Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute 146
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."
Burst.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Burst.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Burst.com (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Burst.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Burst.com (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Burst.com (Score:2)
Deflector (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Deflector (Score:1)
If you want to get Biblical:
I think a lot of cultures have phrases that carry that basic feeling that what goes around comes around (see, there's another one).
Re:Deflector (Score:3, Insightful)
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:52 (KJV)
Re:Deflector (Score:3, Interesting)
-WS
Re:Deflector (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Burst.com (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Burst.com (Score:2, Flamebait)
I say fuck Apple, go Burst.com (thou
Re:Burst.com (Score:2)
Re:Burst.com (Score:2)
And if outfits like Burst have to make some patent bucks while doing it, so be it. It's a small price to pay, by Apple and Microsoft.
Re:Burst.com (Score:2)
There may well be exceptions, but there are so many bad patents that my first assumption upon hearing of a request for a patent to be declared invalid is "YEAH!!!". If someone wants to claim that they had an idea that should be protected, I'm a bit LESS likely to give credence to it if they hold a patent on it. I'll require a slightly higher level of proof.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, and no court, either. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Burst.com (Score:2)
Re:Burst.com (Score:1)
Re:Burst.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Burst.com's patent -- at least according to Groklaw -- seems like it's definitely invalidated by prior art. According to this article [playbacktime.com], 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.
Re:Burst.com (Score:3, Interesting)
That wouldn't mean that the patent isn't a bad one, or that it was stupid of the USPTO to issue it in the first place. The mistake here isn't Burst's -- they're just working with the hand of cards they've been dealt -- but the patent clerk's who let this slip throu
busy day in apple legal (Score:2)
The patent system is ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:2)
RTF Summary! (Score:3, Informative)
http://burst.com/new/products/main.htm [burst.com]
Burst.com doesn't just hold the patents, they are selling products which use them.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
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 [burst.com] and you will see that the "faster than realtime" technology that Burst developed is the only patents that they own.
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:2)
Then you'll be glad to read the headline (Score:2)
Not reading the article is bad enough, the headline... though?
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:2)
But was it obvious a decade ago when Burst developed this technology? Remember a decade ago, 19.2kbps was a fast access connection.
Burst was so far ahead of the technology of the time that the patent award was definitely earned.
Of course... (Score:2)
Re:Of course... (Score:2)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:1, Interesting)
You can hold your hand out and touch the general purpose computing device that has been programmed to implement the software method. Test satisfied.
Before you criticize this "smartass" answer, consider that anything you can name is merely a physical embodiment of mathematical equations describing natural conditions. Mechanical devices. Electrical circuits. Chemical reactions. It's all merely mathematics and e
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Your condition for obviousness does not work, because if an idea is obvious, there wont be a publication on it for that very reason. No self respe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. Not only had other people come up with (and probably wrote/published articles about) similar ideas, they had actually implemented them in other products.
From this page [playbacktime.com], written by someone who was involved in the development of Apple's Quicktime:
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:The patent system is ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, companies that use these sorts of patents offensively are a different matter. But Apple, and most other large tech companies, don't do that. It tends to be small companies, often
NTP does too (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NTP does too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NTP does too (Score:1)
And yet here you are, obviously reading and posting on the site.
Maynard lyrics see
Re:NTP does too (Score:1)
You probably don't even know what that song is about. Yes, here I am, reading and posting on the site. And here you are. Meanwhile, my points still stand unrefuted.
Next.
Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean Microsoft can now go and sue Burst to get their money back?
Re:Serious question (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Serious question (Score:2)
No. But they could ask the original court to reverse its ruling.
If memory serves, Microsoft settled. There was no court ruling.
That would only be possible if the patent(s) is/are actually invalidated, not just Apple and Burst reaching some new licensing agreement pursuant to the litigation.
Even if there were a court ruling in a case such as this, it's not likely that the court would reverse itself even if the patent was later invalidated. Microsoft would have had the same opportunity to ask the US
Re:Serious question (Score:2)
Re:Serious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous ! What to do about it . Answer ! (Score:2)
Apple deserves it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:2)
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:2)
No, as I said before, Apple refuses to license their proprietary DRM scheme to 3rd parties so they can make DRMed music files that work on iPod. There's nothing wrong with that, but now when another company refuses to license their technology to Apple, Apple starts suing. In short, Apple is hypocritical.
