PDA

View Full Version : Burst Sues Apple for iTunes, iPod, Quicktime Patents


Bern
Apr 17, 2006, 09:05 PM
Burst.com filed a patent counterclaims lawsuit in the Federal District Court in San Francisco on Monday accusing Apple of infringing on four of its patents. Burst claims that Apple’s iTunes Music Store, iTunes software, the iPod devices and Apple’s QuickTime Streaming products are all affected by the patents.

Read the full article at MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/17/patent/index.php)

Yet another company who is trying to prosper from Apple's ingenuity :rolleyes:

Counterfit
Apr 18, 2006, 01:23 AM
The patents Apple is supposedly infringing on:
4,963,995 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,963,995.PN.&OS=PN/4,963,995&RS=PN/4,963,995)
5,995,705 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,995,705.PN.&OS=PN/5,995,705&RS=PN/5,995,705)
5,057,932 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,057,932.PN.&OS=PN/5,057,932&RS=PN/5,057,932)
5,164,839 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,164,839.PN.&OS=PN/5,164,839&RS=PN/5,164,839)

They all seem to be the same thing, and from what I've been able to tell (which isn't much. I'm tired, and patent applications aren't written with normal people in mind, it's written for lawyers), it's fairly generic, but doesn't quite apply to the iPod, never mind the iTMS.

Oryan
Apr 18, 2006, 01:32 AM
I was just going to submit this.

Anyway, here's the part that looks most like iTMS to me:

The recorder/transmitter has capabilities to transmit and receive program information in either a compressed or decompressed format over fiber optic lines, conventional phone lines or microwaves.

But still, these patents look like they are for streaming technology, not for transferring what could be considered purchased "media files". These patents could basically be applied to any media distribution system, consumer-oriented or professional.

Why not go after Windows Media streaming technology? There's much deeper pockets over there.

edit- nevermind, apparently MS settled for $60M.

MacBoobsPro
Apr 18, 2006, 06:22 AM
Read the full article at MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/17/patent/index.php)

Yet another company who is trying to prosper from Apple's ingenuity :rolleyes:


Thats nothing... Im taking Apple to court over them naming the company after my favourite fruit!

Abstract
Apr 18, 2006, 06:47 AM
Uh oh, streaming media over the internet. Did they come up with this "technology", or did they just point out the obvious next step in internet technology, and then put it on paper? Seriously, throw this one out. I can't believe MS just paid them so easily.

MacRumors
Apr 18, 2006, 07:33 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

News.com reports (http://news.com.com/Burst.com+sues+Apple+for+patent+infringement/2100-1047_3-6062067.html) on a lawsuit by Burst.com claiming that Apple is infringing on patents held by Burst.com. The claims cover patents involving "the delivery of music or video over the Internet 'faster than real-time.'" This involves the technology involved in streaming and delivering video and audio content on the internet as Apple does with iTunes and Quicktime streaming software. Burst is demanding royalties as well as an injunction.

In January, Apple (http://news.com.com/Apple+enters+legal+battle+with+Burst.com/2100-1047_3-6021994.html?tag=nl) filed for a declaratory judgment in January that it is not infringing on Burst's patents after discussions with Burst "broke down".

Burst made similar claims against (http://news.com.com/Burst%2C+Microsoft+agree+to+settle+suit/2100-1030_3-5611028.html?tag=nl) Microsoft and received a $60 million settlement as well as an ongoing technology license to Microsoft.

kalisphoenix
Apr 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
WTF?

Another reason this software patent ******** is ******** and needs to be put out of our misery.

I'm not just saying that because Apple's getting attacked here, I'm saying it because I hate it almost no matter who the victim is. It's crap.

spencecb
Apr 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
This is silly. And MS probably paid them because they didn't want to fight another battle. It's probably easier for them to just pay people off.

JFreak
Apr 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
I can't believe people can be so stupid. The next idiot in the patent office probably grants patent on "breathing" and then some lucky bastard sues the whole world.

There should be a law against such morons.

splintah
Apr 18, 2006, 07:41 AM
what the . . .. .

this "faster than realtime" is also called "downloading"
they have to sue the whole internet for that

but suing apple may be a lot more promising

combatcolin
Apr 18, 2006, 07:42 AM
MEAL TICKET

LEGAL WORK FOR APPLE

Always on either end of some sort of legal endevour!

:p

ipacmm
Apr 18, 2006, 08:05 AM
I can't believe people can be so stupid. The next idiot in the patent office probably grants patent on "breathing" and then some lucky bastard sues the whole world.

There should be a law against such morons.

I agree, this is what the world is coming to with lawsuits and suing everyone for nothing...

gkhaldi
Apr 18, 2006, 08:11 AM
Is this possible.

Unbelievable :mad: :mad: :mad:

BornAgainMac
Apr 18, 2006, 08:12 AM
Burst.com out laughing... :rolleyes:

drewyboy
Apr 18, 2006, 08:14 AM
Hmm... i think i may sense Burst is doing this cuz they need the cash. Maybe company problems?? This was a quote of what some of the $60 Million from MS went to...

"Richard Lang, Burst CEO, said that Burst intends to use the net proceeds from the license to Microsoft, after attorneys fees, in primarily 3 areas:
To payoff, or reserve for, its current and long term liabilities (approximately $2.8 million), which includes promissory notes (secured and unsecured), outstanding payables, debts to former employees of the company and all accrued salaries and bonuses."

I dono... this is a another dumb lawsuit. Bursts lawyers & exec. team should be dragged out in the street & shot. It would make the world just a little better place.

Edit: Maybe they are gettting suid themselves...

sam10685
Apr 18, 2006, 08:15 AM
seems like everyone is healous of apple...

gkhaldi
Apr 18, 2006, 08:15 AM
I agree, this is what the world is coming to with lawsuits and suing everyone for nothing...

It is not yet this bad in Europe. At least a patent over here still has some merit since it's very difficult to obtain.

Sunrunner
Apr 18, 2006, 08:17 AM
Apple has been streaming media through QT for nearly a decade, and "faster than real-time" media downloads have existed for about 2 decades... wtf is Burst patenting, anyway?

