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.
Related Stories
- New Apple online store design alters focus, hides deals
- Report: iOS 7 could see Flickr, Vimeo integration
- Apple CEO Cook testifies on taxes, faces Senate critics
- Senate subcommittee accuses Apple of tax avoidance
- Apple releases testimony before CEO’s Senate appearance
- Report: Apple testing 1.5” OLED displays for iWatch
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad 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
- OtterBox acquires LifeProof
- LifeProof debuts Frē case for iPad mini
- Logitech debuts Wired Keyboard for iPad
- New Apple online store design alters focus, hides deals
- Apps: ABC Aquarium, Disney Jr. Appisodes, Pinterest 2.4 + Pocket Informant Pro 3.0
- Report: iOS 7 could see Flickr, Vimeo integration
- Apple CEO Cook testifies on taxes, faces Senate critics
- Google Play Music All Access to get iOS app support?
- Senate subcommittee accuses Apple of tax avoidance
- AT&T: All video chat apps will work over cellular in 2013
Recent Reviews
- HMDX Jam Plus Bluetooth Wireless Speaker
- Fitbit Flex Wireless Activity & Sleep Wristband
- Cambridge Audio Minx Air 100 + 200 Bluetooth + AirPlay Wireless Speakers
- Mophie Juice Pack Plus for iPhone 5
- Ultimate Ears UE Boom
- Trü Protection Trü-Fit Anti-Glare Film Set
- New Trent iCarrier IMP120D Dual USB Power Pack
- BlueFlame 2M Charge and Sync Cable with Lightning Connector
- HMDX Jam Party Bluetooth Wireless Stereo Speaker
- Logitech Harmony Ultimate Universal Remote Control
Recent Articles
- Inability to use Find My Friends without a passcode
- Calendar info disappears after iCloud restore
- Remove old iCloud backup after restoring to a new iPhone
- Setting up a ringtone in iTunes
- Using a Wi-Fi hard drive with an iPad
- Backing up and restoring an iPod classic
- Can’t restore iPod touch without passcode
- Retaining older versions of Apps during an iOS Restore
- Can’t eject iPod nano without closing Firefox
- Can’t change iTunes Apple ID to iCloud e-mail address
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 2:46 AM (PST)
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 3:10 AM (PST)
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 4:51 AM (PST)
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 5:49 AM (PST)