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."

Comments

Burst.com

[nother_nix_hacker]

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

Re:Burst.com

[springbox]

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

Re:Burst.com

[Kadin2048]

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.

The patent system is ridiculous

[PCM2]

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.

Re:The patent system is ridiculous

[Cheapy]

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

Serious question

[jimicus]

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:NTP does too

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

A Brief History of QuickTime...

[podperson]

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...

[hw2084]

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."

How do you prefer your crow

[way2trivial]

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.