Burst developed is the only patents that they own.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by QuietLagoon · 2006-01-06 12:33 · Score: 1

Sending video at a faster rate than is necessary for real-time streaming, and buffering it on the receiving end, is "obvious to one skilled in the art".
But was it obvious a decade ago when Burst developed this technology? Remember a decade ago, 19.2kbps was a fast access connection.
Burst was so far ahead of the technology of the time that the patent award was definitely earned.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:42 · Score: 0

Remember a decade ago, 19.2kbps was a fast access connection.

I do believe there were LANs slightly faster than that.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by gvibes · 2006-01-06 12:42 · Score: 1

Actually, this probably means that licensing negotiations were pretty much dead, and they just wanted the choice of forum/timing, so they sued first.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by professionalfurryele · 2006-01-06 13:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obvious or not, it is not an specification for an actual physical device. There used to be an understanding when it came to pure mathematics and sciences, mathematicians and scientists develop science and mathematics through grants given to them from the government, and in return, science and mathematics was not patentable, because to make that kind of knowledge patentable inhibited the free market (because it stopped inventors of actual devices from making progress using these results). Today, we can patent mathematics in the form of software, and surprise surprise this is inhibiting the free market.
If it isn't a design for something I can hold my hand out and touch, it shouldn't be patentable. Now as for who should win here, well as much as I hate them, Apple should. But legally, I don't think they stand much of a chance. The laws that the software industry cartel bought from politicians in the US seems to me to support Burst and I don't think Apple have a case.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 13:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

If it isn't a design for something I can hold my hand out and touch, it shouldn't be patentable.

You can hold your hand out and touch the general purpose computing device that has been programmed to implement the software method. Test satisfied.

Before you criticize this "smartass" answer, consider that anything you can name is merely a physical embodiment of mathematical equations describing natural conditions. Mechanical devices. Electrical circuits. Chemical reactions. It's all merely mathematics and experimentally determined constants.

You claim that the Burst IP shouldn't be patentable because it is merely "mathematics" and "algorithms". Prove it. Implement the IP without using a general purpose computing device.

The question is not whether you call something physical or mathematical, but whether the physical implementation of the mathematical is obvious in view of predecessing work that was published prior to the date of 'invention', which means work that was published before at least the filing date of the patent applications.

Microsoft's attorneys have not done this, and neither have you. Do not waste our time discussing hypothetical states of the law that have no realistic chance of coming into being. The Supreme Court has been quite clear on what is and what is not patentable subject matter, and you are certainly on the losing side of that argument.

BTW: The statute setting forth what is, and by implication what is not, statutory subject matter was enacted in 1952. The Supreme Court decisions enabling "general purpose computing device programmed to" claims is similarly ancient. Please explain how the software industry "bought" this legislation. Citations would be appreciated.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by znu · 2006-01-06 14:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suspect, actually, that Apple doesn't like it much at all. They're basically forced to try to patent any technology they might ever use, no matter how obvious, because otherwise someone else will patent it and sue them. That's just the way the system currently works. You can't blame companies for trying to protect themselves.

Now, companies that use these sorts of patents offensively are a different matter. But Apple, and most other large tech companies, don't do that. It tends to be small companies, often with no real products, that decide to try to strike it rich suing the big guys.

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 14:12 · Score: 0

That's interesting. My father tried to patent something in the 1980s. It was thrown out by the patent examiner (I've seen the letter) based soley on its quality of being software. From what I understand, having read tech journals for the past 20 years, software patents were specifically disallowed until the late 90's, your citation be damned.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by jcr · 2006-01-06 14:50 · Score: 1

But was it obvious a decade ago when Burst developed this technology?

Yes, of course it was. You always transmit a file as quickly as your network allows.

Burst was so far ahead of the technology of the time that the patent award was definitely earned.

Nope. Ten years ago, TV networks were already trying various ways to send a show faster than real-time, like using multiple satellite channels and segmenting the show at the commercial breaks.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by 1000StonedMonkeys · 2006-01-06 16:52 · Score: 1

My God Man! I can understand not reading the article, but atleast read the entire article summary before commenting :).
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 16:53 · Score: 0

Then your father needed to hire a better patent attorney.

Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)

"It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a "different state or thing." We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

Diamond v. Diehr (1981)

"In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. These include installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time. Obviously, one does not need a "computer" to cure natural or synthetic rubber, but if the computer use incorporated in the process patent significantly lessens the possibility of "overcuring" or "undercuring," the process as a whole does not thereby become unpatentable subject matter."

My citations may be damned, but they are correct. Your father's failure to properly protect his interests does not alter the state of the law, and does not prove me wrong.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by professionalfurryele · 2006-01-06 23:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Two things. First by your logic General Relativity should have been patentable, simply by writing "An computer based implementation of an algorithm to find the behaviour of objects under gravity". You then go on to say that I'm on the losing side. I know I am, but the above example makes it pretty clear I'm not on the wrong side. The law does not define morallity.
Your condition for obviousness does not work, because if an idea is obvious, there wont be a publication on it for that very reason. No self respecting scientist is going to publish in a journal a paper whose sole result is to extole the virtues of one click shopping.
Now for my second thing. Since the only physical object you describe is a general purpose computer, we are agreed that a general purpose computer should be patentable. Bit late for that but I accept that. So should (to a certain extent) a unique hardware implementation of an algorithm be patentable. But by definition a general purpose computer is just a means of writing down mathematical algorithms. As such, by the agreement that mathematics is not patentable, mathematics written on a computer is not patentable. Your example is a misleading one because what is actually patentable in the device you describe is the computer, not the program on it. What you are saying amounts to saying "paper is patentable, hence so is stuff written on paper".
As for our laws being bought and paid for, the Supreme Court is appointed by the president. The president is elected by a democratic process. To win that process requires campaign donations. Campaign donations are for buying laws. The software industry has made campaign donations, ergo they have bought laws. I'm not going into greater detail here because I would prefer the first two points by stressed, that is that mathematics should not be patentable.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-07 02:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

Burst themselves had the foresight to develop their technology a number of years ago and patent their ideas. Check out their website and you will see that the "faster than realtime" technology that Burst developed is the only patents that they own.

