Slashdot Mirror
Burst.com Sues Apple Over Patent Infringement
AWhiteFlame writes "Techdirt is reporting that Burst.com has filed a lawsuit against Apple for Patent Infringement. From the article, 'Burst.com is known for having patented a method for moving large pieces of content online at faster speeds [...] Last year, they approached Apple, suggesting that the company pay it 2% of iTunes' revenue. Apple then went on the offensive in January, proactively asking a judge to either invalidate Burst's patents or declare that Apple wasn't infringing. Just to make the litigation circle complete, after a few months of trying to reach a middle settlement ground, Burst has now gone ahead and sued Apple on its own.'"
Another company gets sued. Happens every day, and it's getting old. Can we wait an just post news when XYZ Corporation actually loses a lawsuit?
What are you doing now, you lazy drunken obscene unsayable son of an unnameable gipsy obscenity?
Problem is, Burst did it years BEFORE Quicktime, Akaimi or anyone else. What is obvious now wasn't back then. Do your research. Look at the filing dates of those patents.
Sometimes patent trolls arent patent trolls, they are the little guys that the uber-corporations like to step on. Apple has become as bad as Microsoft in the mentality that patents are bad... errrr... except when they are ours, then they're good. Hypocrisy anyone?
When did Apple become as nasty as Microsoft? And when did ALL patents become bad? Sure the system needs repair, but you can't ignore it totally. Most people havent a clue how the system works. YOU, for example, assumed these patents must be BS because they are obvious to you, right now, in 2006. Thats not how the system works. Learn what the patent system is before you critcize it.
Without patents, there would be no small inventors, as the big corps could steal others innovations whenever they feel like it. Oh wait, they already do that. Apple is not immune. Go invent something, patent it, and in four years after we all think (after 5 mins of thought) that it was obvious and you cry that GM stole it, we'll call you a whiner and patent troll. See ya then.
Without patents, there would be no small inventors
What natural right do you have to prevent someone from doing something obvious, just because you thought of it first? Answer: none.
So you can take your moral arguments and... go patent them, or something, because they're certainly novel and non-obvious.
It is a little ironic to look at how Microsoft initially started the litigation spree for Burst by settling for $60M which makes a litigation warchest for Burst to pursue Microsoft's major competitors in multimedia distribution, i.e. Apple Computer & Akamai.
It's kinda like how Microsoft initially bought a license from SCO several years ago, and then watched as SCO attempted to IP-attack the Linux community, again a upstart competetitor for Microsoft for Server Operating systems.
Is there a pattern emerging here, where Microsoft throws in the towel against a lowly firm IP software patents, which indirectly supports Microsoft's ultimate goals. The old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!
I went and read some of their docs and went through their technology presentation. What their incredible solutions is: redundant server setup with a separate distributor server that "tells" the client software which of the servers is least loaded, and buffering of video (or what they call it is faster-than-realtime "bursting" and "caching"). That's it.
They have their right to offer their products on the market, but there's totally nothing worthy of patenting and licensing there, so no wonder both Microsoft and Apple turned them down.
This is the sad story of a company with an actual product that turned into a patent troll, simply since being a patent troll pays better.
Burst shares have gone UP by 30 percent. The market is rarely wrong.
Looks like someone was asleep during the internet bubble.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Or for that matter, the SCO lawsuit... the stock skyrocketed after they sued IBM... how'd that work out?
This is a good thing: Every time some little company pisses off some big player like Microsoft, IBM or Apple with some inane patent thing, it pushes the big companies (and their army of Washington lobbyists) one step closer to realizing just how screwed up the American patent system is. Of course it would help if the people in Congress had a clue, but every little bit helps.
the big corps could steal others innovations whenever they feel like it. Oh wait, they already do that
And there you've nailed the real problem with patents: they don't do what they were intended. They don't protect the little guy at all. The little guy inventors always get reamed anyways because just about any verdict can be purchased with enough money. Patents just make it easier for the rich corporations that are on equal financial footing to hammer each other in court, see RIM, etc.
The philosophy of patents makes sense: provide a way to reward invention and help recoup the cost of research and development. I don't see modern patents doing this at all. Most inventors are not actually rewarded (the company they work for is) and research is usually distributed across different competing companies and then the patent holder sues whoever comes out on top.
It's just a mess. A messy mess.
I have a meeting with the USPTO this on Wednesday, and I have no idea what to say that could have any positive effect.
Cheers.