Ridiculous

sanford
Apr 18, 2006, 08:26 AM
Who cares? This is a joke. This is like my patent, a system for breathing air in order to sustain life. You all are infringing. If Apple stole the hardware design used to transmit the data, if they stole the software design -- the code itself -- used to expeditiously transmit their media files, sure, but if they're just sending media data across a network, faster than it would take to play it, without using any technology developed by Burst, if they're just doing the same thing another way, this is absolutely ridiculous. I am embarrassed to be a capitalist.

Dunepilot
Apr 18, 2006, 08:32 AM
What a crock of s***. I hope apple hands them their asses. This kind of nonsense is stifling the industry.

CaptainHaddock
Apr 18, 2006, 08:34 AM
"I am embarrassed to be a capitalist."

You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.

treblah
Apr 18, 2006, 08:38 AM
I don't know the ins and outs but if they can get MS to grab their ankles it would seem as though Apple might be fighting a losing battle.

Tons of information. (http://www.gendb.net/burst_investors.aspx?refid=t48&srcid=_&sysid=1620582004112963_246_18_4-)

nightdweller25
Apr 18, 2006, 08:46 AM
How annoying.

kjr39
Apr 18, 2006, 08:47 AM
That's it. I'm patenting thinking!

Nevermind. That wouldn't make me a dime...

freeny
Apr 18, 2006, 08:52 AM
Thats nothing... Im taking Apple to court over them naming the company after my favourite fruit!
Hey, sign me up on that! lets try to get a bunch of us together for a class action. Hell, throw in Ringo and Paul's company too.

drewyboy
Apr 18, 2006, 09:03 AM
WTF!!! Who are the five that voted positive? And WHY?!

sanford
Apr 18, 2006, 09:06 AM
"I am embarrassed to be a capitalist."

You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.

I should qualify that. I'm embarrassed to be part of an economic system that promotes capitalism only insofar that the tenets of capitalism don't interfere with profit for doing almost nothing, while eschewing most other aspects of socialism, especially the ones that would mean spending money for the welfare of the people.

I really don't have a problem with patents, for a limited time, that state you can't do this in this particular way, for a set period of time. But these patents just say, you can't do this.

evoluzione
Apr 18, 2006, 09:07 AM
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".


Shakespeare sure was ahead of his time...

Photorun
Apr 18, 2006, 09:12 AM
I'm going to sue Burst.com for infringing on they breath my air! I hold patent #661-2344134-22 which clearly states I own the air around the globe. Now I could sue every living person, but I'm only going to sue Burst.com because they got the money from a payout foolishly done by Microsuck. Burst.com's employees must stop breathing air at once.

Fiveos22
Apr 18, 2006, 09:15 AM
Cool, I wish I was going to be a lawyer. They always seem to have business taking care of things like this.

dornoforpyros
Apr 18, 2006, 09:18 AM
'faster than real-time.'

uhhh what?

jdechko
Apr 18, 2006, 09:19 AM
this "faster than realtime" is also called "downloading"
they have to sue the whole internet for that

My thoughts exactly. Any judge who knows anything about technology will (read : should) laugh this right out of court.

thogs_cave
Apr 18, 2006, 09:30 AM
I can't believe people can be so stupid. The next idiot in the patent office probably grants patent on "breathing" and then some lucky bastard sues the whole world.

Hey, in a world where Paris Hilton can trademark the phrase "That's hot!", can you expect anything less? <Looks over shoulder for the lawyers.>

Surreal
Apr 18, 2006, 09:34 AM
"I am embarrassed to be a capitalist."

You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.


i'd like you to know i just clapped for this. for real. physically clapped.

Surreal
Apr 18, 2006, 09:38 AM
I should qualify that. I'm embarrassed to be part of an economic system that promotes capitalism only insofar that the tenets of capitalism don't interfere with profit for doing almost nothing, while eschewing most other aspects of socialism, especially the ones that would mean spending money for the welfare of the people.


so, you are mad that they don't take socialism farther? (i am PLAYFULLY jabbing...message boards have no inflection...so i will just come right out and say that now. serious but not inflammatory)

and profiting for doing nothing isn't really capitalism. sounds closer to socialism.

orbital
Apr 18, 2006, 09:39 AM
This whole company and case are about as relevent as the suite a few years back that some company claimed a patent on HTML. Therefor they wanted to sue every major site on the internet to pay royalties. Damn it Microsoft you should have stood up for this one. Now you are hurting everyone. The fact of the matter is you can't patent things that become part of the world lexicon, you can can't patent the phone or the computer or MP3 player. Patenting ideas needs to be seriously revised. The idea of streaming video and audio over the internet is nothing new and was hardly pioneered by burst, infact most people probably have never heard of them. Same as the patent holding company that sued RIM last month. We used to have domain squaters... now the new way to make money is patant squating.

sintaxi
Apr 18, 2006, 09:44 AM
it looks like a pretty open/shut case. Apple has to pay them sadly.

SciTeach
Apr 18, 2006, 09:51 AM
The claims cover patents involving "the delivery of music or video over the Internet 'faster than real-time.'"


Let me get this straight. If you are actually delivering music or video at 'faster than real-time', then one must be able to send information at faster than the speed of light. Explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its' mass (even electrons) increase to an infinite amount. Therefore, the data would be so massive, it would completely fill all the hard drives of the world.:eek:

Maybe Burst has found a way to travel faster than light. They're really a company from the future; came back in time to sue Apple (& MS) now, because they're not any lawyers in the future.:D

macconen
Apr 18, 2006, 10:00 AM
Thats nothing... Im taking Apple to court over them naming the company after my favourite fruit! Me too...and also for that that apples make my allergy to alder and birch even worse at the moment.

I'm going to sue Burst.com for infringing on they breath my air! I hold patent #661-2344134-22 which clearly states I own the air around the globe. Now I could sue every living person, but I'm only going to sue Burst.com because they got the money from a payout foolishly done by Microsuck. Burst.com's employees must stop breathing air at once.
Because they are not paying for you, it is better refuse them to breath...
Sorry about my English

Abstract
Apr 18, 2006, 10:28 AM
For all these electronic patents, they should have an "computer and electronics patents" judge who specializes in bulls*!t computer and electronics patents.