Is that extraordinary technology, by any chance, also known as "caching"? How amazing that they should invent such a thing, only 30 or 50 years after it had been invented by other people. Or, considering it in a more abstract sense, only 5,000 years after some craftsman decided he'd pre-build his products so they'd be ready for periods of higher demand.

From their site:

burst.com is the pioneer of Faster-Than-Real-Time(TM) video and audio delivery over networks. The Faster-Than-Real-Time(TM) process delivers video in large advance bursts, saving it in a configurable local buffer, isolating the viewing experience from network noise and freeing up bandwidth to serve more users.

Sure sounds like caching to me. If that's the case, this is pure extortion.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by j.bellone · 2006-01-07 03:09 · Score: 1

So this is how it works now? When Apple doesn't get their way (an attempt to license software from Burst) they go at their throats and attempt to take them out of business? Burst didn't start this litigation, Apple did, because they wouldn't negotiate a cheap license. I'm sorry, but I would stick it in Steve Jobs face as well if he came to me:

"I'm Steve Jobs, you know, from Apple. Give me a license!"

--
I'm f#$king magic!
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-07 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

But was it obvious a decade ago when Burst developed this technology?

Yes. Not only had other people come up with (and probably wrote/published articles about) similar ideas, they had actually implemented them in other products.

From this page, written by someone who was involved in the development of Apple's Quicktime:

Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime.

Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a magical, proprietary protocol that required a magical, proprietary server that they would be happy to sell to you. The secret of the "secret sauce" that Burst.com CEO Richard Lang mentions in the feature is that there is no secret sauce. ...

If you have a really fast conneciton and there are no bottlenecks along the way, it lets you see/hear media almost instantly. It works by putting a huge buffer at the client, and then filling that buffer as fast as possible so that buffering time is minimized.

QuickTime's "Fast Start" provided much of this functionality with QuickTime 3's progressive streaming (1998), and QuickTime 6 added the final missing piece (random access) with its Instant-On feature earlier this year. RealNetworks uses a similar method to optimize the viewing experience in RealSystem 9.

Burst has 10 U.S. patents, according to their own page here. It's hard to tell which ones are really at issue (I haven't seen a list of the ones Apple is trying to have invalidated) but it almost certainly includes 5,262,875 which in my reading is the most general one.

This is their main claim:

We claim:

1. An audio/video file server for decompressing and distributing selected audio/video program information stored in a compressed digital format within the file server to one or more external playback stations for real-time viewing by users at those playback stations, the audio/video file server comprising:

storage means for storing compressed digital audio/video program information;

transceiver means, connected to the storage means, for receiving compressed digital audio/video program information from an external source over a time period that is less than a real time period required to view the audio/video program information to thereby update the compressed digital audio/video program information stored in the storage means;

a plurality of playback units, each associated with an external playback line and an external playback station and each including decompression means, for receiving selected compressed digital audio/video program information stored in the storage means, for decompressing the selected compressed digital audio/video program information received from the storage means, and for playing the decompressed selected audio/video program information in real time over the associated playback line to the associated playback station;

network interface means, connected to the storage means, transceiver means, playback units, and plurality of playback stations, for receiving playback requests from the plurality of playback stations; and

processing means, connected to the storage means, transceiver means, playback units, and network interface means, the processing means being responsive to the network interface means, following receipt of a playback request, for controlling the associated playback unit to play the decompressed selected audio/video program information in real time.

To me, that's pre

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-08 13:07 · Score: 0

You are simply wrong.

So should (to a certain extent) a unique hardware implementation of an algorithm be patentable. But by definition a general purpose computer is just a means of writing down mathematical algorithms. As such, by the agreement that mathematics is not patentable, mathematics written on a computer is not patentable.

The second proposition does not follow from the first.

By claiming a "general purpose computer programmed to XXX", you are not claiming the mathematical formula but the object. The claim by its own language excludes the use of the mathematics in research papers, in hand calculations, in discussions of principles, etc. You are still in the end claiming a machine, just like all of the machines that have been patented throughout history. When you claim a new and nonobvious lever, you are not patenting the physics equation that describes the action of a lever. When you claim a computer that transmits quantumly encrypted messages, you are not patenting quantum mechanics. When you claim a computer that transmits video data through a new buffering technique...

But of course you won't agree, which means nothing to me because the reality of things as I state them is both legal and moral.

Second, the laws were not bought and paid for by the software industry, because they were written in 1952 when there was no significant software industry. Supreme Court decisions in the early 80s and early 80s, when there was only a nascent mass software industry, clearly show that programmed computers were patentable subject matter at that time.

But of course you again won't agree, and will show how Bill Gates transmitted money back in time 30 years into the Eisenhower administration and Korean-war era Congress to get his way.

Not.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous by professionalfurryele · 2006-01-08 21:28 · Score: 1

You have failed to address the fundamental issue, which I will express in a simple question. What is the difference between mathematics expressed on paper and mathematics expressed on a hard disk that makes the later patentable?

NTP does too by feijai · 2006-01-06 11:07 · Score: 3, Informative

NTP's patent holders made actual products based on the products, and held them for over a decade as well. Burst is different in what regard again?

Re:NTP does too by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-06 11:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dude, you're criticizing a Slashdot news summary. A summary on Slashdot is supposed to contain a blaring headline that may or may not be accurate followed by a body of text that tells a "story." The story should leave on a goofy "cliffhanger" as a lead-in to comments. In this case, ooh, Burst has had the patents for a decade, ooh, they've made apps! What will happen! Ooh! Cliffhanger! It's all for page hits and ad rates.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:NTP does too by Floody · 2006-01-06 12:19 · Score: 1

Dude, you're criticizing a Slashdot news summary. A summary on Slashdot is supposed to contain a blaring headline that may or may not be accurate followed by a body of text that tells a "story." The story should leave on a goofy "cliffhanger" as a lead-in to comments. In this case, ooh, Burst has had the patents for a decade, ooh, they've made apps! What will happen! Ooh! Cliffhanger! It's all for page hits and ad rates.

And yet here you are, obviously reading and posting on the site.

Maynard lyrics seem oddly appropriate at the moment.

