While I haven't been following the litigation very closely, Limelight's position on it seems interesting. They seem to be denying that they infringed upon the patent, rather than taking the approach that the patent is obvious or that there exists prior art. I'm sure there is a sound legal strategy here, I'm not a lawyer - but my instinct would be to go the other way (maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer, ha!)
It'll also be very interesting to see how the other well-funded CDN players react to this - Level 3 (which is also suing Limelight over patents), EdgeCast (Disney-funded) and Internap (with about the same market cap as Limelight.)
The way I read the patent, they must all be infringing in some way, no?
Slashdot Mirror
While I haven't been following the litigation very closely, Limelight's position on it seems interesting. They seem to be denying that they infringed upon the patent, rather than taking the approach that the patent is obvious or that there exists prior art. I'm sure there is a sound legal strategy here, I'm not a lawyer - but my instinct would be to go the other way (maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer, ha!)
It'll also be very interesting to see how the other well-funded CDN players react to this - Level 3 (which is also suing Limelight over patents), EdgeCast (Disney-funded) and Internap (with about the same market cap as Limelight.)
The way I read the patent, they must all be infringing in some way, no?