MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Sic 'em Apple lawyers.

A three-person company that lost $533,000 in one year doesn't have a very good business plan.

Burst, a company that lost $533,000 last year.

The name says it all.

Maybe they should change it to "Bust."

Au contraire, Tommy Boy. It's a fantastic business plan.

One excellent example I can cite is Microsoft's Zune. People say it's losing money. I say you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. By this time next year Zunes will be all over the place and nobody will remember the iPod. The same goes for the astute folks at Burst. Look for companies far and wide to be knocking at their door to be a part of the revolution in audio & video delivery. Don't let Apple bully you, Burst!

Your potential. Our passion.™

Thats what happens when you have a three-some! you soon forget to focus on business & focus on the leisure instead!! Some people call it swinging!!!!

Now ......If they all drunk Camel's Milk, they would fart horrendous stink bombs in their own faces, they would very quickly cease swinging and consentrate on their business instead!!!

Microsoft caved and coughed up 60 million to settle a burst lawsuit. The vole must have known they were breaking the law and wanted this to go away quickly.

If Apple and Microsoft were actually using Burst's tech patents doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft's products would be as successful as Apple's?

The veracity with which Burst is pursuing this matter and the wording of the recent letter published by Burst to its shareholders would indicate this company is betting the farm in a winner-take-all legal battle and has me concerned.

The first thing I do when reading posts on this site is look to see who wrote the post.
Second, if it is Zune Tang, I skip to the next post. Talk about whipping a dead horse - the joke grew lame some six months ago.

"Talk about whipping a dead horse . . ."

Or in parts of China, making dinner for eight.
With steamed cardboard dumplings for appetizers, of course.

G4Dualie: I think you meant "tenacity" instead of "veracity".

Regardless, if you go back and read the proceedings which are well chronicled by Cringely over at pbs.com, you'll find that it is likely that Microsoft caved because they were caught deleting emails. Apple (Tevanian) entered testimony in that case showing that Apple thought even then that the Burst patents were a joke, and that there was no infringement.

Apple should make an example of them and bring them to financial ruin.

"Microsoft caved and coughed up 60 million to settle a burst lawsuit."

Not exactly. By giving money to holders of invalid patents, Microsoft enables them to pursue frivolous litigation against competitors. IBM used to do the same thing.

-jcr

How can they lose $533k last year when MS gave them $60mil? Where did all that money go? It's not like they have 10,000 people on their payroll.

ref:Microsoft caved and coughed up 60 million to settle a burst lawsuit. The vole must have known they were breaking the law and wanted this to go away quickly....

The veracity with which Burst is pursuing this matter and the wording of the recent letter published by Burst to its shareholders would indicate this company is betting the farm in a winner-take-all legal battle and has me concerned."

Remember that the Supreme court has ruled that more than just saying you have an idea is required now. Microsoft has billions to spare, Apple just knows better. PS. didnt Apple license the patent from Creative vs this type of thing??

"First you shoot all the lawyers!" Ben Franklin.

Big companies believe in patents as long as they are talking about THEIR patents. Because Burst is three guys in an office in Santa Rosa, companies like Microsoft and Apple tend not to take them seriously. They forget that Burst spent 21 years and $66 million developing that IP, and the company has code that is still better than anything else on the market -- code not even Microsoft has seen. Unless someone buys the company first, Burst is going to win this and eventually license the world. They are in the right, for one thing, and in practical terms they now have as much money for legal bills as any of their opponents. Apple can't win this one.

"Because Burst is three guys in an office in Santa Rosa, companies like Microsoft and Apple tend not to take them seriously."

Nope. Microsoft and Apple both took them quite seriously. That has nothing to do with the fact that the patent in question is bullshit.

-jcr

YES...

Go Apple !!!!!
Now let's see some of that backbone for iPhone!

"That has nothing to do with the fact that the patent in question is bullshit."


The results from the Markman hearing would suggest otherwise. I can't understand why Judge Patel did not consult you for your learned opinion.

"...By this time next year Zunes will be all over the place and nobody will remember the iPod."

Then why don't you go away for a year, then come back and gloat.

"The same goes for the astute folks at Burst. Look for companies far and wide to be knocking at their door to be a part of the revolution in audio & video delivery. Don't let Apple bully you, Burst!"

That's some revolution, as Burst's work was developed at and for a time when it might have been needed (but was never used)...when dialup and telephone wires were the norm for internet connecting. What a joke it is now.

".... Unless someone buys the company first, Burst is going to win this and eventually license the world. They are in the right, for one thing, and in practical terms they now have as much money for legal bills as any of their opponents. Apple can't win this one."

And just how do you know they are in the right?

It's highly unlikely Burst is going to license the world as 1) not even MS has been able to manage that, despite all their efforts. 2) Some places (say China for example) will either ignore Burst's claims or develop non-infringing technolgy of their own.

60 million? What a joke. MS, while caught with their hands in the cookie jar, paid a piddly amount to Burst to settle.

So little in fact, that all things considered, Burst's willingness to settle for so little leads me to conclude that they must have been very desperate, despite the fact they had some "white knights" backing them. While MS's deep pockets may not have won them a drawn out trial, all MS had to do was outlast Burst's financial backing.