Counterfit
Apr 18, 2006, 10:30 AM
Some of you guys really have no idea about patents at all. :eek:
A: Natural processes (breathing) cannot be patented
2: These patents aren't just for software. Heck, the example given in each patent talks about a "VCR-ET", which apparently compresses the video as it transfers from one media to another, whether locally or through a network.
III: Getting a patent application approved is very hard, and yet somehow, one guy can get 4 patents for the same thing.

Personally, I think the patents are far too vague for only Apple and Microsoft to be infringing. I say that Burst.com is going money-fishing.

dornoforpyros
Apr 18, 2006, 10:42 AM
I wonder if I can patent the link on the web? I'll sue every last one of you :)

ragland
Apr 18, 2006, 10:45 AM
There is plenty of legal precedent to indicate that Apple will have to pay burst and license their technology.

To the post that suggested Burst is out of money...The company paid nearly the entire $60M back to shareholders after the Microsoft lawsuit.

Essentially, the story goes like this, the company has had this technology for a long time and Microsoft did try and sue them but quickly realized they had pretty solid patent protection. Since the technology was so much better than the altenratives, MSFT quickly settled and licensed the product.

There is a rumor that this suit is one of the potential delays related to the video ipod. It is suggested that Apple needs this case to be resolved one way or the other in order to move forward unless of course they come up with something that doesn't infringe.

A little trivia for you...Guess who has been a large equity owner of Burst.com from the beginning?

U2

So it gets way more interesting when you consider that the boys from Ireland, who just happen to have their own U2 Ipod, are part of the negotiations with Steve Jobs. Burst.com did the Zooropa tour video feeds.

Look for something intersting to come out of this.........

bretm
Apr 18, 2006, 10:47 AM
We need a loser pays system. It would curb ridiculous lawsuits both from individuals and lawyers.

Lawyers are perhaps one of the most needed professions in our country, but without a loser pays system, they are given free-reign to pursue frivilous lawsuits just to keep the checks coming in.

It might curb a few righetous lawsuits against companies with huge pockets, but it would curb far more frivilous lawsuits. And companies with large pockets would think twice before starting frivilous lawsuits as well.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php

LionelEHutz
Apr 18, 2006, 10:51 AM
I was just going to submit this.

Anyway, here's the part that looks most like iTMS to me:



But still, these patents look like they are for streaming technology, not for transferring what could be considered purchased "media files". These patents could basically be applied to any media distribution system, consumer-oriented or professional.


Doesn't the preview function of the iTunes Store stream the song to your computer?

drewyboy
Apr 18, 2006, 10:55 AM
Some of you guys really have no idea about patents at all. :eek:
A: Natural processes (breathing) cannot be patented


I can't resist... i laughed so hard once it ran through my sick head. I've decided to patent taking a dump. Therefore, if you need to take a crap... a royalty fee of 5 dollars per crap will be enforced, and to make sure this happens... i will have **** police making sure no one is doing it w/o paying. To further enforce it, big brother will take over and "a video camera in every corner" will be my political slogan as i run for president due to the money made off my patent. So you might as well pay me now b4 i sue you all. :D

Macmaniac
Apr 18, 2006, 11:01 AM
Dam, I should change my major right now and become a lawyer, with all these lawsuits flying around, I am bound to become rich by being a lawyer!:rolleyes:

ajbrehm
Apr 18, 2006, 11:04 AM
I can't believe people can be so stupid. The next idiot in the patent office probably grants patent on "breathing" and then some lucky bastard sues the whole world.

The idiots in the patent office are supposed to grant patents or explain why they didn't. If they explain why they didn't, they get less done. They are being promoted according to how much they got done.

If they explain why they didn't and a court decides that they should have, they are in deep trouble.

They didn't make the rules, they just follow them because they must.


There should be a law against such morons.

Are you allowed to vote? Make such a law.

I have found that in a democracy stupid laws are often the fault of the voters and not the officials'.

LionelEHutz
Apr 18, 2006, 11:05 AM
We need a loser pays system. It would curb ridiculous lawsuits both from individuals and lawyers.

/snip/

And companies with large pockets would think twice before starting frivilous lawsuits as well.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php

I don't think that companies with deep pockets would think twice about filing frivilous lawsuits because if they lose they'll just write the costs and sanctions off as a business expense.

ajbrehm
Apr 18, 2006, 11:06 AM
We need a loser pays system. It would curb ridiculous lawsuits both from individuals and lawyers.

True.

So which party is currently closer to implementing such a reform? Vote for them.

Aztechian
Apr 18, 2006, 11:08 AM
I was reading on burst.com's website where they have thier reply to Apple's counter-claim:
http://burst.com/new/newsevents/Burst.com%20Apple%20Answer%20and%20Counterclaim.pdf

here are my thoughts:

Ok, so perhaps burst was working on this stuff way back when. They did a smart thing and patented their work while it was still in it's early stages. If someone wants to use their techonology so that they don't have to use R&D money to come up with their own stuff, thats great. Thats why there are patents for it. However, when the environment they are basing their patent on becomes more commonplace (ie, fast networking connections and "faster than realtime" delivery of data) and someone (Apple) wants to create their own technology, I believe that is outside of the scope of patent law. If Apple made their own content-delivery system technology based on commonplace technology of the day and did so without "stealing" burst's ideas then burst has no case.

If someone who knows this stuff can correct me, please do. This was just from my poor poor "knowledge" of patent laws.

rtdunham
Apr 18, 2006, 11:12 AM
On a similar vein, a friend of mine yesterday told me he was minoring in Marketing. I asked him just to kill himself now and save the rest of us.

this is sort of hypocritical, coming from a mac fan. apple is a master of marketing. its marketing is one reason you--and I, we--covet its products, believe it or not.

terry

Photorun
Apr 18, 2006, 11:12 AM
I've decided to patent taking a dump. Therefore, if you need to take a crap... a royalty fee of 5 dollars per crap will be enforced,

Nope, someone already patented doing the #2 AND the #1, in fact I'm trying to reach a settlement with them on the #1, it's been weeks now without going and it feels like I'm going to explode.

