Burst.com edges Apple in pre-trial rulings
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.
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.
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.
A Northern District of California judge handling the case has found that about two thirds of Apple's arguments made in the hearing would have created overly narrow definitions of key terms, artificially excluding many of Burst's general but potentially relevant points.
In multiple instances the iPod maker was limiting the patent's relevance to particular hardware or methods when it applies to much more, according to the judge. In one example, the Markman Memorandum notes that Apple's interpretation of a processor for "editing means" is so exacting that it insists only certain Intel, Motorola, and Texas Instruments chips would be valid for the patent, despite their use only as rough examples.
One of the central aspects of the decision was the concept of the "burst time period," a crucial element for Burst's streaming media business and for the patents at hand. *Where Burst said its definition literally applied to the time needed for sending transmission bursts over a network more quickly than in real time, Apple's interpretation of the same term would only have applied burst time to a distinct compression method used to make those transmissions. *This argument would have turned numerous claims "nonsensical" all by itself, the judge said.
Some interpretations nevertheless favored Apple. The California-based firm won preference for some of its own definitions during the courtroom discussion, including the right to exclude auxiliary digital ports as transmitters -- which may affect the iPod's Dock Connector -- as well as ruling that metadata and playlists could not count as editing software.
Still, the mixed reactions by the judge to Apple's legal arguments will create a major obstacles for the consumer electronics firm going forward.
Burst's case is helped by its track record in past lawsuits, as the media streaming firm successfully won a settlement from Microsoft in 2005 over claims that Windows Media Player violated similar patents. The deal netted Burst a $60 million payout in exchange for a non-exclusive license for Microsoft to use Burst technology.
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.
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.
A Northern District of California judge handling the case has found that about two thirds of Apple's arguments made in the hearing would have created overly narrow definitions of key terms, artificially excluding many of Burst's general but potentially relevant points.
In multiple instances the iPod maker was limiting the patent's relevance to particular hardware or methods when it applies to much more, according to the judge. In one example, the Markman Memorandum notes that Apple's interpretation of a processor for "editing means" is so exacting that it insists only certain Intel, Motorola, and Texas Instruments chips would be valid for the patent, despite their use only as rough examples.
One of the central aspects of the decision was the concept of the "burst time period," a crucial element for Burst's streaming media business and for the patents at hand. *Where Burst said its definition literally applied to the time needed for sending transmission bursts over a network more quickly than in real time, Apple's interpretation of the same term would only have applied burst time to a distinct compression method used to make those transmissions. *This argument would have turned numerous claims "nonsensical" all by itself, the judge said.
Some interpretations nevertheless favored Apple. The California-based firm won preference for some of its own definitions during the courtroom discussion, including the right to exclude auxiliary digital ports as transmitters -- which may affect the iPod's Dock Connector -- as well as ruling that metadata and playlists could not count as editing software.
Still, the mixed reactions by the judge to Apple's legal arguments will create a major obstacles for the consumer electronics firm going forward.
Burst's case is helped by its track record in past lawsuits, as the media streaming firm successfully won a settlement from Microsoft in 2005 over claims that Windows Media Player violated similar patents. The deal netted Burst a $60 million payout in exchange for a non-exclusive license for Microsoft to use Burst technology.
Comments
So MS payed 60 mil to settle. Why is Apple even fighting this in court? Pay 'em off and move on. You've got bigger fish to fry.
I agree with you. These patents seem to be tight. Apple should have settled before this decision. The further it goes, the more expensive it will get.
The MS settlement may have had more to do with MS having been caught deleting emails rather than with the validity of the patent. During the period leading up to the MS trial, Apple staff were quoted as saying Burst's technology was nothing new.
Apple's staff would be expected to say this, wouldn't they?
By delimiting Bursts claims, it seems as though Apple knows they would be valid otherwise.
How big is Burst? Might this be a case where Apple might be better off buying this company?
The market cap of BURST.COM is currently 82.7 million.
A buyout might be worth it, if the patent can get the
owner more money from more companies.