"All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on TV
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty dollar
...
So...Shut up and
...
Buy my new record
Send more money
Fuck you, buddy." -- Tool, Hooker with a Penis
Re:NTP does too by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-06 15:16 · Score: 1

Man, you are obviously enlightened. You quoted "Maynard lyrics" at me! You're so hip, you don't even refer to it by the name of the Tool song, and you refer to the singer by an eponymous first name! You wouldn't be more educated if you had quoted "Trent lyrics" at me too.

You probably don't even know what that song is about. Yes, here I am, reading and posting on the site. And here you are. Meanwhile, my points still stand unrefuted.

Next.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

If they lose, the headline will read by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:08 · Score: 0, Funny

"Burst First, Worst, Cursed, & Hearsed."

Re:If they lose, the headline will read by dunng808 · 2006-01-06 11:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, and when the legal bills arrive they'll be pursed. :P

--
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project

Serious question by jimicus · 2006-01-06 11:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's say Apple successfully gets one of Burst's patents revoked, and it was one which Microsoft was successfully sued for breach of.

Does this mean Microsoft can now go and sue Burst to get their money back?

Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

No. But they could ask the original court to reverse its ruling. That would only be possible if the patent(s) is/are actually invalidated, not just Apple and Burst reaching some new licensing agreement pursuant to the litigation. Unfortunately, the court system hates to go back on any prior ruling, even when it makes no sense to maintain the ruling (rock-hard contradictory evidence coming to light, blatant lying by public officials proven indisputably, etc.). So, MS may be SOL. But MS has been on the winning side of buying courts to rule in their favor over the years. So, don't cry for that Argentina.
Re:Serious question by murphyslawyer · 2006-01-06 11:30 · Score: 1

The link to the settlement article in the old thread is gone so I can't say for sure, but it depends on the settlement. In all likelihood it was a "Okay, we'll give you X dollars if we get a liscence to all your technologies and you go away" type deal, in which case Microsoft pretty much gets screwed, since all they have are liscence rights to a patent that's been invalidated. But it really does depend on the conditions of the settlement.

--
I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:33 · Score: 0

Oversimplify much?
Re:Serious question by darkmeridian · 2006-01-06 11:41 · Score: 1

Typically, the payments are kept by the patentee. However, if there are allegations of procurement of the patent through fraud upon the PTO then there can be a good cause to sue for restitution, or even an antitrust action under Walker Process

--
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:Serious question by jcr · 2006-01-06 11:47 · Score: 1

Does this mean Microsoft can now go and sue Burst to get their money back?

Not likely. MS cut a deal, and I'm sure that the deal included an agreement not to re-open the matter if Burst lost their patent down the road.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Serious question by Dhalka226 · 2006-01-06 16:46 · Score: 1

No. But they could ask the original court to reverse its ruling.
If memory serves, Microsoft settled. There was no court ruling.
That would only be possible if the patent(s) is/are actually invalidated, not just Apple and Burst reaching some new licensing agreement pursuant to the litigation.
Even if there were a court ruling in a case such as this, it's not likely that the court would reverse itself even if the patent was later invalidated. Microsoft would have had the same opportunity to ask the USPTO or the courts to invalidate the patents during their trial, and if they had lost, it would have meant they refused to do so. In reality, this would not be likely to happen; once a company tried and failed to invalidate patents, I doubt any other company would try again and succeed.
Re:Serious question by gotamd · 2006-01-19 10:31 · Score: 1

Microsoft settled so there's no ruling to reverse. They can't get that money back. No way, no how. They bought a permanent "license" to use it for that $60mil they settled for. Sounds to me like they got off cheap.

Hilarious parody video by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:20 · Score: 0

On a related note, check this out: www.maclive.net/sid/134

Re:Hilarious parody video by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 18:37 · Score: 0

The irony about mac is: it's always a joke, but it's never really funny...

How DO they manage that?

Ridiculous ! What to do about it . Answer ! by zymano · 2006-01-06 11:21 · Score: 1

Organize . Don't pay them ! Serious.

Hate them, probably by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:24 · Score: 0

An anonymous reader writes...

Is that anonymous reader a Burst.com employee trying to drum up a little sympathy on Slashdot?

RTF Summary! by ImaLamer · 2006-01-06 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative

And visit the website:

http://burst.com/new/products/main.htm

Burst.com doesn't just hold the patents, they are selling products which use them.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Apple deserves it by geekee · 2006-01-06 11:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple refuses to license their technology to allow others to sell DRMed music that plays on iPod. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're whining about it.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Apple deserves it by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · 2006-01-06 11:43 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't support other companies' propreitary DRM systems and it's their fault?
Re:Apple deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

How exactly is this post deemed "Insightful"? This is completely different.

1. Apple developed the iPod, iTunes and FairPlay to all work seemlessly together. Other companies want in, but Apple wants to provide the complete solution alone. Nothing wrong there. (Think of Ford crying foul if they wanted to use Ferrari engines. Ferrari's not obligated to let Ford use their engines.)

2. Burst.com thinks that Apple is infringing on their patents, so they hit up Apple for a license. Apple thinks their patents are bogus. From the article:

According to a copy of Apple's complaint, Burst approached Apple in late 2004 regarding securing a license for the Burst technology. Burst's attorneys then informed Apple that Burst believed Apple was infringing on its patents, according to the complaint.

Despite discussions of Apple licensing Burst.com's technology for the iPod and iTunes, the issue came to a head late last year.

"In late 2005, in at least one written communication, Burst.com's attorneys threatened litigation against Apple," the complaint states. "Apple denies that any of the patents in (the) suit are or have been infringed by Apple and disputes their validity."

Doesn't strike me to be anywhere close to being the same.
Re:Apple deserves it by jcr · 2006-01-06 11:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not the same shoe. Apple's DRM is based on patented technology that isn't obvious. That's what's called an invention.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Apple deserves it by LainTouko · 2006-01-06 12:17 · Score: 1

The whole point of encryption is to make things difficult or impossible to read under certain circumstances. If you encrypt some files, then find that a random piece of hardware can't understand them, that's your fault.
Re:Apple deserves it by geekee · 2006-01-06 13:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"1. Apple developed the iPod, iTunes and FairPlay to all work seemlessly together. Other companies want in, but Apple wants to provide the complete solution alone. Nothing wrong there. (Think of Ford crying foul if they wanted to use Ferrari engines. Ferrari's not obligated to let Ford use their engines.)"