A: Natural processes (breathing) cannot be patented

Thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes: Next thing I know you'll be telling me I cant patent a pendulum that never stops because it swings with the rotation of the earth!

MrCrowbar
Apr 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
The claims cover patents involving "the delivery of music or video over the Internet 'faster than real-time.'"


Let me get this straight. If you are actually delivering music or video at 'faster than real-time', then one must be able to send information at faster than the speed of light. Explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its' mass (even electrons) increase to an infinite amount. Therefore, the data would be so massive, it would completely fill all the hard drives of the world.:eek:

Maybe Burst has found a way to travel faster than light. They're really a company from the future; came back in time to sue Apple (& MS) now, because they're not any lawyers in the future.:D



ROFL :p :D
Nice analogy here. I guess faster than realtime is simply downloading. Like you go on a website with a quicktime movie on it and the dark grey bar wils up faster than you can watch the video. But really, such things have been around for years, i.e you usually download an eMail faster than you can read it (spam doesn't count), right? I'd like Apple to sue Burst and win. ;)

I have a black hole on my computer. That solves the massive data problem, the data just disapperas in it. Windows is really good in disposing of data. ;)

Blue Velvet
Apr 18, 2006, 11:17 AM
On a similar vein, a friend of mine yesterday told me he was minoring in Marketing. I asked him just to kill himself now and save the rest of us.

But before he killed himself, he could return the Bill Hicks DVDs you've been cribbing your routines from.

JDOG_
Apr 18, 2006, 11:17 AM
Wow, I had no idea you could patent the internet :rolleyes:

Say it with me...FRI-VO-LOUS

mozmac
Apr 18, 2006, 11:24 AM
This is all so lame. Only Apply is allowed to sue people for its patents.

uaaerospace
Apr 18, 2006, 11:38 AM
Ok, so perhaps burst was working on this stuff way back when. They did a smart thing and patented their work while it was still in it's early stages. If someone wants to use their techonology so that they don't have to use R&D money to come up with their own stuff, thats great. Thats why there are patents for it. However, when the environment they are basing their patent on becomes more commonplace (ie, fast networking connections and "faster than realtime" delivery of data) and someone (Apple) wants to create their own technology, I believe that is outside of the scope of patent law. If Apple made their own content-delivery system technology based on commonplace technology of the day and did so without "stealing" burst's ideas then burst has no case.

I could not have said it better myself.

bigandy
Apr 18, 2006, 11:48 AM
what amuses me is that they didn't notice iTMS for the first three years... :rolleyes:

macshark
Apr 18, 2006, 11:51 AM
I thought FTP was invented before 1990?

:-)

Archmagination
Apr 18, 2006, 12:03 PM
Reading through the claims I found that Burst in 1990(91) went public with their Patents.. these are some of their patents that they think Apple is infringing on:

1)Digital compression and sending of files through cables, telephones or Microwaves faster than the user could listen/read or watch.. IE:Faster than Real Time(Burst.coms catchphrase)

2)That the Faster than Real Time content could be saved to compact disk, hard drive or RAM. Also a brief mention of possible portable devices.

3)Burst claims that Apple employee's in 1990 were very interested in their contents/patents and that iTunes, Quicktime Player and ipods are a direct result of that.

4)QuickTime Player violates some of their patents.. in Apple's marketing of Quicktime Player they have a line that basicly says: Quicktime streams internet video/audio to consumers faster than real time. by buffering data ahead of what the consumer can watch or listen to.

Personally I think these claims are a bunch of *****!! Burst.com's patents are so general and OLD that most of them should be obsolete by now.

Bursts patents allow them to sue anybody whos downloaded ANYTHING from the internet.. they also allow them sue every computer manufacture, hard drive manufacture, RAM manufacture and a lot of programmers for facilitating in breaking their patents.

dornoforpyros
Apr 18, 2006, 12:07 PM
On a similar vein, a friend of mine yesterday told me he was minoring in Marketing. I asked him just to kill himself now and save the rest of us.

Hey we're not that evil! or atleast..not as evil as lawyers. We just cheapen & homogenise everything untill it's ready for mass consumption...ok maybe we are that evil :p

QPlot
Apr 18, 2006, 12:21 PM
Thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes: Next thing I know you'll be telling me I cant patent a pendulum that never stops because it swings with the rotation of the earth!

that actually is a good idea; you should consider it a patent :rolleyes:
IMHO, it should stop eventually, but if you find it non-stop, should go for it.

kramerdude
Apr 18, 2006, 12:38 PM
Okay, so maybe I'm reaching, but I think Apple should file a discrimination lawsuit. I mean, what about Yahoo, Google, Sony, Napster, etc. What about Cingular and Verizon, who stream tunes to phones over microwave? This seems like they are discriminating against Apple and M$. Or perhaps there is more thatn meets the eye here...

dongmin
Apr 18, 2006, 12:47 PM
"I am embarrassed to be a capitalist."

You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.

uh, obviously you've never taken a history of capitalism class. the intent behind patents--believe it or not--is actually to encourage innovation, which is the the real driving force of capitalism. without patents, companies have no incentive to spend money on R&D since everyone else would be free to copy their innovation. and without innovation, everyone would be selling the same old crap. and when everyone is selling the same old crap, no one's making any profit. except for the landowners...but that's for another time.

sam10685
Apr 18, 2006, 12:57 PM
Yet another company who is trying to prosper from Apple's ingenuity :rolleyes:

i hope whatever company this is really gets what they have comin' for them.

Bonte
Apr 18, 2006, 01:14 PM
This is silly. And MS probably paid them because they didn't want to fight another battle. It's probably easier for them to just pay people off.

And supplying burst with enough money to go after the others. Its not the first time, MS giving in real fast with just enough cash to continue suing the competitors and giving credibility to the 'infringement'. MS was also one of the first and biggest to pay off SCO, we all know the rest.

