“Burst.com has filed a countersuit against Apple Computer claiming that the iTunes software, the iPod and the Quicktime streaming software all infringe on patents held by Burst.com, Burst announced Monday,” Tom Krazit reports for CNET. “After being approached by Burst.com in late 2004, Apple had filed for a declaratory judgment in January that it isn’t infringing on Burst’s patents, but Burst is going ahead with its lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco. Burst is asking for royalties as well as an injunction, it said in a press release.”
“Burst has developed software that helps companies speed up the delivery of audio and video files over a network. The company was involved in a similar patent infringement dispute with Microsoft last year that ended with a $60 million settlement and a Microsoft license to the Burst technology,” Krazit reports. “Apple and Burst had held discussions over the past year regarding the patents but never came to any licensing agreement. Apple doesn’t believe the patents are valid, it said in January.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Burst.com plans countersuit against Apple alleging iPod, iTunes patent infringement – January 06, 2006
Apple Computer sues Burst after negotiations over iTunes, iPod patent licenses breakdown – January 06, 2006
I cannot believe the amount of people suggesting that the system of taking out a patent on ideas is stupid/flawed?!?!
What the f$@k?
You are probably the same boobs that want to take all pharmaceutical and scientific research away from private companies and give it to government funded institutions! Yeah cause governments NEVER waste money! And of course all the drugs would be cheaper then – oh utopia with 89c in the dollar federal taxes and 11c in the dollar state taxes – sign me up! Bloody morons!
The patent system is NECESSARY for innovation. Open source by definition ONLY exist because there is propriatory systems. Only when people and/or institutions (public or private) can be assured of commercial return will they invest the time and moeny in the search for new technologies, methods, ideas. Sure there are those that exist in the ivory towers of academia that innovate without the desire for commercial return, but you can bet that they are backed by businesses that are.
This case may annoy Apple and its fans, but I’m sure that essentially Apple respects this move by Burst.com. It would do the same (as it repeatedly has) to protect it’s intellectual property.
The WONDERFUL thing about the patent system is that you can challenge someone if you think they have infringed your rights by “borrowing” of even copying your ideas without compensation (which you deserve for investing/risking time and money developing).
The other wonderful thing is that if you challenge someone in such a way, under the patent system you must have very clear documentation or other proof (eg evidence of prior use) to win your case.
So this issue is simple:
1) Apple developed it’s own streaming technology that is clearly not based on Burst.com’s patents and therefor it has no case to answer and burst.com will end up paying for the whole exercise.
OR
2) Apple IS infringing burst.com’s patents and quite rightly SHOULD compensate them appropriately (as Apple would expect the same).
Sure there are opportunistic challenges to patents – but that isn’t the patent system at fault – that is the nature of human laziness and greed.
my 2 cents
Luke
Sorry for spelling errors – banged that one out quickly.
Also to expand on the Open Source comments.
If there was ONLY Open Source – well there NEVER would be.
Almost all those people working on Open Source have jobs. Sure they devote their time to the cause, but eventually there is SOME comercial interest providing for them and their families.
I agree with the concept of Open Source, especially as it provides alternatives, which in a TRULY free market is essential.
But just like Microsoft has stiffled innovation due to its predatory and monopolistic practices, the OTHER extreme (i.e. 1000’s if not millions of Open Source software providers) would also eventually aggregate and form some commercial interest (you know, so they can buy food etc). Even in the Open Source community there is Redhat etc. They take the common work and add their work to give them the right to charge for it.
Do you think Redhat would let you just take their work and use it for nothing? They have kids to educate and lives to live.
Patent is bad, free is good – WRONG
Free is good, Patents are bad – WRONG
Muslims bad, Christians good (think Spanish Inquisition) – WRONG
Chritians bad, Muslins good (think Jihad) – WRONG
Americans obnoxious, French cultured – WRONG
All French socialist scum, all Americans capitilist pigs – WRONG
You get the idea:
In the end people that deal in absolutes are always wrong
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
4 cents and counting
Luke
This is the only lawsuit of late that worries me……..They beat Microsoft. Not sure how this one is going to turn out. Burst may or may not have a case (I don’t know all the details), but again they DID make MS pony up……………..