The way I see it is that there are currently just too many patentables in computer software. Some reform is needed, such as not allowing companies to patent "operation X, which is old, *applied to* market Y which is new" type patents, which are the real stupid ones. However, the majority of annoying patents like this will go away, because such a mass of prior art will exist, that you can be pretty much guaranteed that someone will have done something like it before unless it is truly inventive. That's not to say that bad patents won't be granted, but it will become pretty easy to get lawsuits like this dismissed with a little research.
Does anyone else see this optimistic view of the future? Am I just naive?
Record audio/video to solid state device (RAM, optical disk, tape (yikes!), etc.) Transmit said media over telecommunications devices, especially using compression. Receive media over telecommunications services. This technology is especially designed for vhs duplication using a single tape deck, and intermediately storing the information on solid state devices.
read them if you like:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,995,705 .PN.&OS=PN/5,995,705&RS=PN/5,995,705
Ok, so that covers, hmmm, most things in my office and home- which generally, means that the patent is probably excessively broad (IANAL), but that's typically how they're written- so you could sue anyone anywhere. Since it seems so broad, I imagine that there is a good chance of finding some 'prior art' (somebody who did it before and made the information public, public knowledge=not patentable), such as technology to transmit pictures from scientific and military satelites, which both seem like they fit the above points. Furthermore, the technology seems like an obvious combination of existing technologies, in which case apple may be able to really fight them.
Some might say that big companies profit off the technology of little ones like burst, but I honestly despise non-existent technology being patented, as it removes a lot of the motivation for another company to independently develop it, market it, bring to the consumers, just so someone else can say that he or she told the USPTO about it 16 years ago and scoop up 1 hundred million or so, but I guess IP portfolio companies just wait for a company to succeed and then flip through their holdings to see what they can sue them for. Big tech companies are different, as they almost all infringe on each others patents but have a more unspoken standoff relationship of not suing whenever possible, so as to prevent eternal litigation. Small companies are problematic in this, as they might have no marketed technology, yet own patents, so they rarely infringe and are not part of the 'mutual destruction' standoff. Something about a suit driven company turns my stomach.
An idea does not equal a technology, and I wish the USPTO were more stringent in the applications (only recently was a functional example of a 'Warp Drive' required for that applicant). I know that the USPTO accepts ideas alone, and need not be at all functional, but at some point this is a real obstacle for innovation. Fraunhoffer's MP3 technology was viable and not just an idea for compressing audio (and making cymbals sound crappy). Both of my patents are for developed and published techniques. If I have the idea for non-hallucinogenic chewing gum that lets you travel through time, but someone else actually makes it, my hat's off to that dude.
In some ways, the lawsuit against Microsoft exonerates Apple. The reason Burst won it's lawsuit against MS was because they had engaged in negotiations with MS and revealed their technology secrets to MS. And because MS's subsequent behaviour convinced the jury MS had negiotated in bad faith as a means of stealing the IP.
I think we can be pretty sure that 1) MS would not have shared this with APPLE. 2) the MS was doing this to gain a competative advantage in streaming over the fairly well established quicktime standard at the time.
Thus if Apple copied Burst technology it was at a very high conceptual level, because they woul dnot have had access to the methods like MS did. And arguably, what made Bursts techinology valuable at the time was as a response to Apple's prior art, not because it was such a world-beating technology. That is, if quicktime had not existied MS would not have felt pressured to acquire Busts technology with any alacrity but woul dhave just developed their own.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Problem is, Burst did it years BEFORE Quicktime, Akaimi or anyone else."
And lots of other people did it before Burst. Caching and loadbalancing are intrinsic to the field of network services.
"And when did ALL patents become bad?"
At approximately the same time that any coercive government backed monopoly became bad.
"Without patents, there would be no small inventors,"
That is utter bullshit. If we needed a system specifically encouraging small inventors, we'd put a system specifically encouraging small inventors in place. Like attribution rights and incentives, where the government would pay out a stipend for a specific invention, or something similar. It's trivial to create a system much better suited to harnessing the innovative talent, because almost _any_ system would be superior to monopoly rights.
Monopoly rights serve only those who can use capital and legal clout as leverage, most notably those who already have money and relations to power, and they're solidly stacked against anyone else.
Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Companies like IBM and Microsoft [for instance] are proud of their patent portfolios and even have hall of fames for people with the most patents. They patent every incremental improvement to any process they perform just as a means to screw over any possible competitor.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
resume a download...
I think Z-modem was around before Akami, Quicktime, etc.... no?
And isn't there some little detail about protecting a patent or lose it? Or is that only a copyright thing? I get so confused in all this IP quicksand....
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
Just because you did it first doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen anyway, a million times over, all independently.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, this is exactly the problem with the system being date and prior art obsessed - patents are supposed to be about INNOVATION, not discovery (i.e. Einstein, not Columbus).