QPlot
Apr 18, 2006, 01:15 PM
uh, obviously you've never taken a history of capitalism class. the intent behind patents--believe it or not--is actually to encourage innovation, which is the the real driving force of capitalism. without patents, companies have no incentive to spend money on R&D since everyone else would be free to copy their innovation. and without innovation, everyone would be selling the same old crap. and when everyone is selling the same old crap, no one's making any profit. except for the landowners...but that's for another time.
I agree, honestly i don't understand why so many ppl defending apple, what moran will give you 60 million for nothing, especailly we are talking about rich ppl. :confused:

arn
Apr 18, 2006, 01:18 PM
this is sort of hypocritical, coming from a mac fan. apple is a master of marketing. its marketing is one reason you--and I, we--covet its products, believe it or not.


This is a remarkable comment. "Apple is the master of marketing".

I think you'll find that this is a recent phenomenon. Throughout most of Apple's existence.... they survived despite terrible marketing.

arn

sanford
Apr 18, 2006, 01:29 PM
True.

So which party is currently closer to implementing such a reform? Vote for them.

We're Americans, Andrew. We don't, as a rule, vote.

NVRsayNVR
Apr 18, 2006, 01:35 PM
There is plenty of legal precedent to indicate that Apple will have to pay burst and license their technology.

To the post that suggested Burst is out of money...The company paid nearly the entire $60M back to shareholders after the Microsoft lawsuit.

Essentially, the story goes like this, the company has had this technology for a long time and Microsoft did try and sue them but quickly realized they had pretty solid patent protection. Since the technology was so much better than the altenratives, MSFT quickly settled and licensed the product.

There is a rumor that this suit is one of the potential delays related to the video ipod. It is suggested that Apple needs this case to be resolved one way or the other in order to move forward unless of course they come up with something that doesn't infringe.

A little trivia for you...Guess who has been a large equity owner of Burst.com from the beginning?

U2

So it gets way more interesting when you consider that the boys from Ireland, who just happen to have their own U2 Ipod, are part of the negotiations with Steve Jobs. Burst.com did the Zooropa tour video feeds.

Look for something intersting to come out of this.........


Nice research rag! This is getting more interesting as the day goes on.
Hope it don't hurts me stock :eek:

"Think Alike... BE Different!"

sam10685
Apr 18, 2006, 02:09 PM
Read the full article at MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/17/patent/index.php)

Yet another company who is trying to prosper from Apple's ingenuity :rolleyes:

ya don't sue a company for copyright stuff several years after they've had the product out.

gnasher729
Apr 18, 2006, 02:24 PM
This is silly. And MS probably paid them because they didn't want to fight another battle. It's probably easier for them to just pay people off.

Actually, Microsoft found itself in a very bad position: Burst demanded that Microsoft should hand over all emails related to Burst technology (which is something a company can demand in a lawsuit), claiming that Microsoft had deliberately ripped them off and the emails would prove this. It turned out that all the relevant emails had been deleted, and that makes a very very bad impression on any judge. If evidence has been destroyed by the defendant, the court can assume that the evidence was actually bad for the defendant.

This doesn't mean at all that Microsoft had actually done anything bad - it just put them in a very awkward position. If Microsoft had been able to produce all relevant emails, and if these emails had shown that Microsoft hadn't tried to do anything they shouldn't, the case would have gone quite differently.

In this case, Apple has acted quite clever: They sued Burst first to invalidate Burst's patents. There is a good chance that Burst's case cannot be handled until Apple's case has gone through (because obviously the question whether Burst's patents are valid or not is extremely relevant to the question whether Apple is infringing on Burst's patents or not), so Apple will not find itself in the same situation as RIM.

superwoman
Apr 18, 2006, 02:27 PM
Let me get this straight. If you are actually delivering music or video at 'faster than real-time', then one must be able to send information at faster than the speed of light. Explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its' mass (even electrons) increase to an infinite amount. Therefore, the data would be so massive, it would completely fill all the hard drives of the world.:eek:


I think you meant zero mass, not infinite mass. As you approach speed of light, all your mass gets converted to energy.

No, "faster than real-time" means that when I order my song on iTMS today, the song should have appeared on my iPod yesterday. Elementary, really.

On the other hand, it could just mean "buffering"....

quigleybc
Apr 18, 2006, 02:30 PM
After MS gave in and paid them 60 million, no wonder they are trying to ca$h in on Apple..

greed talks.

billyboy
Apr 18, 2006, 02:37 PM
burst would have been a great punt on the stock exchange. Some journo was writing about them and their intention to sue MS, price was like 30 cents. I was thinking how interesting, never thought anything more, then 2 days later they hit about $1, and as the case went on it hoverede around 1.60 but the time they won hit about $4 and dropped like a stone as they had no future worth on the horizon I guess. They have started edging up again. I wish I was as big a gambler as the guys at burst, but i feel that Apple have been quite shrewd and surely the judges are going to have Burst's number by now and say bye bye. opportunist +++++++ Then Bursts 2 employees will be out of work.

bowzer
Apr 18, 2006, 02:54 PM
you think some of that $60million would be spent on a nicer website. good god.

ragland
Apr 18, 2006, 03:32 PM
Nice research rag! This is getting more interesting as the day goes on.
Hope it don't hurts me stock :eek:

"Think Alike... BE Different!"

Thanks NVRsayNVR,

I am long both comapnies. I have to believe they will settle. Also, since Bono is part of a hedge fund (Elevation Partners), he should have access to some very smart people who might be able to advise the company.

My guess is that they settle and Apple agrees to license the technology but then begins looking for an alternative.

The market cap on the stock is only $80M but insiders own at least 40%. Barry Ritholtz is a director. He is always on CNBC and is pretty well connected on Wall Street.

The thing that scares me is the recent Research In Motion ruling might set a precedent for a ruling against Burst.

neomancer
Apr 18, 2006, 03:39 PM
I think you meant zero mass, not infinite mass. As you approach speed of light, all your mass gets converted to energy.

