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.
Next: Clarion debuts iPod-compatible auto gear
Previous: 1GB iPod shuffle back in stock
Shop in the loungeStore for iPod + iPhone Accessories.
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
- NPD: iPhone 3G lures customers, boosts Apple’s smartphone share
- iPhone Software 2.2 features emoji, Google Street View, more
- Fring becomes first official free VoIP app for iPhone, iPod touch
- Mix: Rogers, Tagger, Photoboard, VisualHub
- iPodweek on its way, sign up now
- Apple releases iTunes 8.0.1
- Apple releases Apple TV Software 2.2
- Copyright Royalty Board leaves download royalties unchanged
- Mix: AAPL Q4, Handbrake, Nokia, Adobe Flash
- PDO ships Sleek case for iPhone 3G, announces cases for iPod nano 4G, touch 2G
Recent Reviews
- Apple iPod classic (120GB)
- Apple iPod touch Second-Generation (8GB/16GB/32GB)
- Apple iPod nano Fourth-Generation (4GB/8GB/16GB)
- Apple iPhone 3G (8GB/16GB)
- Numark TTi USB Turntable with Universal Dock
- Jensen JiMS-525i Docking Digital HD Radio System for iPod and iPhone
- Gear4 DUO Versatile Speaker System for iPod
- Boston Acoustics Horizon Duo-i
- myvu Crystal 701 iPod Edition
- JBL On Stage 200ID

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)