The stock is down .03 to 2.07 today, so this news is not
being interpreted as anything all that positive by
BRST investors.
How big is Burst? Might this be a case where Apple might be better off buying this company?
Burst is a very tiny company mostly owned by the board of directors. I don't think the board of directors would sell their company to Apple, unless the price was extremely high. Once they are done with Apple, there are hundreds of other companies left to collect royalties from. This patent is worth billions, so any buyout would have to be in the multiple billion range to convince the BOD to sell.
The market cap of BURST.COM is currently 82.7 million.
A buyout might be worth it, if the patent can get the
owner more money from more companies.
The stock is down .03 to 2.07 today, so this news is not
being interpreted as anything all that positive by
BRST investors.
That is because the news broke yesterday. Yesterday Burst shares were up 35% on massive volume. The market cap of Burst was much smaller before yesterday.
Ah for pity's sake.. Not another one!
"Can'tInventAnythingButOwnsSomeObscurePatent Corp. announced they are suing Apple Inc. for their use of the letters "A," "P," "L," "E," "I," "N," and "C," in its corporate name. Today in Texas, the judge ruled that the case can proceed because Apple Inc. has shown reckless diesregard by using these letters in all mailings, print and web advertisments, and on all products. It is not clear whether the letter "P" constitutes a higher violation of patent abuse since it appears twice in the name of the company. No information has been made public as to the use of the period at the end of "inc."
Analysts are watching this case closely because it could affect the company's signature iPod line of products. If Apple loses this case, they will have to settle to continue using the letters or become "__________," makers of the "od" mp3 player.
I think this is the patent (Burst.com is not listed as an assignee, but the inventor is the same as other currently pending applications assigned to Burst), titled "Method for connection acceptance and rapid determination of optimal multi-media content delivery over network."
Apple is allegedly infringing on four of Burst's U.S. patents. "Markman" Claim Construction Memorandum and Order Issued May 8th 2007:
Burst is the assignee of the four patents at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 4,963,995 (the ?995 Patent?), 5,164,839 (the ?839 Patent?), 5,057,932 (the ?932 Patent?) and 5,995,705 (the ?705 Patent?). Each of the four patents was developed by Richard Lang. The patents all relate to the sharing, editing and playing of audio and video information through computers, compression and high-speed transmission. Burst contends that its patents teach a fundamental innovation in compression and transmission of audio/video information by compressing audio/video information for transmitting in less than the time required to play the information. The four patents at issue in this lawsuit relate to various aspects of compression and transmission.
Sorry to be a bit cold here but... As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap! Apple has a propensity to use and abuse the US legal system as it's own private billy club to scare and shock people into submission then they shouldn't be afraid when said club finds its way straight up its ass...
Apple is patenting everything it can think of, but to my knowledge the company is not using its patents to make money. Burst.com may be defending its intellectual property? or trying to make a quick buck out of tech companies.
Apple enters legal battle with Burst.com:
Burst approached Apple in late 2004 regarding securing a license for the Burst technology. Burst's attorneys then informed Apple that Burst believed Apple was infringing on its patents, according to the complaint. [?] If Burst succeeds in its patent lawsuit against Apple, it would mark its second major victory over a large tech company. Last March, Microsoft and Burst reached a $60 million settlement over allegations that the software giant had used, without permission, Burst's technology to speed delivery of video.
"Can'tInventAnythingButOwnsSomeObscurePatent Corp. announced they are suing Apple Inc. for their use of the letters "A," "P," "L," "E," "I," "N," and "C," in its corporate name. Today in Texas, the judge ruled that the case can proceed because Apple Inc. has shown reckless diesregard by using these letters in all mailings, print and web advertisments, and on all products. It is not clear whether the letter "P" constitutes a higher violation of patent abuse since it appears twice in the name of the company. No information has been made public as to the use of the period at the end of "inc."
Analysts are watching this case closely because it could affect the company's signature iPod line of products. If Apple loses this case, they will have to settle to continue using the letters or become "__________," makers of the "od" mp3 player.
