Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Burst Sues Apple for iTunes, iPod, Quicktime Patents
- Thread starter Bern
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CaptainHaddock said:
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.
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.
JFreak said:
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.>
sanford said:
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.
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.
Einstein would have an issue with this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For all these electronic patents, they should have an "computer and electronics patents" judge who specializes in bulls*!t computer and electronics patents.
Some of you guys really have no idea about patents at all.
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.
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.
Do your research
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.........
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.........
We need a "loser pays" system
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
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
Counterfit said:Some of you guys really have no idea about patents at all.
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.
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!
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'.
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'.
bretm said:
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.
bretm said:
True.
So which party is currently closer to implementing such a reform? Vote for them.