Apple, Burst Reach Settlement

An anonymous reader writes "In 2005, Microsoft settled Burst's lawsuit for infringements on media player patents for $60 million. Many thought that Apple would be a ripe target next. However, Apple successfully voided 14 out of 36 Burst.com's patent claims in their iPod lawsuit. Apple would have gone after the remaining 22 claims. Today, Market Wire announced that the case was settled out of court: "Apple agreed to pay Burst a one-time payment of $10 million cash in exchange for a non-exclusive license to Burst's patent portfolio, not including one issued U.S. patent and 3 pending U.S. patent applications related to new DVR technology. Burst agreed not to sue Apple for any future infringement of the DVR patent and any patents that might issue from the pending DVR-related applications." The big winner would be the lawyers who reduced the settlement to approximately $4.6 million."

Re:

[renegadesx]

Dont slander scum like that!! Shame on you, comparing politicians, lawyers and clergy to poor innocent scum.

Shame shame shame /Hinchism

Re:

[squire_pug]

Hinchism !! Damn that's an obscure Australian reference if I ever saw one...

a new patent troll is born...

[timmarhy]

... everytime a company settles like this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yeah. But no.

[QuantumG]

Burst alleges that Apple's iTunes Music Store, iTunes software, the iPod devices, and Apple's QuickTime Streaming products infringe Burst's U.S. Patents 4,963,995 [uspto.gov]; 5,995,705 [uspto.gov]; 5,057,932 [uspto.gov] and 5,164,839 [uspto.gov].

Bit more than, err, one-click I think. And check out the dates on those patents.

Re:

[chaoticgeek]

Reading those patents seems like they are ways to stream data from a magnetic storage device (hard drive) across a specific type of data transmission system then output it again. IDK but it seems like any program to watch videos on your computer is breaking those patents. Could some one clear this up for me because it can't be that simple, can it?

Re:

[Chemicalscum]

Obvious duh!

Re:

[optimus2861]

OK, I really don't know squat about how patents are done. But I did take a look at the two highest-numbered patents there. What did I see?

The abstract: word-for-word identical.

The description: word-for-word identical.

The claims: claim #1 is the same, but there's a lot more verbiage in the second patent. Patent #1 then goes on to claim method #1 over a whole slew of different communication channels, each as their own claim - this patten repeats itself throughout patent #1. Claim #8 in patent #1 is the sa

Re:

[Zordak]

OK, I really don't know squat about how patents are done

Obviously.

If this is typical for real patents, then patent law is even more screwed up than I already thought it was.

It's very common to file "continuation" applications or "continuation-in-part" applications drawn to different aspects of the same invention. It would be very unusual to see a continuation without a word-for-word identical specification. They are not a way to get "time extensions" on your patent. They will expire at the same time a

Re:

[aussie_a]

If that's the extent of the patent it should be invalid as a patent can't be on an idea but on an implementation. Sending data faster then real time is an idea. So having said that, I'd like to say they probably have a patent on a particular implementation which may/may not be obvious.

Re:Yeah. But no.

[Kadin2048]

they developed the IP in question

Bull. They just patented something that apparently everyone else thought was too basic, stupid, or obvious to try and patent. They're practically the definition of a patent troll.

You couldn't design a video-over-IP system without infringing on the Burst patent, even if you had no idea who Burst was.

That said, Burst is nothing but a bunch of scoundrels, but I can't really fault them for playing the system to its full extent; if they hadn't done it, somebody else would have. The real shame is on the patent system in general and the USPTO in particular for letting this remain de rigueur for so long.

I can fault the scoundrels.

[argent]

I can't really fault them for playing the system to its full extent; if they hadn't done it, somebody else would have.

And if someone else did, I'd fault them too.

You can't say "the system allows crooks to get away with this, so it's not the crooks' fault". The fact that something happens to be legal doesn't make it acceptable.

