News
Apple in legal dispute with Burst over digital media patents
Burst.com, which develops video and audio delivery software, said it was sued by Apple on Wednesday for declaratory relief, alleging patent invalidity or non-infringement. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, follows “a breakdown in protracted negotiations for issuance of a license of Burst’s patents to cover Apple’s iPod and iTunes products,” according to the company.
“Burst anticipates responding to the complaint and filing a counterclaim for patent infringement shortly,” the company said in a statement late Thursday. “Burst remains committed to the enforcement of its intellectual property and looks forward to successfully resolving this litigation through a license covering Apple’s Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple’s iTunes Music Store.”
In March of last year Burst settled a major patent and antitrust suit against Microsoft. The software giant paid Burst $60 million to license its patents. “Since the Microsoft settlement, the company has been in patent licensing discussions with several companies engaged in the distribution of audio and video content on computer networks,” Burst said.
Share This Article & Win an iTunes Gift Card. Next: Clarion debuts iPod-compatible auto gear
Previous: 1GB iPod shuffle back in stock
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- AdMob: iPhone accounts for 50% of smartphone ad requests
- Apple targets Verizon with new iPhone 3GS ads
- Apple announces Black Friday 2009 shopping event
- Swimman waterproofs Earphones with Remote and Mic
- KT to launch iPhone in South Korea on Nov. 28
- New iPhone jailbreak worm seeks banking info
- Apple exec Schiller discusses App Store
- Enter the CES Exhibits Plus Pass Giveaway today
- Wider distribution boosting iPhone sales in France
- Chinon rolls out AVi portable iPod speaker
Recent Reviews
- Electronic Arts Command & Conquer Red Alert
- Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin Mini
- iHome iHM79 Rechargeable Mini Speakers
- Elexa Consumer Products iBlink
- Bose SoundDock 10
- Shure SE115m+ Sound Isolating Headset
- Apple Remote (2009)
- Kensington Travel Battery Pack and Charger for iPhone
- Tapulous Metallica Revenge
- Electronic Arts NBA Live by EA Sports
Recent Articles
- The Beginner’s Guide to iTunes
- Ask iLounge 11-20-09
- The Complete Guide to Using the iTunes Store
- iPhone Gems: Brain Challenge 2, Impossible Quiz, Jeopardy, Trivia Wars + Wheel of Fortune
- The Complete Guide to Album Tagging, Art and Playlists in iTunes
- Ask iLounge 11-13-09
- The Complete Guide to iTunes Audiobooks, Podcasts + iTunes U
- Ask iLounge 11-6-09
- iPhone Gems: Asphalt 5 and Doom Classic
- Ask iLounge 10-30-09
1
Interesting…can’t agree on a price, even after all that time negotiating? Then sue the a** off the other guy and hope the courts find in your favor. What’s that argument, again? We’re Apple, the ‘GOOD’ guys, and therefore we shouldn’t be bothered with paltry things like patent infringements; however, we’re not sure if it’s non-infringement or invalid patents, so we’ll sue for one or the other. Please, Your Honor, select what you feel is best (for us).
Also interesting that MSFT didn’t bother to fight and just settled with Burst.
Posted by flatline response on January 6, 2006 at 3:46 AM (PDT)
2
Wow, this is BIG news! It means Apple IS working on a streaming movie store, as that’s what the Burst patents are about, streaming media.
Posted by KenC on January 6, 2006 at 4:10 AM (PDT)
3
Good deduction kenc. We just might have a pay per play movie network on iTunes in the next 2 years
Posted by Jonathan Keim on January 6, 2006 at 5:51 AM (PDT)
4
@flatline response
The interesting thing is that Burst apparently holds a patent on streaming audio/video over a network. Something that I remember doing in the late 80s/early 90s.
As for Apple suing for both non-infringment or invalid, that’s normal. Basically what they’re saying is that they don’t believe the patent is valid, but even if the court determines that it is, they don’t believe they are infringing on the patent. If they don’t sue for both, they’d loose the opportunity to sue for the other one if they lost because both are directly related to the same action, so they are required to be litigated together.
Posted by Theo on January 6, 2006 at 6:49 AM (PDT)