No, "faster than real-time" means that when I order my song on iTMS today, the song should have appeared on my iPod yesterday. Elementary, really.

On the other hand, it could just mean "buffering"....

Actually neither thing happens. This is how it works:
The relativistic energy needed to move an object at certain speed is given by

E=(mo c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

mo is called the "rest mass" of the object v is its speed and c is the speed of light. (I'm using ^2 to denoted "squared" and sqrt to mean "square root").

As the spped of the object approaches the speed of light the term v^2/c^2 gets closer to 1, which in turn means that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) gets closer to zero. As this happens the energy gets bigger and bigger.

To understand this do this mental exercise: suppose (mo c^2)=1, and for certain v sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.1. The energy will be E=1/0.01=10. Lets increase the speed so that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.01, the energy will be E=1/0.001=100. As you can see, increasing v will increase E.

When v is really close to c (say v=0.99999 c <--- 0.99999 the speed of light), v^2/c^2 = (0.99999)^2=0.99998 which means that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) =sqrt(1-0.99998)=sqrt(0.00002)=0.00001. That means the energy is E=100000. Eventually v is so close to c that E tends to infinity. It doesn't get there though because when v=c --> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0, and you know what one of the lost commandments (there were 20 instead of 10) says: "Thou shall never divide by zero!"

What does it all mean? Well it means that to move a mass at the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy !! Which means that nothing, except electromagnetic waves (of which light forms part), can move at (or above) the speed of light.

Now some people write the energy equation as E = m c^2 (Einstein's famous equation), where m = mo / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This "mass" changes dramatically as the speed v increases (just as E). When v=c the "mass" m is infinite. Let me point out that this is no the actual rest mass of the object is just a mathematical abstraction. In any case, E = m c^2 only stipulates that energy and mass are part of the same thing it doesn't mean that the mass of the object will be converted to energy at the speed of light.

alfismoney
Apr 18, 2006, 03:45 PM
Shouldn't a court ruling on a lawsuit of this nature take into account that Burst.com wouldn't even have a product if WMV and MOV files didn't exist? I suppose it goes back to all of the writing on software patents of late, namely that the patent office is not smart enough or computer savvy enough to properly issue patents anymore. Microsoft settling this out of court was about as reasonable as McDonalds paying out on the coffee lawsuit; they shouldn't have settled and they set a very bad legal precedent for the industry by doing so.

Most likely Microsoft made a strategic decision to settle early so Apple would take a bigger blow in their role as market leader. Apple stands to lose much more than $60m if this has a negative effect on their online sales and Microsoft is definitely smart enough to realize this. They may have no innovation but they do have a very shrewd financial outlook.

wedge antilies
Apr 18, 2006, 03:47 PM
I just hate patent lawyers. i work for mid-size company, and we have patented an electrical product and spent $$$$$ for years on getting all the patents correct (and all the Aust and NZ safety regs.), Then a MUCH bigger electrical company releases an EXTREMELY similar product, so we go back to our lawyer who says: "Well, there isn;t much we can do, unless you want to spend $000,000's and years in court." So my boss asks "Then why did we go through all this patenting work?".
And THIS was his reply NO JOKE: "I'm a patent lawyer, of course I am going to tell you to get more patent protection!"

I hate patent lawyers.

Marky_Mark
Apr 18, 2006, 04:03 PM
Actually neither thing happens. This is how it works:
The relativistic energy needed to move an object at certain speed is given by

E=(mo c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

mo is called the "rest mass" of the object v is its speed and c is the speed of light...

Yeah, thanks for that. Clear as mud. :confused:

gnasher729
Apr 18, 2006, 04:22 PM
Microsoft settling this out of court was about as reasonable as McDonalds paying out on the coffee lawsuit; they shouldn't have settled and they set a very bad legal precedent for the industry by doing so.

McDonald's was actually convicted for causing massive injuries to an elderly woman. She sued McDonald's to get the $25,000 back that she paid in hospital bills. When the court found out that McDonald's had been told about SEVEN HUNDRED times that their practices were putting their customers in danger, when it was found that they had on several occasions paid out unknown amounts of money in settlements in different cases, and continued their dangerous practices because they enabled them to make higher profits, things became a bit more expensive. And very rightfully so.

bosrs1
Apr 18, 2006, 04:43 PM
MS, Apple, Dell, IBM, etc, etc...

Al Gore did invent the internet afterall and they're all infringing on his creation. :D




Seriously though, this generic patent crap and the patent holding company BS has got to stop. All it does is give royalties to people who do not deserve them and stifle progress both creative and technological.

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 05:09 PM
This is a remarkable comment. "Apple is the master of marketing".

I think you'll find that this is a recent phenomenon. Throughout most of Apple's existence.... they survived despite terrible marketing.

Excellent point. Apple's marketing team didn't really get it together until steve came back. After that they've had quite a few marketing coups (and also some flops).

generik
Apr 18, 2006, 05:16 PM
Read the full article at MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/17/patent/index.php)

Yet another company who is trying to prosper from Apple's ingenuity :rolleyes:

What ingenuity?

While there has been a spate of submarine patents surfacing of late I do think Burst's is a real deal. Where were you in 1991? Heck, where was Apple and companies like Akamai even?

Their ideas were original and novel, and Apple really deserved what they got when they file that lawsuit. Bet they never saw this coming.

reyesmac
Apr 18, 2006, 05:40 PM
"I am embarrassed to be a capitalist."

You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.

Do you think Apple would keep making computers for "the rest of us" if everyone else could copy what they are doing?
The original patent idea works, but they don't expire as quickly as they used to back when corporations didn't run the government.

I think this company is bogus, they can sue anyone with a patent like that. If nobody can come up with a solution that does not infringe on Bursts patents the patent should not be allowed to exist.

Tupring
Apr 18, 2006, 05:43 PM
An improved video recorder/transmitter with expanded functionality including a capability for editing and/or copying from one video tape to another using only a single tape deck.Are they sure they have the right company here?