Re:

[seanadams.com]

I'm dissapointed Burst accepted the settlement: they had an open-and-shut case.

bs, Anonymous Coward. You're either just trolling or you work for Burst. Hmm, either way I guess you're a troll!

Re:

[rucs_hack]

This didn't really help the Patent Troll at all. Ten Million? When they went after Apple? Hah..

They got the corporate equivilent of 'here, have a dollar, now piss off and stop sleeping on my lawn'. The lawyers got most of it anyway, and even for them it wouldn't be much. It only sounds like a lot to ordinary people.

And they lost 14 patents. If they pull this stunt again they might lose more. Honestly it seems it might be worth more to sell these patents then try this another time.

Re:

[SEE]

Eh. Remember, they only got $60 million from Microsoft.

Let's assume that Burst was scaling its payoff demands to each company's earnings (which is a fairly common metric). In that case, with the Microsoft settlement having been $60 million, the amount Burst would have been looking for from an Apple settlement would have been about $15 million. $10 million isn't a heck of a lot less than that.

Re:

[DECS]

Well that's wrong as Apple makes more money from its media efforts than Microsoft does. Microsoft licenses Windows and Office profitably, and loses money on everything else, including its WinCE/Xbox/Live/Windows Media/Windows Mobile businesses. Apple makes money on Macs, iPods, iPhone, and music/video distribution.

Microsoft's Three High Profit Monopolies [roughlydrafted.com].

If Burst had any real claims, Apple would have been the fat target to jump on. When Microsoft settled for $60 million, it appeared clear that Burst expect

Re:

[SEE]

Well that's wrong as Apple makes more money from its media efforts than Microsoft does. Microsoft licenses Windows and Office profitably

Right, because the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Services with Windows for [unspecified, magical reason] didn't expose Microsoft's Windows license revenue to Burst's claims at all. I understand.

it appeared clear that Burst expected to jump from Microsoft into big money with Apple, and pundits threw around numbers like $1 billion.

Some blovating morons

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

Window Media player provides no revenue ands is provided in Europe sans WMP. Apple provides Quicktime Streaming Server for free as open source. Now consider the media products (hardware) and services (music/video stores) each company provides to consumers and how much revenue they derive from that. In the media distribution business, Apple dwarfs MSFT.

Re:

[puck13]

If Cringely [pbs.org] is to be believed, and I have no reason not to, Burst is in the right here, having filed the patents long before Apple's infringing technology came along.

Note that I am an Apple fan, and have been using MacOS for 20 years. In this case they're pretty clearly in the wrong.

Clarification to summary

[RealGrouchy]

"The big winner would be the lawyers whose fees reduced the settlement to approximately $4.6 million."

There. Fixed that up a bit.

- RG>

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the big winner would be Burst, who can collect future licensing fees from other companies, since they will continue to hold the remaining 22 patent claims.

Re:

[tehwebguy]

Indeed -- hopefully the next company they sue will go the whole nine yards and end this.

Re:

[Weezul]

Yes but those layer's fees turn into campaign contributions to keep the patent system. It's really the lawyers that are the bad guys here.

Another hurdle?

[BearRanger]

To Apple, Burst now represents an additional barrier to entry into the same market. It won't make a difference necessarily to a large company, but a small potentially more innovative competitor will now have to pay off Burst before using similar features. It seems that Apple's lawyers could have taken out all of the patents, given how successful they were with the 14 they invalidated. They took out just enough to reduce their liability, paid Burst a token sum, and then left Burst enough ammo to challenge

Re:

[aussie_a]

Thankyou for that clarification, it was a bit ambiguous.

Circle of life

[thatskinnyguy]

So far, from my layman's perspective, my Tivo can pwn burst for some of its products. Ahh the business circle of lawsuits... or was it life. I'm not sure here.

Re:

[ceejayoz]

GPL says nothing about making something similar.

When the GPL on WordPress gets used to shut down Blogger.com and MovableType, then we'll talk.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Odd.