Burst may have been the first to suggest those ideas, but mostly because they were (among) the first to LOOK at those problems - that does NOT make it novel Intellectual Property. When *everyone* else looked at the same problems, they arrive at (basically) the same solutions.
--
graphicallyspeaking
graphically speaking
We're not talking about "if I put one foot in front of the other, I can walk!" ideas. Anything so obvious at the time of patent submission should be thrown out by the patent office. We're talking about ideas that were ground breaking at the time of conception. "I think the world is round" ideas. They don't have to be as important as that, but unique. Most of Burst's patents are over 10 years old! 10 years ago, there was no iTunes or Akamai, and QuickTime was at version 2.0. They appear to have been truly ahead of their time and should be recognized for it. How much they should be recognized is another matter...
My contempt for the behavior and beliefs of the two major political parties cannot be adequately expressed in 120 chara
Burst.com IS being a patent troll.
It say's right up there "Last year, they [Burst.com] approached Apple, suggesting that the company pay it 2% of iTunes' revenue."
now please, tell my why they waited untill LAST YEAR to file the lawsuit or claim patent infringment? couldn't this of been done, oh I don't know, 10 YEARS ago? you know when the internet became a household thing and no one knew what a lot of that stuff was?
Hell I never heard of Burst.com till the end of last year and that's as another Youtube, Google video site only with shittier videos.
What they are doing is EXACTLY what a patent troll does, they get a patent, wait for someone to infringe on it, wait till they get built up and have a ton of cash (remember apple lost a ton years ago) and then sue sue sue!
Notice how they wan't 2% of the iTunes sales? why did they wait till iTunes came about to sue? why didn't they sue them before then? their a patent troll plain and simple, they waited this long to claim foul they shouldn't get shit.
I worked for a consulting company that helped write their first patents and developed their demos. I wrote one of the first versions of their streaming video server back in 1997 and the patents were submitted before that by my employer. Remember folks, this was way - way back before anyone was even thinking about streaming video or music over the internet, as a matter of fact, back then, you had special video hardware to do the mpeg decoding. In 97 it was impressive to be able to stream multiple video streams on a LAN. I think we had 10 clients streaming full video from our server over 10baseT. Ah, the good ole days of startups.
And you really think that if it's these huge corporations that finally push for patent reform it will be a kind of reform that puts the small inventor on equal footing with them? Everytime this sort of patent suit comes up someone posts "Oh goody, when the big players feel the sting they will change the system!" This is kind of a circular defeatist argument. You admit that the status quo won't change until the big companies that in reality hold the power push for change, but at the same time think that change will benefit anyone other than those big companies? The attitude needs to be that the patent system is broken, we ALL are feeling it and WE THE PEOPLE whom it is supposed to serve, not "we the corporations" need to revise it to work for everyone.
And more than anything else what the patent system needs is a way to successfully use it without having to spend thousands to millions of dollars on third party consulatations and lawyers. Forget all the actual lawsuits you're seeing, those come after a patent is granted; the fact is just to apply for and receive a patent you practically have to feed a family of lawyers. What a joke. I don't need a personal attorney with me at the RMV to successfully apply for a new drivers license, why should I need to do the same just to use the patent system with any chance of success up front?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
True. But if you look at the fact that MPEG (method to compress/decompress, deliver, control audio/video, blah, blah, blah) was around before their patents, maybe their technology is based on existing standards or work which would invalidate those patents.
Life is a bummer sometimes.
>>I don't need a personal attorney with me at the RMV to successfully apply for a new drivers license, why should I need to do the same just to use the patent system with any chance of success up front?
Ok, troll, why don't *you* try to pass the patent bar?
"Almost all programming is an excercise in caching" -Terje Mathisen
Caching is always, ALWAYS obvious. Load balancing implementations can range from obvious to genius, though, depending on what you are load balancing. I highly doubt that Burst has anything non-obvious given the problem domain. Networking? NO LOAD BALANCING GOING ON THERE EVER. NOPE. Really, being first to market with a product does not necessitate invention taking place.
Did it happen before the Web Browsers learned to display part of a page (even title) before it finished downloading ? And did it happen before they gained a disk/memory cache ?
If not, then I'd say that parts 3 & 4 are invalid, since such a browser will show the partially downloaded page while saving it to the disk.
Also, when did the first FTP client gain the ability to resume a partially downloaded file - I'm assuming that this happened before HTTP clients gained this ability, since it wasn't until HTTP 1.1 when the neccessary command became available ?
Yup, seems like a typical software patent to me...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.