Why do all you Macheads think Burst is wrong? If someone was infringing on Apple´s patents they would be suing any and everyone.
Let the courts decide.
Had Burst actually used it’s patent? Is that relevant? I seem to recall people discussing prior use, or people sitting on unused patents as grounds for making a patent uniforcable.
Any lawyers?
Patents are necessary for innovation? Is that like saying without the incentive of being fired people wouldn’t work? As if all you lazy asses need to be bought or threatened to go out and do shit. I’m sure without the job market and patent laws, humans would all just lie around and die of thirst. I mean it’s not like there are other incentives and benefits to research and development. The market punishes companies who develop innovative stuff, right?
I’m not saying we should abolish patent laws (though they do need reform) but this whole idea that intellectual property laws are necessary for innovation is as much a fallacy as saying patents are evil.
Eliminate software patents period. Whether they are from Apple, Burst, Adobe, Microsoft, IBM. They don’t help the little guy, they only help large corporations. Software patents are evil and will drive the software industry completely out of the United States in the next decade.
A Boy Named Sue! (sung by Johnny Cash)
You anti-patent freaks are crazy. Obviously you are uncreative people with no ideas. Your anti-patent screeching would go over quite well though – in the former communist USSR and today with communist Chinese government.
The “people” of the communist governements own all the ideas.
(That´s why those countries have no ideas or new products, but steal everything from the western patent enforcing world.)
Yeah – Why shouldn´t Dell be able to make a knock-off of all the Apple products? – a DelliPod, DelliMac…heck, just take the Apple OSX and change the name to DellOS.
Who cares if Apple would make any money? They wouldn´t, they would be out of business in a few weeks if everyone stole their patented ideas.
Then there would be no more Apple, no more new ideas and technology developed by Apple.
But all you “no patent” wizkids would be happy.
Bunch of airheaded idiots.
Where was Burst when all this tech was being implemented? Maybe they waited sooooo long in order to get more money?
If there was infringement, it would’ve been cheaper for them to sue at the onset of the problem. Now it’s gonna get very challenging for them.
Microsoft gave them money to fuel against Apple, just like they did with SCO.
Since about 2001, the only stories I have seen lately has been lawsuits against the iPod and iTunes and Apple switching to Windows. Man, I liked it better when the iPod was Mac only, iMacs came in colors and Windows running on Apple hardware was impossible.
Business Week
Underdog Or Patent Troll?
How Burst.com went from making software to suing tech giants
http://tinyurl.com/quzbd
And why stop with denying patents?
Why not make it against the law –
– to make a profit on any products sold.
– that banks can´t charge interest on loans.
Why not make it that every person makes the same wage no matter what the profession and 75% of the wages are paid to the government in taxes.
Why not lets stop this making so many new products that people have a problem with too many choice. Why not let the government control all design and production of all products, entertainment and food and all service and retail businesses? For example: The government could decide that only one car be produced each year (designed by govt. bureaucrats) and available in one color.
Then there would be no need for patents or copyrights.
found this on one of Burst’s press releases:
For Further Information Contact:
Richard Lang: 707-541-3870
Bob Diercks: 206-447-8924
Lang is pres of the co.
and he’s a donkey
Some people are missing the point. Software should be copyrighted, not patented. Patents apply to real objects, and software is like writing. You don’t patent books, you copyright them.
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes.
Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.
Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. Service marks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.
Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works.
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes.
Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.
Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. Service marks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.
Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works.
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes.
Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.
Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. Service marks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.
Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works.
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes.
Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.
Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. Service marks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.
Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works.
effwerd,
You are right – as I said in my next post people that deal in absolutes are always wrong and my statement that patents are necessary for innovation was an absolute.
What I meant to say is that without patents no SMALL firms would be able to innnovate.
Because as you said the market REWARDS innovation.
But what happens when a SMALL company innovates and doesn’t have patent protection.
Well then the BIG companies (usually the incumbents) will just COPY their work and use their economies of scale and marketing power (i.e. money) to drive them out of the market.
The BIG companies then SLOW innovation because it is cheaper than doing R&D (and they have to keep driving costs down somewhere to improve shareholder return). They also slow innovation because they only ‘innovate’ in areas they are interested in/know already.