I suspect that, more than anything, MS settled with Burst just to "poison the well" for their competitors, particularly Apple. To grant Burst legitimacy for their claims. Much in the way that MS granted Universal Music a dollar "royalty" on every Zune and gave Universal Music "legitimacy" in their claims for "royalties" on music players like iPods.

IMHO, MS is playing the crackhead CEOs of California like a harp.

"How can they lose $533k last year when MS gave them $60mil? Where did all that money go? It's not like they have 10,000 people on their payroll."

They don't have 10,000 employees, just 5 lawyers. [snort]

Time For Reform

The money went to the shareholders as a one time dividend. I’m an Apple shareholder, however, I hope Apple agrees to a fair and just settlement prior to the trial next year. The Powers lead Apple legal team is not performing very well, that’s why you see this slanted story being released to a number of news agencies today.

If Richard Lang takes the stand in a jury trial it will not bode well for Apple. It will be a public relations nightmare when the facts are presented in court. Apple also risks high treble damages to go along with licensing fees and a possible injunction. Judge Patel is the judge that issued an injunction that shut down Napster.

I worked with two software engineers from Burst back in early 2000. They were ahead of their time back then and made the mistake of getting into bed with M$. Fortunately they patented their technology. I'm an Apple fan but Apple is going to lose big time on this one.

-b

WTF, $60 million from MS, and now its all gone, and its a 3 person company. They must be doing good drugs and high class expensive prostitutes

Apple has the absolute best patent attorney's in the business. Add in the fact Burst.com's lawsuit is not one of the best we've seen, Apple has this one wrapped.

This glib, superficial and patently (pun intended) one-sided pro-Apple account of the case is a disgrace and not worthy of MacDailyNews. If Karen Gullo had done any research at all (and a huge majority of all the court filings are on line at:http://burstingsquidoo.com/DocumentFilings.html ) she would know that it is Apple, NOT BURST, who is slinging the patentese mayonnaise before the judge right now in an effort to cover up their bald infringement of the Burst IP. Just one example of hundreds: in one filing Apple ridiculously tries to say that serial bubble memory is the same as RAM. In another they somehow claim that a pre-Burst data receiver can receive and play compressed video even though it has no provision for decompression. No joke.

What Apple cannot ultimately avoid are the facts. And the main fact is the Burst invented the IPOD in 1991 because they were granted patent ( # 4,963,995 ) that year for a digital audio/video transceiver with compression means –that does precisely and fully everything that an IPOD does. Cf.

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&S;...,995&RS=PN/4,963,995

She would also know the Burst spent over $66 million developing its IP and at one time employed over 100 people. Until it got put out of business by thieves like Microsoft and Apple.

Read the REAL story about Burst -- instead of this garbage -- at Business Week and IP Law & Business:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b398...campaign_id=rss_tech

http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/articles/IP Law&Business;.htm

Remember Thomas Edison invented the light bulb by combining existing and previously known ideas – like electricity, vacuum, electrodes, etc.

Burst did the same thing. And in 1991. A decade and a half before the IPOD.

First, the Burst people are not patent trolls. They spent $66 million developing their technology. That means it IS a technology and not just a patent. Second, Burst started work in this area years before anyone else was even thinking about it, so they have precedence. A couple years ago Apple's position at that time was that Microsoft would likely invalidate the Burst patents and, if they didn't, then Apple would buy a license. There was no "we already invented that," or "our technology is superior." Apple was clearly infringing, knew it, but didn't want to buy a license if Microsoft was going to destroy Burst. Well Microsoft didn't destroy Burst and never came close to invalidating the patents. Quite the contrary: Judge Motz, in the claims construction part of the case laid out precisely what the Burst patents do and don't cover. Most people don't get the significance of the claims construction, but it lives on its own, apart from the law suit, and establishes what Burst can and can't claim rights to at a level beyond that of a simple patent. And what Judge Motz gave Burst, among many things, was the right to iTunes. This isn't Burst making a claim to iTunes, it is Burst ENFORCING a RIGHT to iTunes established by a Federal Court.



Apple is screwed and they know they are screwed. At this point the issue is money and ego. Apple wants people to believe that it invented everything in all of its products. Well Burst belies that. And Apple is cheap and greedy. Based on industry standards, Burst is due about 2.5 percent of Apple's gross income from QuickTime, iTunes, and the iPod. Add it all up and that's somewhere in the range of $200-250 million SO FAR. If Burst WAS a patent troll and would accept $10 million to go away, this case would never have come to court. At this point I am sure Apple would be happy to get away with paying $100 million and have it over. But Burst wants its due and has the resources to wait for a court to decide. There is little doubt the court will decide for Burst since they are required by law to accept the claims construction. So all I can conclude is that Apple will eventually have to pay $200+ million to Burst, which will then move on to a long list of other infringers, each easier to close than the one before it.

"Burst is due about 2.5 percent of Apple's gross income from QuickTime, iTunes, and the iPod."

You MAAAAAAAAAY have had a point until you threw QuickTime in there.

Sorry you just lost your point.

Troll somewhere else, moron.