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:3, Insightful)
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 bo
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Since when does anyone on
"2. Burst.com thinks that Apple is infringing on their patents, so they hit up
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:2)
Huh? Since when does anyone on /. advocate a closed proprietary system that doesn't interoperate with anyone elses technology.
I think the reason Apple has kept it a closed proprietary system is so they could get as much co-operation from content providers as possible. In other words, they probably did this to kiss the RIAA's ass so they could get the major labels onto the iTMS. By locking out third parties from the whole process of purchasing the music online to listening to it on a portable music playe
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:2)
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
No, that is exactly what the parent stated, it is not completely different. Apple does not want to license the technology. You can sugar coat and try to justify why but that does not change a thing. They do not want to license their technology. That i
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Apple's FairPlay... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple deserves it (Score:1)
A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [apple.com] all over again.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicktime [wikipedia.org]
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:1, Insightful)
Even if they are first to market with something, there is almost nothing that isn't pretty trivial to most good developers. Take the top 40% of the high-tech programmers and tell them to find a way to stream video over the internet smoothly and most will solve the problem, and that's because it relatively straight-forward.
What is caching? (Score:2)
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/
Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:2, Informative)
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 firs
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:1)
link to patent 5,440,334 [uspto.gov]
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.
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:3, Insightful)
In any event, a patent doesn't cover an idea, but an implement
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:3, Informative)
While I was Apple's QuickTime Evangelist, I was a magnet for all kinds of folks who claimed to have miraculous codecs and other holy-grail technologies. Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime.
Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a magical, proprietary protocol that required a magica
Re:Burst beat Apple to Streaming/Buffering (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:1)
They patented things like compressing video before sending it to save bandwidth and other non-obvious concepts that only a patent attorney can parse. They mostly seem to say that if video can be streamed someday, we want to own a piece
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:1)
In 1993, Quicktime 1.5 (for Windows multimedia) messed up Soundblaster 32 and Windows 3.1
By 1994, Quicktime 1.6 (shipped w/CDROMS) screwed DOS AWE-32 sound under WFW 3.11
By 1995, Quicktime 2.0 (for Internet audio) locked up legacy 16 bit audio drivers for Windows 95.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear Apple was trying to get users to switch operating systems!
Re:A Brief History of QuickTime... (Score:2)
Burst has patents going back to 1990.
That's as may be... (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Re:That's as may be... (Score:1, Flamebait)
So, will burst (Score:2)
News Headline: Burst BURSTS!
Re:So, will burst (Score:2)
Sour apples (Score:1, Redundant)
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
Re:Sour apples (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sour apples (Score:1)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sour apples (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sour apples (Score:2)
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
Re:Sour apples (Score:2)
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
Re:Sour apples (Score:2)
Apple just doesn't want to pay. Patent infringement is patent infringement, and they are in violation. Their actions also let us kno
Burst won't win (Score:1)
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 compan
Who cares? (Score:2)
bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
If that's your kind of argument, go and fuck yourself, because nobody else will.
'' The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. ''
The fact is, Apple _never_ thought that Burst had anything worth licensing. And when Apple found out that Burst wanted money for technology that Apple doesn't use, and apparently now wants money for video downloads to iPod
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
Actually, I have been using the Internet since long before Burst was founded.
Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass. The funny part here, if it was Microsoft attempting this, it would be a totally opposite argument on your end.
Your assumption is wrong. In fact, I think Apple has abused the patent system many times and keeps ripping off other people's ideas. But my dislike of Apple's intellectual pr
Patents are bad for Software (Score:2)
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 s
Re:Patents are bad for Software (Score:2)
When US people come to European conferences they often present the view of a corrupted regime and parliament in the hands of lobbyists. When you do not even try to get your interests organised you should not blame it on your political system. And inbalance in the political system also reflects earlier inbalance in interest representation.
Re:If they lose, the headline will read (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ethics (Score:3, Funny)
Keep up the good work and you'll go far AC.
Re:Ethics (Score:1)
and of course I'm one to always RTFM first,
though most times I'm better off winging it as you did!
How do you prefer your crow (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.burst.com/new/products/main.htm [burst.com]
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.