Huh? Since when does anyone on /. advocate a closed proprietary system that doesn't interoperate with anyone elses technology.

"2. Burst.com thinks that Apple is infringing on their patents, so they hit up Apple for a license. Apple thinks their patents are bogus."

Not exactly. Apple wanted to license their technology, but couldn't reach an agreement. So now their suing to invalidate the patents so they can create the same technology. Almost exactly what happended with Apple and RealNetworks.

"Doesn't strike me to be anywhere close to being the same."

The two cases are very similar

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Apple deserves it by geekee · 2006-01-06 13:38 · Score: 1

"Apple doesn't support other companies' propreitary DRM systems and it's their fault?"

No, as I said before, Apple refuses to license their proprietary DRM scheme to 3rd parties so they can make DRMed music files that work on iPod. There's nothing wrong with that, but now when another company refuses to license their technology to Apple, Apple starts suing. In short, Apple is hypocritical.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Apple deserves it by nolife · 2006-01-06 14:32 · Score: 1

How exactly is this post deemed "Insightful"? This is completely different.

1. Apple developed the iPod, iTunes and FairPlay to all work seemlessly together. Other companies want in, but Apple wants to provide the complete solution alone. Nothing wrong there

No, that is exactly what the parent stated, it is not completely different. Apple does not want to license the technology. You can sugar coat and try to justify why but that does not change a thing. They do not want to license their technology. That is their right to not license it but from what I've read here, Burst does not want to provide Apple with a license to their technology either.

As a side note, can you elaborate on your "Nothing wrong here" statement? You mean nothing wrong for Apple or nothing wrong for everyone as a whole? I think most people are fully supportive of choice and there are very few times when choice is not better for the public/consumers as a whole. You sound as if you are against having a choice. Even with a third party agreement with the Apple DRM, Apple can still have their tight integration of products and consumers that feel a benefit from that integration would still be able to chose an all Apple solution if they wanted.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Apple deserves it by QuietLagoon · 2006-01-06 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

A careful reading of the burst.com press release:
The suit follows a breakdown in protracted negotiations for issuance of a license of Burst's patents to cover Apple's iPod and iTunes products. Burst anticipates responding to the complaint and filing a counterclaim for patent infringement shortly. Burst remains committed to the enforcement of its intellectual property and looks forward to successfully resolving this litigation through a license covering Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store.

Notice how the first sentence talks of a breakdown in discussions for Apple's iPod and iTunes products. And the last sentence mentions that Burst was looking for licenses for Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store.
That implies that Apple agreed that QuickTime was infringing, and that the disagreement is over iPod, iTunes and the music store. I've seen reports that Apple is balking at a per-unit license fee for "each song/video/movie that Apple streams."
Re:Apple deserves it by Anonymous+Writer · 2006-01-06 20:24 · Score: 1

Huh? Since when does anyone on /. advocate a closed proprietary system that doesn't interoperate with anyone elses technology.

I think the reason Apple has kept it a closed proprietary system is so they could get as much co-operation from content providers as possible. In other words, they probably did this to kiss the RIAA's ass so they could get the major labels onto the iTMS. By locking out third parties from the whole process of purchasing the music online to listening to it on a portable music player, they are managing to use the latest technology for music, while still working with a recording industry that seems to vehemently resist this technology in favour of an outdated business model. If they opened it up, they would probably have more problems of keeping their content from leaking onto P2P networks and such. It doesn't fulfil technologically-minded practices like the open-source movement, but somehow I think the current recording industry would have never gone along with that anyway. It's kind of like mediation, finding the middle ground between people who want to use the latest gadgets and suits who can't set the clock on a VCR.
Re:Apple deserves it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-07 04:21 · Score: 0

Clearly, it's an 'invention' if Apple patent it, but a wicked 'IP grab' or something 'obvious' if someone else patents it.

The irrational bias in favor of Apple on this site is truly astounding - and sad.

A Brief History of QuickTime... by podperson · 2006-01-06 11:33 · Score: 4, Informative

QuickTime was released in 1991. I think developers saw betas in late 1990 but I could be wrong. They'd demoed QuickTime as an early alpha at least one year earlier (e.g. they'd shown digital videos playing back in MacWrite documents).

QuickTime 1.0 was followed in 1993 by 1.5 and 1.6 (which ran under Windows). By the time QuickTime 2.0 came out in 1994, you could embed quicktime videos inside a web page. QuickTime 3.0 allowed videos to start playing as soon as enough data had been downloaded, and you could stream ahead of the playback head (the way it works today). I believe QuickTime 3.0 also unified the file format (i.e. by eliminating "forked" QuickTime files where metadata was stored in the resource fork.)

Given that Burst was founded in 1990, that its flagship product is at 2.0 (I think Apple's opensourced Darwin Streaming Server is probably a more mature product), I doubt they have a leg to stand on.

It's ColorSync all over again.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicktime

Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by hw2084 · 2006-01-06 11:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Given that Burst was founded in 1990, that its flagship product is at 2.0 (I think Apple's opensourced Darwin Streaming Server is probably a more mature product), I doubt they have a leg to stand on.
Do a little bit of research first.
The Burst patents don't cover all video streaming in general. Burst came up with and patented the streaming+caching technology that allows smooth playback of video over the internet. Before Burst, everyone would just have you download the whole file before playing, or do straight streaming which led to hiccups during playback.
Before Burst was on the scene, video streaming was horrible because they couldn't figure out how to smooth out the slowdowns in traffic. After Burst demonstrated their technology (most famously for the U2 Popmart concert) *and* talked to Microsoft and Real about licensing their code, the next versions of their video players magically contained the same buffering technology. Apple was soon to follow, probably figuring "hey everyone else is doing it."
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

And how is this in any way non-obvious?

