Apple settles Burst.com patent suit for $10 million

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don't see Apple releasing a DVR. This would severely hurt iTunes Store TV Show purchases and piss off the supporting studios.



    As for iTunes Store movie rentals I see the major hurdle being one with the studios, not with some Burst patents that may or may not have been violated.



    How would this piss off the studios?



    Most people won't buy the Apple DVR just because it's Apple. Comcast, DirecTV, DISH, Time Warner, Cox, etc., all have their own DVR products with their program packages.



    People who have DVRs already record shows and still use iTunes for their iPod/iPod Video/iPod Touch, etc.



    This won't hurt the iTunes store. This will drive more sales of Movies and with different packaging options by the Studios they can provide other premium packages in iTunes than just last week's TV Show.



    The writer's strike is hurting the studios, not Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 30
    Atleast now we can expect some rise in share prices of Apple.



    Sachin
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sachxn View Post


    Atleast now we can expect some rise in share prices of Apple.



    Sachin



    Apple has mainly just been following the overall tech sector, which has fallen mainly due to irrational fears.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 30
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    In the commentary on the Cringely post, there's an intriguing idea: the settlement included some kind of tacit support from Apple for Burst to go after other players; especially Tivo (I think that the Creative settlement was regarded in that light, by some).



    The idea being, that when the Burst lawsuit erodes Tivo's value, Apple moves in, buys up Tivo, then pays Burst the license fees specifically excluded from their current settlement.



    Apple gets its already-entrenched DVR biz at a discount, Burst gets their money, everybody's happy.



    I didn't say it made any sense, I just said it was intriguing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,715member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    In the commentary on the Cringely post, there's an intriguing idea: the settlement included some kind of tacit support from Apple for Burst to go after other players; especially Tivo (I think that the Creative settlement was regarded in that light, by some).



    The idea being, that when the Burst lawsuit erodes Tivo's value, Apple moves in, buys up Tivo, then pays Burst the license fees specifically excluded from their current settlement.



    Apple gets its already-entrenched DVR biz at a discount, Burst gets their money, everybody's happy.



    I didn't say it made any sense, I just said it was intriguing.



    Burst doesn't ned Apple's approval for anything. Why would they need that?



    Supposedly, Creative was given the $100 million to not only settle the suit, but to help finance suits against others, which doesn't seem to have happened.



    But what Burst got from Apple wouldn't go very far.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 30
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    Burst's "win" of $10 million sounds like Dr. Evil in its lack of magnitude.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Burst doesn't ned Apple's approval for anything. Why would they need that?



    Supposedly, Creative was given the $100 million to not only settle the suit, but to help finance suits against others, which doesn't seem to have happened.



    But what Burst got from Apple wouldn't go very far.



    Regarding the Creative deal with Apple: Why in the world hasn't Creative gone after other companies that are clearly infringing on the very same patents as Apple? Is it because in reality Creative's patent wasn't as rock-solid as it seemed? Creative could have just as easily squeezed more millions out of other companies based on Apple's precedent. I don't understand what happened here.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    Burst's "win" of $10 million sounds like Dr. Evil in its lack of magnitude.



    Considering that Burst is reportedly a "3 man" shop, they were probably easy to convince that they would never win in a protracted legal battle against Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,715member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Regarding the Creative deal with Apple: Why in the world hasn't Creative gone after other companies that are clearly infringing on the very same patents as Apple? Is it because in reality Creative's patent wasn't as rock-solid as it seemed? Creative could have just as easily squeezed more millions out of other companies based on Apple's precedent. I don't understand what happened here.



    I don't think anyone understands. Apple could not have made an agreement with them to sue. That wouldn't be kosher. But some understanding could have been hinted at off hand.



    But, maybe not. This could all be the imagination of those who first came up with that idea. Apple is by far the biggest, so maybe it's simply that they could have gotten far more out of them, and the rest don't pay to go after.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,715member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Considering that Burst is reportedly a "3 man" shop, they were probably easy to convince that they would never win in a protracted legal battle against Apple.



    I don't know, MS has far more money than Apple does, and they settled for $60 million.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.