Aztechian
Apr 18, 2006, 05:49 PM
I think this company is bogus, they can sue anyone with a patent like that. If nobody can come up with a solution that does not infringe on Bursts patents the patent should not be allowed to exist.

Thats just silly. Think about it from Bursts point of view... that's exactly why patents exist in the first place!

Austin.xstone
Apr 18, 2006, 05:51 PM
Can't see this getting very far, will be interested to see though...:p

ginjg
Apr 18, 2006, 05:53 PM
You can not patent streaming or faster than real time. You can only patent a means of doing so.

If Apple demonstrates that their method is different or was arrived at with out use of Burst's code then they will win. And Burst will be even deeper in debt.

aegisdesign
Apr 18, 2006, 06:25 PM
Uh oh, streaming media over the internet. Did they come up with this "technology", or did they just point out the obvious next step in internet technology, and then put it on paper? Seriously, throw this one out. I can't believe MS just paid them so easily.

Of course they paid them. $60M is nothing to Microsoft and it gives Burst $60M to fight Microsofts competitors for them. Win-Win as far as Microsoft is concerned.

gnasher729
Apr 18, 2006, 06:37 PM
Their ideas were original and novel, and Apple really deserved what they got when they file that lawsuit. Bet they never saw this coming.

Since Burst offered a license for their patents to Apple, and Apple refused to buy a license, and promptly sued Burst to get these patents invalidated, I am sure they saw a lawsuit coming. And I am sure that Apple is confident iTMS does _not_ infringe any of Burst's patents and that they will win, otherwise they would have paid.

AlmostThere
Apr 18, 2006, 07:25 PM
And I am sure that Apple is confident iTMS does _not_ infringe any of Burst's patents and that they will win, otherwise they would have paid.

:) I would have guessed exactly the opposite. Apple almost certainly infringes their patents, which is why they have tried to get them invalidated.

minipri
Apr 18, 2006, 07:45 PM
WTF!!! Who are the five that voted positive? And WHY?!

Five? Twentyfive you mean! ...wtf!

And who? Well, ...
Maybe it was Bruce himself, his lawyers and there retarted relatives.
Wild guess though. :D


[ dim. ]

minipri
Apr 18, 2006, 08:15 PM
...

...

In this case, Apple has acted quite clever: They sued Burst first to invalidate Burst's patents. There is a good chance that Burst's case cannot be handled until Apple's case has gone through (because obviously the question whether Burst's patents are valid or not is extremely relevant to the question whether Apple is infringing on Burst's patents or not), so Apple will not find itself in the same situation as RIM.

Is this for real? Did Apple do this?
I'd say COOL!
...bad Burst.com. Burst has been bad. You shouldn't patent the internet.

[ dim. ]

minipri
Apr 18, 2006, 08:21 PM
you think some of that $60million would be spent on a nicer website. good god.

It's true!
Will you look at this ******! ...got to be friggin kidding me. :p

http://www.burst.com/new/home.htm

[ dim. ]

mcarvin
Apr 18, 2006, 08:24 PM
Probably the same kind that can't spell moron. :p


I kid I kid!

Vive le Fark cliche'
http://img202.exs.cx/img202/4299/moran5fk.th.jpg

On a lighter note...
- TiVo, Replay TV, DirecTV, Comcast and others offer apparati to acquire, store and replay compressed digital A/V content through the means of an electronic network including but not limited to fiber optics, coaxial cable, traditional CAT5 and modem via POTS. Said content can be transported via a variety of WORM media including but not limited to magnetic, optical and solid-state. Oh, and digital cameras. And wireless phones with camera/camcorder functionality.

- Forget about traditional streaming media formats and consider this problem using good ol' plain ASCII. What about shell scripts that generate and transmit ASCII characters in a way that simulates a primitive video stream like this: telnet://towel.blinkenlights.nl?

MrCrowbar started me thinking on this - IIRC, PDF files in Acrobat reader used to kind of "stream" down back in the days of slow connections and huge files. Doesn't that apply, and wouldn't Adobe be liable? It's not A/V content, but it the end effect is similar in nature to streaming media.

sockerguy5
Apr 18, 2006, 09:04 PM
Well guys, these "idiots at the patent office"....you're talking about me. I work at the US Patent and Trademark Office in Washington DC in art unit 2183, computer architecture and instruction processing. I'd like to shed some light on a few things.

"I can't believe people can be so stupid. The next idiot in the patent office probably grants patent on "breathing" and then some lucky bastard sues the whole world. There should be a law against such morons."

There is. It's 35 USC 102.

"Natural processes (breathing) cannot be patented"

Lets take this a step further. Sofware can not be patented. Its considered non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. Take a closer look at any patent ever granted. They are patenting the hardware capable of using the software at best.

"I suppose it goes back to all of the writing on software patents of late, namely that the patent office is not smart enough or computer savvy enough to properly issue patents anymore."

I have a degree in Computer Engineering from one of the top universities in the country and spend 8 hours a day reading technical documents about computer architecture that aren't available to the general public. If you think you can do better, the patent office has job openings.

"This is silly. And MS probably paid them because they didn't want to fight another battle. It's probably easier for them to just pay people off."

Do any of you really know what these court battles are about? When a company like Microsoft or Apple is sued for a patent infringement, their team of high payed lawyers spend countless hours trying to find just one document (that's all it takes) disclosing the same information and predating the patent. Instead Microsoft payed. This means that these lawyers had no choice but to confirm that the patent examiner did a great job in granting this patent.

superwoman
Apr 19, 2006, 02:07 AM
Actually neither thing happens. This is how it works:
The relativistic energy needed to move an object at certain speed is given by

E=(mo c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)



Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. Learn something new every day :-)

Choppaface
Apr 19, 2006, 02:17 AM
Apple has already paid Burst a bundle I believe, so they're prolly going to lose this one. Burst is a few guys up in Santa Rosa, CA, who are quite wealthy now so they're not going anywhere, Apple's gonna have to shed some bucks on this one.


I have a degree in Computer Engineering from one of the top universities in the country and spend 8 hours a day reading technical documents about computer architecture that aren't available to the general public. If you think you can do better, the patent office has job openings.


