i see this as a strategic move against nbc/universal.
Best post in the thread!
Or to use a term from fake wrestling.... suck on it Jeff Zucker,
i see this as a strategic move against nbc/universal.
What is the big deal with patents. If nothing was patented, would the world collapse? No.
That's a total joke. I take it they'll also be sueing YouTube, then?
What is the big deal with patents. If nothing was patented, would the world collapse? No.
If something like the iPhone came out without patents, many would try to copy it - but only those with something better would win out. That would be great for the consumer, and also for innovation in general!
That's a total joke. I take it they'll also be sueing YouTube, then?
Never gonna happen. There is NO DVR in Apple's future. Their model is pay to download.DVR would make the Apple TV worthwhile. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it had DVR functionality.
And what the hell is Burst doing with its patents, may you tell me? What products do they have?
Patents are IPR monopolies and should only be granted when real use is made of them...unfortunately, the US leads the way is stupidly frivolous software patents...and it's not gonna change anytime soon.
Burst has one existing and three pending DVR patents that do not fall within this agreement. However, the press release explicitly states that Burst will not sue Apple in the future over these DVR technology patents.
A couple things:
First, Burst did not sue Apple. Apple filed suit for Declaratory Judgment for non-infringement and invalidity of Burst's patents.
Second, to set the record straight (though no to comment on the validity or invalidity of Burst's portfolio), Burst was a company with an actual product. Microsoft settled with them because Microsoft incorporated Burst's technology and then turned around and hosed Burst at the same time Microsoft was being investigated for anti-trust violations. Since then, Burst has shrunk from a 100+ person company to a like 2 person company with its patent portfolio as its only assets. They are not a troll in the traditional sense because they didn't buy their patents and never made a product - rather they did make a product and it didn't work out.
Regarding the invalidity, I'd like to point out that the oldest patent was filed in 1988, which was way before the big pipes coming into our house that we all enjoy.
I'm not a fan of burst, quite the opposite in fact, but people here should know a little about the facts before flailing around and screaming troll.
Let me rephrase then: software patents ARE stupid and frivolous, apart from those select few that show real novelty/invention, have a component of industrial application and do NOT infringe on prior art.
Do you believe that hardware is patentable? If so, what is the distinction because all hardware can be simulated in software and all software can be reduced to a hardware form? Seriously, I want to know.
Of course hardware is patentable; the same doesn't apply to software, especially when we talk of prior art, discoveries and things that have no industrial application at all. If you believe otherwise, you are just breaking a concept of patentable subjects that has been there since ever, for a good reason.
The duration of a patent's exclusivity should be shortened dramatically. Same for copyright.
Never gonna happen. There is NO DVR in Apple's future. Their model is pay to download.
Amen. Apple should stop paying the trolls.Let me rephrase then: software patents ARE stupid and frivolous, apart from those select few that show real novelty/invention, have a component of industrial application and do NOT infringe on prior art.
Only in the U.S. you could imagine patenting something so generic, stupid and "priorartish" as "hierarchic menus", "faster than real time streaming" or "one-click shopping".
It's just criminal what the USPTO does nowadays, granting monopolies to corporations that have little more to do than suing others in order to get some precious money in their balance sheets. Apart from filling USPTO's coffers and protecting American industry in a disguised way, of course...![]()
Perhaps they did. From my reading for $10 million they got access to Burst's current patent portoflio along with;Too bad Apple just paid $10 million for a piece of junk. Quicktime streaming is horrible. They should have used that $10 million to create a good streaming solution.
So they got access to DVR patents as well. Not just Quicktime streaming.MR said:Meanwhile, Burst has one existing and three pending DVR patents that do not fall within this agreement. However, the press release explicitly states that Burst will not sue Apple in the future over these DVR technology patents.
OK, I'll bite. The copyright is used to spur creation of art by allowing the artist financial benefit of his/hers creation. When the copyright lasts 90 (or however many) years *after* the death of the artist as it does now, you have to know something is wrong. The copyright, as it is right now, is set to benefit the copyright owners (not the original artist) and has lost its original purpose. In effect, the copyright owners (big media) have legislated themselves into easy profit with this extremely long copyright term. This situation benefits nobody but them, not the artists and not the audience. The situation with patents is similar. And the matter is not helped by USPTO, which will patent absolutely anything (ridiculous patents like One-click by Amazon or e-mail over wireless by NTP come to mind).Why?
This is what I would love to see on message boards - people make a statement like that above and actually articulate a reason for it. I may or may not disagree, but I have no way of knowing why you think they should be shortened. You think the monopoly is artificially long? You think for certain subject matters there should be a shorter time than others (e.g., some say software patents should only be for 5 years due to the rapidity of development and the time it takes to get anything through the patent office).
Why should copyright be shortened? Because it already compensates authors or their families? Should it be shortened for just corporations that publish the work?
Why why why?
OK, I'll bite. The copyright is used to spur creation of art by allowing the artist financial benefit of his/hers creation. When the copyright lasts 90 (or however many) years *after* the death of the artist as it does now, you have to know something is wrong. The copyright, as it is right now, is set to benefit the copyright owners (not the original artist) and has lost its original purpose. In effect, the copyright owners (big media) have legislated themselves into easy profit with this extremely long copyright term. This situation benefits nobody but them, not the artists and not the audience. The situation with patents is similar. And the matter is not helped by USPTO, which will patent absolutely anything (ridiculous patents like One-click by Amazon or e-mail over wireless by NTP come to mind).