Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute

Posted by Zonk on from the you-with-the-patents-stick-em-up dept.

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."

19 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Burst.com by nother_nix_hacker · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Burst.com by springbox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Usually when presented with an neutral report, it is best to form your own opinion.

    2. Re:Burst.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My own opinion? Um... which news site is that on? Link plz!

    3. Re:Burst.com by Kadin2048 · · 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."
  2. The patent system is ridiculous by PCM2 · · 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!
    1. Re:The patent system is ridiculous by Cheapy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:The patent system is ridiculous by QuietLagoon · · 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.

    3. Re:The patent system is ridiculous by professionalfurryele · · 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.

  3. NTP does too by feijai · · 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?

    1. Re:NTP does too by Overly+Critical+Guy · · 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."
  4. Serious question by jimicus · · 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?

  5. A Brief History of QuickTime... by podperson · · 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

    1. Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... by hw2084 · · 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."

  6. Re:Apple deserves it by Anonymous Coward · · 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.
  7. Re:Apple deserves it by jcr · · 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."
  8. Re:Ethics by jazzis · · Score: 3, Funny

    "btw i didn't RTFA" ...great /. etiquette!
    Keep up the good work and you'll go far AC.

  9. How do you prefer your crow by way2trivial · · 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
  10. Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by michaeldot · · 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.

  11. Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering by ajs · · 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.