Even if they are first to market with something, there is almost nothing that isn't pretty trivial to most good developers. Take the top 40% of the high-tech programmers and tell them to find a way to stream video over the internet smoothly and most will solve the problem, and that's because it relatively straight-forward.
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by bgspence · 2006-01-06 14:04 · Score: 1

Nine of Burst's ten US patents were originally assigned to Explore Technology and Instant Video Technologies. The patents were applied for in 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1997 and 2001. So, the date of Burst's founding is irrelevant to the patents they own.

They patented things like compressing video before sending it to save bandwidth and other non-obvious concepts that only a patent attorney can parse. They mostly seem to say that if video can be streamed someday, we want to own a piece of the action because we think video streaming will happen.

Patents make sense to protect intellectual property that is not obvious, but this stuff is silly. Any 'skilled practitioner' will try to send video down a wire or thru the air efficiently.
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 14:07 · Score: 0

The Burst patents don't cover all video streaming in general. Burst came up with and patented the streaming+caching technology that allows smooth playback of video over the internet.
Wait, this means Burst looked at the bandwidth (B) AND the movie data rate(D) and decided that since D > B a cache (C) would solve the problem such that B + C >= D? Whoa, somebody patent that!! Awww Shucks! We had prior art in my 7th grade algebra class. Oh wait, 7th grade algebra + "over a computer network" = New Patent!! Hooray!
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by slowbad · 2006-01-06 14:37 · Score: 1

In 1992, Quicktime 1.0 (for Windows kids games) hosed Soundblaster 16 under Windows 3.0
In 1993, Quicktime 1.5 (for Windows multimedia) messed up Soundblaster 32 and Windows 3.1
By 1994, Quicktime 1.6 (shipped w/CDROMS) screwed DOS AWE-32 sound under WFW 3.11
By 1995, Quicktime 2.0 (for Internet audio) locked up legacy 16 bit audio drivers for Windows 95.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear Apple was trying to get users to switch operating systems!
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by QuietLagoon · 2006-01-06 14:43 · Score: 1

QuickTime was released in 1991.
Burst has patents going back to 1990.
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by strikethree · 2006-01-06 15:30 · Score: 1

Honestly, is caching a video stream worthy of a patent? Truly, the concept is not innovative.

strike

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

That's as may be... by msmercenary · 2006-01-06 11:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Many comparisons will likely be made of NTP and Burst.com, but Burst.com actually has useful technology, has owned the patents for over a decade, and most importantly, actually had highly regarded products that made use of the patents.

That's as may be, but they're still submarining the patents and trying to leech off of a successful consumer product.

When will the USPTO wake up and put a stop to all of this madness?

Re:That's as may be... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:44 · Score: 0

Yeah, it'd be great if they stopped Apple's abuse of DRM and patents to prevent competition (not to forget their penchant for pushing around third party developers). Oh - you don't care about that, do you?
Re:That's as may be... by dunng808 · 2006-01-06 11:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Is the USPTO in the Executive branch, under the President? If so, nothing will change until we flush away all of the Bushies. If our Gang of Geeks can bring a web server to its knees, we ought to be able to have an impact in an election. Make the USPTO mess an issue.

--
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project

Deflector by Elixon · 2006-01-06 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

In our country we say: "You will die by the think you often use." (hard to translate in english :-( ) Simply said: Apple suffers from the weapon it actively uses against others.

--
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.

Re:Deflector by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:49 · Score: 0

in other words: live by the sword, die by the sword
Re:Deflector by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:49 · Score: 0

We say something like "Live by the sword, Die by the sword.".. Actually thats an old english saying. Or maybe I saw it on a movie poster once, I don't remember.
Re:Deflector by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:55 · Score: 1, Informative

"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" originating from a paraphrased "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" from Matthew 26:52 in the Bible. http://www.layhands.com/ModernPhrasesInTheBible.ht m
Re:Deflector by Eravau · 2006-01-06 15:20 · Score: 1

In English there is one:

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
If you want to get Biblical:

"...by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Jesus in Matthew 7:2)
I think a lot of cultures have phrases that carry that basic feeling that what goes around comes around (see, there's another one).
Re:Deflector by c_forq · 2006-01-06 16:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Go a little further in Matthew:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:52 (KJV)

--
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Re:Deflector by WinterSolstice · 2006-01-06 17:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ironically, this was taken not as a warning, but as a comfort to most medieval knights. They, like the vikings, preferred this as a means of death to sickness, etc. Hence the use of swords when executing nobility.

-WS

--
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.

Ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 11:45 · Score: 0

I am having an increasingly difficult time dealing with business ethics problems today. Companies are doing nothing for innovation or consumer benifit. Everything has turned into an advertising/marketing campaign. DRM has gotten to the point where I almost (almost) want to stop filling my iPod with legal music.

Companies and individuals who capitalize on loop holes and circumstance are no better than criminals. This has shown itself most notably recently with the US release of the Xbox 360. People waiting in line for hours with their children to bypass the 1-per-person rules just to turn around and price gouge on ebay for 1.5-2x the price. Leaving actual gamers, people who want to USE the product out in the cold. This is not market arbitrage, it is poor ethics.

Patent companies are doing teh same thing, they are squatting on these patents and capitalizing on other peoples hard work (the patents would be useless without products that use them.)

Unfortunatly, I find it hard to believe Apple is going to release a pro-consumer (not to be confused with prosumer) product. The iPod sells iTMS (DRM) and ViiV chip mac out with be DRM'd and with anyluck will use proprietary connects to TeeVees and the like.

My Point: Burst.com Sucks for holding patents with NO intent of producing. (If they had a product we would all be hating on Apple) But if apple wins, it is not always going to be better for the consumer, just better for apple.

btw i didn't RTFA

Re:Ethics by jazzis · 2006-01-06 12:00 · Score: 3, Funny

"btw i didn't RTFA" ...great /. etiquette!
Keep up the good work and you'll go far AC.
Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:13 · Score: 0

Ok, I read it, and it said exactly what I thought it might.
Re:Ethics by jazzis · 2006-01-06 13:23 · Score: 1

shoot AC; you were doing fine without reading it.
and of course I'm one to always RTFM first,
though most times I'm better off winging it as you did!

So, will burst by davidsyes · 2006-01-06 11:49 · Score: 1

burst at the seams? ONE mis-step in court and it could be game over.

News Headline: Burst BURSTS!