So if you have this degree, and I expect you've probably got better than a Bachelor's, why aren't you making an effort to use your technical expertise for social good? (At least that's how it appears from "our" view) What IS the inside story then about these patent wars that we aren't seeing? What kind of consideration do you give to the fact that sometimes patents protect a company's agenda rather than an inventor's right? That patents you grant might steal a small software developer's chance at making it or could unduly complicate or threaten the technical careers of thousands of developers? If you are not using you degree to better your community then you are not using your degree responsibly. Right now there are quite a few that don't see how patents are bettering the community.

zelman
Apr 19, 2006, 07:16 AM
Isn't the transmission of data "faster than real time" 50% the fault of the recipient?

Roller
Apr 19, 2006, 07:27 AM
Sort of sad - and telling - that so much of Burst's Web page is devoted to their lawsuits. They have a right and an obligation to defend their intellectual property, but this seems to be their main focus.

ShavenYak
Apr 19, 2006, 08:01 AM
McDonald's was actually convicted for causing massive injuries to an elderly woman. She sued McDonald's to get the $25,000 back that she paid in hospital bills. When the court found out that McDonald's had been told about SEVEN HUNDRED times that their practices were putting their customers in danger, when it was found that they had on several occasions paid out unknown amounts of money in settlements in different cases, and continued their dangerous practices because they enabled them to make higher profits, things became a bit more expensive. And very rightfully so.

In fact, McDonald's chose to serve the coffee dangerously hot because they had done a research study that found that the hotter the coffee is, the less acute the drinker's sense of taste. They determined that the money saved by being able to buy cheaper coffee beans for their taste-impaired customers was more than their estimates of potential losses due to customer lawsuits.

Funny thing, that - when a court finds that a company has already factored the cost of the lawsuit into doing business, they're more likely to award the damages. Also, most courts frown on companies who behave as if the only problem with burning your customers is that you might have to pay their medical bills.

McDonald's valued their profits above the safety of their customers, and it came back to 'burn' them instead. Justice was served (with a smile, and an order of fries).

Gasu E.
Apr 19, 2006, 09:09 AM
Cool, I wish I was going to be a lawyer. They always seem to have business taking care of things like this.

There once was a small town that had just one lawyer, and he never had much to do. Then another lawyer moved to town and there was plenty of work for everybody.

Gasu E.
Apr 19, 2006, 09:15 AM
Actually neither thing happens. This is how it works:
The relativistic energy needed to move an object at certain speed is given by

E=(mo c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

mo is called the "rest mass" of the object v is its speed and c is the speed of light. (I'm using ^2 to denoted "squared" and sqrt to mean "square root").

As the spped of the object approaches the speed of light the term v^2/c^2 gets closer to 1, which in turn means that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) gets closer to zero. As this happens the energy gets bigger and bigger.

To understand this do this mental exercise: suppose (mo c^2)=1, and for certain v sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.1. The energy will be E=1/0.01=10. Lets increase the speed so that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.01, the energy will be E=1/0.001=100. As you can see, increasing v will increase E.

When v is really close to c (say v=0.99999 c <--- 0.99999 the speed of light), v^2/c^2 = (0.99999)^2=0.99998 which means that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) =sqrt(1-0.99998)=sqrt(0.00002)=0.00001. That means the energy is E=100000. Eventually v is so close to c that E tends to infinity. It doesn't get there though because when v=c --> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0, and you know what one of the lost commandments (there were 20 instead of 10) says: "Thou shall never divide by zero!"

What does it all mean? Well it means that to move a mass at the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy !! Which means that nothing, except electromagnetic waves (of which light forms part), can move at (or above) the speed of light.

Now some people write the energy equation as E = m c^2 (Einstein's famous equation), where m = mo / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This "mass" changes dramatically as the speed v increases (just as E). When v=c the "mass" m is infinite. Let me point out that this is no the actual rest mass of the object is just a mathematical abstraction. In any case, E = m c^2 only stipulates that energy and mass are part of the same thing it doesn't mean that the mass of the object will be converted to energy at the speed of light.

OK, but what is the "mass" of an object with rest mass m0 when the object is traveling at .99999 x c?

iPie
Apr 19, 2006, 10:47 AM
I don't know who is right on this one, but if you read the full article, it's kind of hard to weigh in on behalf of MSFT and AAPL.

Maybe (for a change) Lang can make Jobs cry - I would really appreciate that!

I haven't been to happy about Apple lately, and this just kind of confirms my fears that AAPL is just another clone...

neomancer
Apr 20, 2006, 01:58 PM
OK, but what is the "mass" of an object with rest mass m0 when the object is traveling at .99999 x c?
As I wrote, there are two "type" of masses. One is the "invariant mass" or "rest mass" mo. This mass is the same no matther how fast the object is moving. Most physicist (including myself) prefer the use of this mass because it make life easier when dealing with higher quantum theory. The other mass is called "Relativistic mass". This "mass" increases (10000 times the rest mass in our example) when the speed of the object increses.
For further information check:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass

Enjoy ....

ajbrehm
May 8, 2006, 08:30 AM
You don't have to be. Software patents are a government-granted monopoly designed to prevent competition and restrict the free market. That's fascism (national socialism), not capitalism.

uh, obviously you've never taken a history of capitalism class. the intent behind patents--believe it or not--is actually to encourage innovation, which is the the real driving force of capitalism.


You are both wrong.

Software patents are indeed government-granted monopolies designed to prevent competition. But fascism has nothing to do with it.

The intent behind patents is to trade a time-limited government-granted monopoly for another invention to become publicly available. The beneficiary of the patent system is supposed to be society. It's applied socialism, not capitalism.

ajbrehm
May 8, 2006, 08:32 AM
We're Americans, Andrew. We don't, as a rule, vote.


I'm a European. I cannot, as a rule, vote in the US. :-(

So it's up to you, really.

It's the Republicans, isn't it?

bbarnhart
Nov 22, 2007, 02:44 PM
Apple has settled with Burst for US$10 million.

LINK (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071122_003480.html)