Sure then another small company thinks – hell we can do better than these guys and the market is SURE going to reward us with sales – we have a better product! And the cycle continues!
So you are RIGHT innovation does occur without patents (it did before there were patents – I believe it was Og that invented the wheel – but notice everyone copied him/her!). However in order to allow for an environment that fosters competition from SMALL/NEW players against BIG/EXISTING players patents are necessary.
That is the issue – it is always the ASSUMPTION that patents protect the interestes of ONLY big business, instead of realising the FACT that patents are in REALITY of MORE USE for small businesses in the long run.
As I said this case is simple:
1) Apple developed it’s own streaming technology that is clearly not based on Burst.com’s patents and therefor it has no case to answer and burst.com will end up paying for the whole exercise.
OR
2) Apple IS infringing burst.com’s patents and quite rightly SHOULD compensate them appropriately (as Apple would expect the same).
If burst.com DID develop this technology BEFORE Apple it is perfect example of what I am trying to say.
If they didn’t – it shows that patents allow small companies to compete with behemoths like Apple, they just have to be FIRST! I believe they call that INNOVATION.?
my 2 cents (for today)
Luke
neomonkey patents do NOT only apply to things
They also apply to ideas.
Check out these links:
AskDaveTaylor
Or from the US patent and trademark office:
Q: “How do I find out if I need patent, trademark and/or copyright protection?”
A: “Patents protect inventions and improvements to existing inventions. Copyrights cover literary, artistic, and musical works. Trademarks are brand names and/or designs which are applied to products or used in connection with services.”
Click here for further information.
Example (from AskDaveTaylor web site):
“Think of it this way. Microsoft can prevent someone for distributing unauthorized “copies” of Microsoft Word, but they can’t prevent Corel from distributing WordPerfect. This is because Microsoft has only a copyright on Word, not a patent.”
i.e. Microsoft did not INVENT word processing, but they do own a VERSION of word processing.
Disney didn’t INVENT pirate stories (so they can’t patent Pirates of the Caribbean) but they can COPYRIGHT their version.
Now there is an arguement that how can you patent a streaming technology, because Apple AND burst.com didn’t invent streaming. No but they can INVENT a WAY to stream, a process that NEVER has been done before. You CAN patent this, because it IS a SPECIFIC idea/way of doing something. However the mistake here is that a patent infringement includes similar ways of doing things – this is inccrrect.
I will go back to a drug example.
MSD patented simvastatin the FIRST statin drug for lowering cholesterol. They have (actually had) a patent protecting that product. NO other company could make simvastatin, even if the chemical process they made it by was different.
HOWEVER many other pharmaceutical companies have discovered and released other STATINS. Example atorvastatin (Pfizer), prevastatin (BMS).
So you can have more than one statin (streaming technology) that are all PATENT protected.
Patents DO allow other companies to develop similar technologies, as long as they are EXACTLY the same (or SO similar that they are essentially a derivative of the same idea).
So in this case, it is POSSIBLE that Microsoft DID infringe burst.com’s patent as the stremaing technology “they came up with” was exactly the same or too similar.
AND Apple MAY NOT be infringing burst.com’s patent because what they developed IS sufficiently different to be seen as a NEW idea.
GET it folks?
Patents protect SMALL companies more than big companies (when balancing the likely results of NOT having patents)
AND
Patents do NOT stop companies from developing new ways of doing the same thing – they juts do have to be NEW. As they say there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
So patents are NOT necessary for innovation (an absolute stament – by definition wrong), however they do ENCOURAGE/SUPPORT/NUTURE innovation.
As you can see, for there to be a FREE market, that allows competition, rather than monopolies, patents are a pivotal part (protecting small companies from predatory practices by the entrenched players).
Peace, love and mung beans to the tree huggers that want to scrap one of the foundations of the free market in the name of fair play!
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Sorry – it should be:
“However the mistake here is the assumption that a patent infringement includes ALL similar ways of doing things – this is inccrrect.”
AND
“Patents DO allow other companies to develop similar technologies, as long as they ARE NOT EXACTLY the same (or SO similar that they are essentially a derivative of the same idea).”