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:So, will burst by davidsyes · 2006-01-06 12:00 · Score: 1

Well, what lack of humor have weeee. Or, maybe you're a burst sympathiser?

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

How do you prefer your crow by way2trivial · 2006-01-06 12:13 · Score: 4, Informative

boiled- baked- fried?

http://www.burst.com/new/products/main.htm

My god, a two click search, and by your own admission for holding patents with NO intent of producing. (If they had a product we would all be hating on Apple) your entire well reasoned and well written argument falls apart.

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by hw2084 · 2006-01-06 12:15 · Score: 2, Informative

You just made a fool of yourself to anyone with even a tiny amount of knowledge of QuickTime's streaming technology and when it was first created.

Time for you to do a bit of 'research' yourself dimwit.

From wikipedia entry on QT: "Apple released QuickTime 4.0 for Mac OS on June 8, 1999...It added the second version of the Sorenson video codec, and support for streaming."

Burst demonstrated their streaming/buffering technology in 1997 (the U2 concert streamed via internet). Burst was clearly there first with their caching technology. You can see the timeline at the burst.com site: http://www.burst.com/new/about/timeline.htm

Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by michaeldot · 2006-01-06 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think there's some confusion over the definition of "streaming" and what the technology in dispute actually is.

The QuickTime Plugin had "progressive download" type streaming from day 1, which meant movies embedded in web pages could begin to play almost straight away, even though most of the content was still to be transferred. If the buffer stayed ahead of the playhead, a good experience resulted.

This in my view was more useful than normal style streaming, where given my haphazard connections over the years, made long pauses, freezes and drop-outs a regular part of the experience, whether on Real, WMP, or QuickTime.

However, although I've RTFA, I'm unclear what type the "used in iTunes and iPod" phrase means. I thought iTunes just embedded QuickTime and used progressive caching, which means Apple was there first, patent or not. I'm just thinking out loud. I equate true streaming with DRM - it restricts my use of the content.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by hw2084 · 2006-01-06 13:01 · Score: 1

Yes, streaming is a simplification describing the technology. It sounds like it's a fancy way of buffering and maximizing bandwidth. I believe this is one of the patents in question (the company name is different, but it's basically Burst):
link to patent 5,440,334
However, although I've RTFA, I'm unclear what type the "used in iTunes and iPod" phrase means. I thought iTunes just embedded QuickTime and used progressive caching, which means Apple was there first, patent or not. I'm just thinking out loud. I equate true streaming with DRM - it restricts my use of the content.
I wasn't positive about this, but I think what happened is that during negotiations between Apple and Burst, Apple was willing to pay fees associated with QT, but then Burst said it wanted a piece of ITMS and/or iPod sales. I'm not positive if Burst patents apply here. Well, maybe ITMS's video store uses the technology. It seems like iPod doesn't since the data is just sitting there on the disc. The lawsuit seems to be Apple's way of saying, "You can't have a piece of iPod."
By the way, I was wrong about the U2 concert in 1997. It was later, but the Burst patents were still filed way before QT supported this technology (1993).
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by podperson · 2006-01-06 13:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

When QuickTime introduced "streaming" support is irrelevant and has to do with streaming a live feed. We're talking about viewing canned videos, and QuickTime movies would start playing before they were fully loaded as of at least QuickTime 3.0 (and without requiring any special server technology beyond http) -- much as GIFs and JPEGs could, in some cases, display a low resolution image when partially loaded (again, without a "streaming" server).

In any event, a patent doesn't cover an idea, but an implementation of an idea. Unless Apple actually stole code OR used the same implementation as Burst (and didn't do it first, and it wasn't bleeding obvious), their patent is irrelevant.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by podperson · 2006-01-06 13:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh here's some research -- from a former QuickTime Evangelist's Blog:

While I was Apple's QuickTime Evangelist, I was a magnet for all kinds of folks who claimed to have miraculous codecs and other holy-grail technologies. Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime.

Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a magical, proprietary protocol that required a magical, proprietary server that they would be happy to sell to you. The secret of the "secret sauce" that Burst.com CEO Richard Lang mentions in the feature is that there is no secret sauce.

Mr. Lang believes that Microsoft was out to get him. However, the reality is that Burst.com was, at best, a fly to Microsoft's mountain.

Now Burst.com is suing Microsoft, a move apparently prompted by Windows Media 9's "Instant On" feature. If you have a really fast conneciton and there are no bottlenecks along the way, it lets you see/hear media almost instantly. It works by putting a huge buffer at the client, and then filling that buffer as fast as possible so that buffering time is minimized.

QuickTime's "Fast Start" provided much of this functionality with QuickTime 3's progressive streaming (1998), and QuickTime 6 added the final missing piece (random access) with its Instant-On feature earlier this year. RealNetworks uses a similar method to optimize the viewing experience in RealSystem 9.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by ajs · 2006-01-06 13:19 · Score: 3, Informative

I would suspect a couple (especially the last) of the entries in this paper to be decent prior-art sources for much of what is listed in the patent's claims, but perhaps not all.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 13:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

QuicktimeTV did online streaming. I was playing around with it back in the Fall of 1996 at my first college job in a medical student computer lab. Yes, lots of free time... I consumed every beta technology in view. Too bad I didn't have any money then to invest in the stock market.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by gotamd · 2006-01-19 10:38 · Score: 1

However, if the patent was irrelevant then why did *Apple* initiate litigation against Burst? It seems to me that if Apple truly believed that they had nothing to fear from Burst they wouldn't have initiated litigation which means they're going to have to pay their lawyers that much more. Why not just let Burst sue them?

Sour apples by CDPatten · 2006-01-06 12:18 · Score: 0, Redundant

The media loves Apple, and because of all the fan boys they start believing the hype.... "they are perfect and above all others" blah blah blah.

Unfortunately for them they are not, and they can't brake the law. I personally don't agree with the current patent law, but it's still the law. They way to change it is through legislation not the courts. This is a frivolous lawsuit and it's unfortunate that Apple's lawyers aren't held in contempt for wasting the courts time simply because they don't want to pay royalties.