[$1uck]

Really??? are you trolling or do you not understand the purpose of GPLv3? Are you being willfully ignorant? GPLv3 is all about preventing this sort of behavior. It is trying to bring about change by working with in the existing framework (one that the authors of GPLv3 dislike). Turning the existing IP laws against themselves. I'd hardly call that hypocritical, some would call it poetic.

Re:Odd.

[QuantumG]

If you think the GPL (any version) is "extremely restrictive" then you haven't read many software licenses.

Re:

[QuantumG]

About a million...

Hint: proprietary software have licenses too.

Re:

[jamar0303]

I don't know... Apple's?

Re:

[calebt3]

You did not list GPLv3, of all things. Which I find odd, since you listed GPLv2, LGPLv2, and LGPLv3

Re:

[timmarhy]

I dub you tard features, and from this day everyone on slashdot will know you have a brain powered by a hampster running in a wheel

Re:

[QuantumG]

There's no-one else posting on this story.

Re:

[The New Andy]

The GPL only grants you rights that you wouldn't have had without it. It doesn't take any of your rights away.

If you download a project and it is GPL, then feel free to ignore the fact that it is GPL, and use it under whatever provisions your local copyright law gives you (perhaps "fair use" if you are in the US, in Australia you get some "fair dealing", etc). Now do you feel more or less restricted?

Re:

[Space cowboy]

If I download a project under the BSD licence, and I abide by the 'mention the copyright holders' clause, I can then use that software in a (closed source) commercial product and make money by combining it with my own ideas.

I cannot do this with any GPL software, it violates the terms of the licence. The GPL is therefore more restrictive than the BSD licence. This is an unassailable fact.

Now don't get me wrong... I don't have a problem with this - if someone makes the code, that person gets to say how the c

Re:

[aussie_a]

The BSD imposes more limits then if I take source code from the public domain. Oh wait, I can't do that thanks to our ridiculously long copyright terms. Nevermind!

Re:

[HuguesT]

Hello,

I cannot do this with any GPL software, it violates the terms of the licence. The GPL is therefore more restrictive than the BSD licence. This is an unassailable fact.

Actually it is very much assailable. The BSD license gives you more rights to the code as a software developer, but as a software user, GPL guarantees my current and future rights better over that code.

BSD is more developer-friendly perhaps, but GPL is more user-friendly. That doesn't mean you can't make money over my GPL code, you just

Re:

[Space cowboy]

"I can't see how you can complain BTW, my GPL code is free, you can try and use it, test it and see if it fits your need as a developer. If you decided to use it in your own software AND redistribute it, then, and only then, do you have to abide by the provisions of the GPL regarding opening your own code.

The alternative is no code at all for you. GPL forces you to share, yes. Is it bad? discuss."

I wasn't complaining. You were supposed to glean that from the bit where I said "I have no problem with this".

Re:

[ceejayoz]

What I was taking issue with was the assertion in the parent post to mine, vis: "The GPL only grants you rights that you wouldn't have had without it. It doesn't take any of your rights away.". This is quite clearly wrong - if no rights are taken away from you when you download and use GPL software, you'd be able to do anything with it that you could do with self-authored software.

You're wrong yourself, here. You do not have that right to start with - there is no default right to do whatever you like with someone else's copyrighted code. Thus, the GPL cannot take it away - you never had it.

Re:

[The Analog Kid]

I don't care about the political agenda of either camp, for me it's just "what can I do with this code", and I get tired of hearing that the GPL doesn't take away anything when it quite clearly does.


You clearly do care about the political agenda, because the political agenda is what allows you to use the code in the first place, otherwise the code would all be closed and you wouldn't be able to touch it.

you don't understand

[m2943]

It's funny how

There's nothing odd about it.

When I attach the GPLv3 to code that I have written and you don't like the GPLv3, you're no worse off than if I had never existed. (Furthermore, even though you may not like the GPLv3, but it still is a lot less restrictive than just about any commercial license for copyrighted materials.)

