Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute
An anonymous reader writes "Burst.com, a patent holder of many patents covering streaming video and time-shifting of video, has been sued by Apple after license negotiations broke down. Apple is asking the court to invalidate Burst.com's patents. Burst.com is the same company that successfully sued Microsoft over patent infringements. 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."
So do we like Burst.com or not....I a little lost on this one.
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...
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!
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?
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?
Organize . Don't pay them ! Serious.
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 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
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
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?
Yeah, and when the legal bills arrive they'll be pursed. :P
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
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.
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"
"btw i didn't RTFA" ...great /. etiquette!
Keep up the good work and you'll go far AC.
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
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
Patent troubles are resolved through the courts. That is just the rules of the game.
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.
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).
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?
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
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
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.
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!
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
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."
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.
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 based on user account deletion
>> 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.
>> 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.
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
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.