Re:Sour apples by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patent troubles are resolved through the courts. That is just the rules of the game.
Re:Sour apples by gvibes · 2006-01-06 12:48 · Score: 1

It's not breaking the law. Apple's actions may give rise to (civil) liability, but it's not breaking the law.
Also, what makes it frivolous? Burst says their patent is valid and Apple infringes. Apple says Burst's patent is invalid and that Apple doesn't infringe (I assume, but haven't read the complaint - they may be saying only one or the other).
Re:Sour apples by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-06 13:14 · Score: 1

Apple were negotiating with Burst, but reached an impasse where neither side wanted to give.

Unless we know what the impasse was over (and we will never know that as it was a confidential negotiation) then this can't be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit.

It could be that Burst wanted vast sums of money or it could be that Apple wanted to pay virtually nothing. We don't know.

Not every lawsuit is a frivolous thing.
Re:Sour apples by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 15:42 · Score: 0

actually they are breaking the law. They are currently infringing on burst's patent. That is was they were negotiating about, and when they didn't get their way they are now trying to say the patent is invalid. you were wrong on all fronts.
Re:Sour apples by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 15:51 · Score: 0

"It could be that Burst wanted vast sums of money or it could be that Apple wanted to pay virtually nothing."

Your opinion/statement has no relevance. Burst could want all the gold in china and it wouldn't matter. If they own the patent then they get to dictate the rules, just short of national security, and I'm sorry to let you know Apple not getting its way isn't national security.

Apple is throwing a fit, and it is a frivolous suite There are no grounds for them to loose the patent other then poor apple having to make their own code and stop stealing other peoples'. boo friggen hooo...
Re:Sour apples by falcon5768 · 2006-01-06 15:52 · Score: 1

no you are, its a civil issue if you break a patent, its not illegal in any state local or federal sense. Its all up to the company in question to both find where their patnent was infringed and bring charges on the offending company otherwise no one is going to go after Apple because no actual law has been broken.
Thus it isnt illegal.
As for the patent it's self, it seems apple was willing to admit it might have infringed on a kinda shady patent involving dynamis streaming (which is shady in the fact that like most software patents, its pretty much something that everyone would come to the conclusion of, which in that case is NOT patenable) What broke the whole deal was they wanted iPod royalties, which have ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with the patent in question.

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Re:Sour apples by gnasher719 · 2006-01-07 00:20 · Score: 1

>> Apple were negotiating with Burst, but reached an impasse where neither side wanted to give.

It doesn't really look like "Apple were negotiating". Burst contacted Apple to tell them they want money. Apple diligently listened to what Burst was saying, why they wanted money, and how much. I would assume that Apple's lawyers then asked Apple's engineers about their opinion: Did they develop anything using Burst's patents? Did they develop anything that was in hindsight covered by Burst's patents? Did they know of anything that might invalidate Burst's patents?

I would assume that they then decided how much money Apple would be willing to pay, based on this information, but also based on the assumption that unlike Microsoft, Apple has a reputation to lose. My guess is what Apple was willing to pay was not more than $1 million, and quite possibly zero.

Of course, once you start a lawsuit, you throw _everything_ at them. That's why Apple will try to invalidate Burst's patents; nobody knows how much chance this has to succeed. More likely Apple will succeed by demonstrating that they don't actually do anything covered by Burst's patents. But Apple's lawyers will and must put everything into the lawsuit that increases their chances to win.
Re:Sour apples by gnasher719 · 2006-01-07 00:32 · Score: 1

>> The media loves Apple, and because of all the fan boys they start believing the hype.... "they are perfect and above all others" blah blah blah.

Unfortunately for them they are not, and they can't brake the law. I personally don't agree with the current patent law, but it's still the law. They way to change it is through legislation not the courts. This is a frivolous lawsuit and it's unfortunate that Apple's lawyers aren't held in contempt for wasting the courts time simply because they don't want to pay royalties.

Rarely heard so much nonsense. The situation is: Burst wants money, Apple doesn't want to pay. In such a situation, three things can happen: 1. Nothing happens. 2. Burst sues Apple for money. 3. Apple sues Burst, asking a court to order Burst not to sue them and not to claim that Apple is doing anything wrong. That is how things go.

There is very little difference between (2) and (3). In both cases, the court has to decide whether Burst's claims are valid. The only difference is that Apple has to show that there is a reasonable threat that Burst might sue; but that is quite obvious. On the other hand Burst can just tell the court that they are definitely not suing Apple, and the court case against them will just disappear in thin air.

This is the same thing as in the Redhat vs. SCOX case, where SCO makes wild accusations of illegally copied code in Redhat Linux, and Redhat asks the court to stop SCO from making these accusations, and to stop SCO from threatening to sue Redhat.
Re:Sour apples by CDPatten · 2006-01-07 01:46 · Score: 1

Seriously, did you read the article or is this just your reflex defense of apple? The fact Apple was willing to negotiate for the rights let's us know that the claims are valid. Apple is using Burst's technology. We know from a previous post in this thread that Burst has implemented this software in a product so it also is not a patent they just used and put on the shelf.

Apple just doesn't want to pay. Patent infringement is patent infringement, and they are in violation. Their actions also let us know they are AWARE they are in violation. That is the reason why they are trying to get the patent removed. Of course it is important to note they are going to court ONLY after they couldn't get a low enough price for the technology.

"This is the same thing as in the Redhat vs. SCOX case, where SCO makes wild accusations of illegally copied code in Redhat Linux, and Redhat asks the court to stop SCO from making these accusations, and to stop SCO from threatening to sue Redhat."

It is not the same, because Redhat didn't spend months in negotiations trying to license the technology. stop being such a fan boy.

Burst won't win by Klanglor · 2006-01-06 12:38 · Score: 1

last time the won because they managed to prove that MS copied on burst technology when entering in a pre-licensing agreement. which is what patten laws are for. but this time they are simply trying to sue someone that has a similar product.

what i mean is that won against a large corporation for a good cause, proving that someone copied on them, but this time it was something developed prior to its existance.

Oh well i mean they are a 60Million dollard dead company so far, if they want to be a 0$ dead company, so be it.

What is caching? by Solandri · 2006-01-06 12:53 · Score: 1

The Burst patents don't cover all video streaming in general. Burst came up with and patented the streaming+caching technology that allows smooth playback of video over the internet. Before Burst, everyone would just have you download the whole file before playing, or do straight streaming which led to hiccups during playback.