Burst was developing their highly advanced optimization algorithm for data flow, specifically packet sequencing and timing, long, long before it even occured to most than video streaming would even be possible. Were talking pre-world wide web. Sure, it seems today that this would be obvious because Microsoft Media player and Quicktime stole/copied the technology and gave it away to the masses for you and I to enjoy. But in 1990, networking speeds barely existed that would even support video streaming. These guys were a decade out in front and in technology as we all know, this is eons. Buffering, sure, this is obvious. But the algorithms on the server that determine the optimal packet sequencing distribution for a large number of concurrent connections...these are not. This is just part of what Apple has stolen.
Those of you fan-boys who think Apple is a cutesy company with with a do-no-evil attitude are dead wrong. They stole from "the little guy" and are making money off somebody else's hard work. 100 people lost their jobs at burst and owners, investors and management lost millions and millions of dollars. Its time for those people to be paid for their efforts.
Do whats right Steve...and that means no more back-dating options too. Its time to pay for what you have taken.
"Can'tInventAnythingButOwnsSomeObscurePatent Corp. announced they are suing Apple Inc. for their use of the letters "A," "P," "L," "E," "I," "N," and "C," in its corporate name. Today in Texas, the judge ruled that the case can proceed because Apple Inc. has shown reckless diesregard by using these letters in all mailings, print and web advertisments, and on all products. It is not clear whether the letter "P" constitutes a higher violation of patent abuse since it appears twice in the name of the company. No information has been made public as to the use of the period at the end of "inc."
Analysts are watching this case closely because it could affect the company's signature iPod line of products. If Apple loses this case, they will have to settle to continue using the letters or become "__________," makers of the "od" mp3 player.
Oh yeah, one other thing. It may be the case that Burst owns a patent they purchased, but if it were so damn obvious, why didn't Apple buy it first? The answer: because they didn't know it would be valuable yet.
Also, burst invented plenty of their patents, only a few were purchased (more than a decade ago).
The issue I have are companies that wait until someone else uses a technology that happens to have been patented by someone else (and we all know how idiotic and lame the current patent process is), specifically NOT stolen, and then only after there has been massive market penetration do they attack with lawyers.
And in a global economy, how does that benefit American business? I'm no fan of the corporatocracy, but people gotta work somewhere and these patent parasites are only making a tough innovation environment worse.
I'd be MUCH more inclined to side with Burst or any of these companies if they filed for an injunction at the launch or during the public beta of a product, not 6-10 years later, after the products are ubiquitous.
Seriously, what is Burst doing with this tech? Dang, some days, I wish all the tech companies would literally say NO to all these patent crooks, roll back their products a decade and let all the patent thieves wipe their butts with their worthless, ill-conceived and wrongly awarded patents. And when the market decides that ain't what it wants, we might FINALLY get the patent reform we so desperately need.
Burst was developing their highly advanced optimization algorithm for data flow, specifically packet sequencing and timing, long, long before it even occured to most than video streaming would even be possible. Were talking pre-world wide web. Sure, it seems today that this would be obvious because Microsoft Media player and Quicktime stole/copied the technology and gave it away to the masses for you and I to enjoy. But in 1990, networking speeds barely existed that would even support video streaming. These guys were a decade out in front and in technology as we all know, this is eons. Buffering, sure, this is obvious. But the algorithms on the server that determine the optimal packet sequencing distribution for a large number of concurrent connections...these are not. This is just part of what Apple has stolen.
Those of you fan-boys who think Apple is a cutesy company with with a do-no-evil attitude are dead wrong. They stole from "the little guy" and are making money off somebody else's hard work. 100 people lost their jobs at burst and owners, investors and management lost millions and millions of dollars. Its time for those people to be paid for their efforts.
Do whats right Steve...and that means no more back-dating options too. Its time to pay for what you have taken.
Isn't it true that if you get a patent to make something and never actually do it, for a very long time, and magically someone comes along and has the same idea, that your patent is as good as **** because you never exercised your patent?
IMHO Burst is full of **** for many reasons. Have you ever heard of Burst Streaming media? Nah.
And why are they waiting until now to bring this up?