When Burst takes out bogus patents on digital video transmission, everybody is worse off because Bust can now prevent other people from doing things.

but when MegaCorp or someone else who owns IP tries to enforce terms of ownership, it's an evil bad thing...

There is nothing evil about enforcing legitimate property rights; quite to the contrary.

What is evil is that these companies obtained these "rights" in the first place due to a breakdown of the patent system.

Re:

[calebt3]

Don't want to Burst your bubble...

Re:

[jmv]

It's funny how a lot of people here insist that extremely restrictive licenses like the GPLv3 ...as opposed to the "Microsoft source code license" which allows you to freely distribute Windows source code in your own proprietary software, right?

Re:

[Techman83]

If I hadn't burnt my mod points earlier you'd definitely getting -1 troll. I'd recommend you actually read up about the license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 [wikipedia.org]

Oh boy... I dealt with these guys before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in 1998/9 when Burst thought they had a 'novel' idea, they were making the rounds pimping their wares (so to say) to all the large satellite broadband providers and anyone else in the video and content delivery industries.

They tried for an NDA, but the company I was at didn't believe in signing anything to preview some software from a bunch of nobodies. Their software was alpha quality at best, the so-called 'SDK' didn't exist (IIRC the one 'document' provided with the photocopy-labeled cdrom), and the components were nothing more than a simple windows server and client providing a delivery pipe. They also couldn't seem to grasp the fact that one-way satellite networks did not have a backchannel. Yes friends, you need to get your files to the other side with a unidirectional transport. You could compare this to someone giving you ftp.exe+ftpd.exe and telling you you should license them for P2P delivery.

I ended up tossing their stuff aside because after about a dozen emails attempting to educate people on the deficiencies of their system one just has to well.. give up. The only novel point was their 'instant on', but most datacasters like us already had this kind of technology, or didn't need it period. I will say that the demo was canned and only used a few codecs. So it was very hard to ascertain the level of bullshit in the client-server demo.

Regardless, I now find it extremely interesting that they are sueing people who signed NDAs with them and/or had talks with them. I am sure other companies had the same experience we did. What a bunch of douchebags.

Re:OT: Help, how do I get control panel for commen

[Phroggy]

You're looking for the checkbox labeled "I am willing to help test Slashdot's New Discussion System." just above the comments on the article page. It's off by default, but you apparently checked it at one point, on your work machine. Presumably at some point they'll make it the default, with perhaps a preference option to use the old system for those who prefer it.

Trolling?

[initialE]

Did Burst ever make use of their own IP to do anything useful? I think that is the true test of the troll, that you sit on progress and make people pay you for thinking up crock.

Re:

[Cosmix]

They sure did. Look it up!

Ballmer

[put_the_cat_out]

If I was Ballmer, I'd be throwing chairs at my incompetent attorneys. They wasted over $50 million by not picking apart Burst's patents and settling for way too much money.

not a loss, maybe a victory?

[rilister]

Whoah people. Burst didn't win this one by my reckoning. $10m is a tiny fraction of what they hoped to get by enforcing their patents across the 100 gazillion iPods that Apple is 'infringing' their patents with.

I'd call this:
Burst: Pay us $1bn dollars, or we'll take a license off every iPod that you ever sell.
Apple: FOAD. We'll send our lawyer hoards after your patents, dumbasses.
Burst: Pay us! Pay us now!

Apple: OK, how many more of your patents do you want us to wipe off the face of the earth?
Burst: erm, how about $10m?
Apple: Since that's less than our lawyers fees, ok. Don't EVER try that again.

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

That was not only funny but insightful. Apple effectively crippled their patent trolling for future companies by invalidating most of them. I believe that it was cheaper to settle quickly, receive licenses for remaining existing patents and get an agreement for no future lawsuits on pending patents than to go after the remaining patents one by one.