Say you develop a video format that can be read without reading ahead (i.e. file doesn't have to be complete for the video to start playing).

Say the filesystem supports multi-read/write access, so a separate process can read a file even as that file is being written to disk.

Now say as you start downloading a video file. As it's downloading you start playing it from the beginning.

Is this streamed video being cached, or is the video being streamed in a way that takes advantage of properties of the video format and filesystem?

Of course... by msauve · 2006-01-06 12:56 · Score: 1

the general concept, sending more than you know the recipient can handle, has been around for a long time - Zmodem is obvious prior art, as are printer buffers. Those are just some simple examples from within my own experience, there are no doubt predecessors to those applications of the concept. Taking an obvious concept (buffering) and trying to claim uniqueness through specificity (i.e. this is inventive, because we're applying it to video) is disingenuous.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:Of course... by QuietLagoon · 2006-01-06 12:58 · Score: 1

There is more to it than just buffering, as Microsoft's lawyers found out. :)

No, Apple's FairPlay... by msauve · 2006-01-06 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

is apparently based on trade secrets, since Apple didn't threaten suit when Real reverse engineered the technology. Had it been a patented technology, not only would that patent be publically known (no one has cited a patent number), but Apple would no doubt be using that status to protect its interests.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Who cares? by bogie · 2006-01-06 14:14 · Score: 1

Let them all sue each other into bankruptcy. Especially Apple for being the litigious assholes they are.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

bullshit by penguin-collective · 2006-01-06 16:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

but Burst.com actually has useful technology, has owned the patents for over a decade, and most importantly, actually had highly regarded products that made use of the patents.

Burst.com's "technology" is an obvious engineering solution, and one that has been used for on-line multimedia distribution since before burst.com was even founded.

Apple is right to attempt to have their basic patents invalidated; they should not stand.

Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 23:51 · Score: 0

I totally agree. Hell, I was doing double-buffering with a delay on one end in a multi-tasking environment to improve performance in the mid 80's! This is an obvious solution.
Re:bullshit by j.bellone · 2006-01-07 03:18 · Score: 1

Okay, seeing how Burst was founded probably years before you got the Internet spells out great for "and one that has been used for on-line multimedia distribution since before burst.com was even founded." Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass. The funny part here, if it was Microsoft attempting this, it would be a totally opposite argument on your end.

The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. It might be a "obvious engineering solution" now, but it wasn't an "obvious engineering solution" ten years ago.

Asshole.

--
I'm f#$king magic!
Re:bullshit by gnasher719 · 2006-01-07 03:55 · Score: 1

''Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass.''

If that's your kind of argument, go and fuck yourself, because nobody else will.

'' The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. ''

The fact is, Apple _never_ thought that Burst had anything worth licensing. And when Apple found out that Burst wanted money for technology that Apple doesn't use, and apparently now wants money for video downloads to iPods where Burst technology is completely irrelevant, they decided to sue.
Re:bullshit by penguin-collective · 2006-01-08 02:37 · Score: 1

Okay, seeing how Burst was founded probably years before you got the Internet spells out great

Actually, I have been using the Internet since long before Burst was founded.

Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass. The funny part here, if it was Microsoft attempting this, it would be a totally opposite argument on your end.

Your assumption is wrong. In fact, I think Apple has abused the patent system many times and keeps ripping off other people's ideas. But my dislike of Apple's intellectual property policies doesn't change the fact that Burst's patent is bogus. If it is Apple that spends the money to kill Burst's patent, all the better--let them do some good for a change.

It might be a "obvious engineering solution" now, but it wasn't an "obvious engineering solution" ten years ago.

It was an obvious engineering solution even 20 years ago. Well, except perhaps to technical know-nothings like you.
Re:bullshit by j.bellone · 2006-01-08 07:29 · Score: 1

Actually, I have been using the Internet since long before Burst was founded. It was an obvious engineering solution even 20 years ago. Well, except perhaps to technical know-nothings like you.

Then why didn't you invent the technology? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft, or Real invent the technology before Burst did? There's a difference in saying that the so called 'engineering solution' was obvious after the fact, and three or four companies coming up with the solution roughly around the same time period. I am not a fan of the patent system, but they are the law, and Apple must follow the law.

Technical know-nothings? Did they teach you that at college?

--
I'm f#$king magic!

Then you'll be glad to read the headline by phorm · 2006-01-06 18:32 · Score: 1

Many comparisons will likely be made of NTP and Burst.com, but Burst.com actually has useful technology, has owned the patents for over a decade, and most importantly, actually had highly regarded products that made use of the patents.

Not reading the article is bad enough, the headline... though?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-01-06 21:15 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Patents are bad for Software by Elektroschock · 2006-01-07 01:04 · Score: 1

We know that patents are bad and unnecessary for software and there is discussion going on in the software industry.

All we need is an incubator like FFII in the United States and Software patents will be history soon. Note that in recent US patent reform discussions it was Microsoft vs. Pharma, no American stakeholder representing the software developer community or Open Source showed up. Get organised and madness will stop in the next few years.

A first step to improve things in the States would be to get subscribed:
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl

Re:Patents are bad for Software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-07 01:56 · Score: 0

Not just software patents, business method and genome patents also need to be invalidated en-masse; thus the software community should be forming wider alliances. The USPTO has historically been on our side and we should ultimately expect their support in overturning some dubious legal decisions.
Re:Patents are bad for Software by Elektroschock · 2006-01-07 03:09 · Score: 1

It is all about critical mass of people and corporations organised. If there is no project and organisations like the EFF just stick to outreach campaigns nothing happens.

When US people come to European conferences they often present the view of a corrupted regime and parliament in the hands of lobbyists. When you do not even try to get your interests organised you should not blame it on your political system. And inbalance in the political system also reflects earlier inbalance in interest representation. I mean, don't be the lazy guys, do not waste your time in preaching the choir, get organised with likeminded people and contribute. If the policital process is broken, fix it.

YAAD n/t by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-08 11:16 · Score: 0

lameness filter encountered post aborted

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute

146 comments