“Apple Inc. may be faced with an uphill battle in its patent litigation with Burst.com after the courts issued a Markman Claim Construction Memorandum that largely sided with its opponent,” Aidan Malley reports for AppleInsider.
Malley reports, “Also known as a Markman Hearing and based on a crucial 1996 Supreme Court decision by the same name, a Memorandum is a pre-trial ruling that follows a courthouse debate over the exact meanings found inside a given patent. Its aim is to allow the Court to focus on the core of a patent during trial rather than dwell on its language, which can often bog down disputes with technicalities.”
“In some situations, however, Markman results have virtually ended trials before they began by almost entirely destroying one side’s arguments,” Malley reports. “In the case of Burst.com versus Apple, a 48-page Markman decision issued on Tuesday could pose a similar danger to Apple’s defense against an April 2006 countersuit by validating many of Burst’s concerns over computer media transmission patents, all four of which may cover Apple’s iPod and iTunes software.”
Full article here.
The Apple economy keeps giving and giving.
I’m long on AAPL as is most everyone here but a while ago I bought some Burst as well. There seems little doubt now that Burst’s technology is valid in the eyes of the court. The eventual ruling/settlement won’t really hurt my AAPL position and will greatly help my Burst position. Burst is just another company along for Apple’s ride…why not join them? Like it or not, they did develop some pretty cool software that is at the heart of iTunes distribution. Again, it doesn’t matter what you and I think about prior art and all the rest. It matters what the court thinks. Here’s hoping that Burst doesn’t settle for a one-time payment but rather gets a recurring revenue stream. Because after all, Burst really doesn’t have any income other than legal avenues.
This is how broken the US patent system really is.
Sure seems like it, His Shadow. But it’s interesting cuz I just read this Tuesday and wondered how it might affect these kinds of patent disputes. Still, lots of controversy of the new SCOTUS ruling, so who knows how it will all play out, or even if it’s applicable to this case (it doesn’t sound like it, but IANAIPL).
Vasic,
The reason Firefox doesn’t like “misspelt” is that it’s checking for American English spellings rather than British English. It’s a perfectly fine British spelling, but considered incorrect in American usage.
USA & UK – two countries divided by a common language.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” />
Not sure wat u guys r talkin bout?
@MacGuy
Better watch out or the Grammar Police ar.,,kkj
Well this is what happens when you have success. Companies like Burst can always find an ambulance chasing attorney, and a judge that –usual doesn’t know the difference between ” a hole in the ground” and “an a hole”. But not to worry, Apple can appeal and appeal and appeal–and didn’t the supreme just rule on doing the kind of chit that Burst is trying to do?
Dave, you must have missed Cringley’s coverage of the prior law suit between Burst and MSFT:
“For those who say “a pox on both their houses” and wish that patents weren’t even involved, remember that Burst spent 21 years and more than $50 million developing their technology. They did it the hard way, by being smart and following the rules, and deserve to benefit from their hard work and brainpower.”
http://tinyurl.com/2hfhx9
You are all off topic, silly Apple Fanboys.
>>Gordon Gecko
I’d buy them outright. Their share price is only $2.10 with a market cap of $84 million. Chicken feed<<
You can’t do this because their board owns 75-85% of the outstanding stock. This company has Apple by the balls and will take apple to the cleaners for hundreds and hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars. Sure, they’d sell out, but it would take billions.
>>Beryllium
“…Burst said its definition literally applied to the time needed for sending transmission bursts over a network more quickly than in real time…”
So now we get to patent definitions of words? I’ve already filed my patent application for the words “apply”, “applicable”, and “application”, which means that no one will be able to apply for a patent again without violating my patent rights.<<
You, and everybody else looks at this and says, “Duh. Thats obvious” Only problem wih that comment is that these patents were filed long before this was “obvious.” In fact, they were filed just shortly after the first sound card was developed. Years before quicktime was in beta. A decade before Apple made its first iPod.
When these patents were issued, no conventional network other than fiber optic could carry an audio file as fast as it need to be played. Modems were about 750 times too slow. There’s an import distinction between data files, which aren’t even necessarily copied sequentially, and audio files, which are time sensitive. These patents cover only the audio (and video) files.
These guys streamed audio and video over the network (pioneers)
and figured out that you could compress the stream (pioneers)
dynamically (pioneers)
and optimize this process (pioneers)
based on the dynamic needs of multiple connected clients(pioneers),
years before anybody else even given it though.
These patents were filed in 1988 boys. The Burst guys invented a revolution 5 years before the www, nearly 4 years before quicktime and almost 14 years before the iPod. Apple (Microsoft, who already settled, and many others) swiped their technology and put a company 6′ under and 100 people out of a job. F**cking theives. Apple is going pay for this…big time.