Apple Tries To Point Out How Little Burst's Patents Matter
from the interesting-strategies dept
You may recall the story of Burst.com, a startup that had come up with some video streaming technology that they later claimed Microsoft copied. While many people still feel that Burst's patents are of questionable validity, there did appear to be evidence of questionable activity by Microsoft, so it was hardly surprising that Microsoft eventually settled the case for $60 million. That payoff then turned Burst onto the wonders of suing for patent infringement, and they started approaching plenty of other companies who were doing things with multimedia content. After threatening Apple, Apple went on the offensive and sued to have Burst's patents invalidated (or to, at least have a court say that Apple wasn't infringing). In response, Burst quickly sued Apple right back for patent infringement.Apple is now asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit (via MacWorld), though the strategy they're using seems a bit odd. They're focused on Burst's claims that its patents are central to the success of the iPod -- an idea that Apple practically guffaws at in the lawyer's statements: "It's not some epiphanous, oh my God, when you put all these things together you have an iPod." What's odd is that courts usually don't care how important the patented technology is to the final product (which is one of the things the new patent reform law tries to change). Apple then goes on to suggest that there's plenty of prior art in the space and to suggest that the concept behind streaming video is an obvious progression, which makes more sense, given the Supreme Court's recent Teleflex decision, lowering the bar for determining what's obvious. The key point, though, is whether or not Apple would have been able to offer similar video products in the absence of Burst's patents. It seems fairly difficult to believe that no one would have figured out a way to do such a thing without Burst's patents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, video streaming
Companies: apple, burst
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe wrong place to post but...
A lot of multinational companies seem to be taking advantage of this consultant service. I bet it even costs less than hiring a team of Big5 consultants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Back to the article..
If I was looking to evaluate their product, Burst's website even gives me reasons why not to buy: Pricing does not include any direct support But I can get a copy of their patents pretty easily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This patent is also covered by Bob Cringely
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070921_003001.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This patent is also covered by Bob Cringely
Mark Stephens has been a huge supporter of Burst.com for a while. His article is misleading (and in certain points just wrong). He ignores (or doesn't know about?) the Teleflex ruling, which is what Apple is basing its claims on. He accuses Ars Technica of bad reporting, but their report is no less biased than his own.
He goes on to suggest that Apple was losing the case based on what the patents say, but he ignores the fact that Apple is trying to say the patents are invalid based on the new Teleflex rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bunch of hooees
Reading techdirt on a daily basis will make your stomach upset
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One patent or another?
Maybe the person who figured out how to do it without Burst's patents (nearly 20 years ago), would themselves have gotten a patent?
Perhaps that no one has figured out how to do it without Burst's patents, shows the validity of those Burst patents?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple v Burst
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Back to the article..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Apple v Burst
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What basis do you have for this observation? 20 years of patent litigation or something you read on an Apple blog?
The single most fundamental factor in determining a proper royalty is the contribution of the patented technology to the value of the product that includes it. Under current law, that is also the most fundamental factor in determining damages in a patent infringement lawsuit.
There's a simple answer for any infringer who complains about having to pay too much to use a patent - If the patent covers something insignificant, take that insignificant something out of your product and go forward with no more royalties to pay. The answer always seems to be, "We can't take it out." To which I respond, then it must be significant.
The plain fact is that many, many industry segments regularly and without lawsuits license the patents necessary to build their products. High tech is the lone major exception to this practice, a renegade that got big without getting very sophisticated in its business practices.
The standard excuse from tech companies is, "Our business moves too fast to worry about patents." My response is that biotech companies are very careful with patent licensing and there has been a lot more innovation coming out of biotech in the last 10 years than there has been coming out of Redmond.
[ link to this | view in thread ]