AAPL Stock: 126.37 ( + 3.12 )

Printed from

Apple goes to court over Burst patents

updated 03:55 am EST, Fri January 6, 2006

Apple goes to Court

Apple has turned to the courts for relief, after patent licensing talks broke down with if it were to introduce a "storage locker service" to help store and distribute video.

"Burst anticipates responding to the complaint and filing a counterclaim for patent infringement shortly. 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." holds reportedly nearly 40 video distribution patents, which have already been licensed by Microsoft in 2004 for nearly $60 million dollars In early 2005, Burst settled its patent and antitrust suit against Microsoft with Microsoft taking a license to Burst's patents and paying a lump sum of $60 million. 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.

by MacNN Staff





  1. DeepDish

    Joined: Dec 1969


    enough law suites

    Apple, if you truely owe it, pay up. Burst, if you are trying to make a quick buck, s**** up. Tired of the truth being determained buy the amount spent on lawyers. OJ hires good lawyers, gets off. Guy down the street can't hire the same lawyers, goes to jail.

    Somebody needs to invent a reliable truth machine.

  1. Deal

    Joined: Dec 1969


    What I don't understand.

    I don't know much about this situation, but on a basic level, there are two possibilities here.

    1) The company has a great way to deliver media and they fairly patented it. Which also means there are other ways to distribute media which some other smart person could come up with and do it legally.

    2) This is another broad patent that somebody was awarded which keeps anybody from doing a very basic task and it shouldn't be patentable in the first place.

    The fact that they have over 40 patents makes me think the later is true. One general patent didn't cover what they wanted so they just kept patenting until they had all the holes patched.

    Can anybody clarify this situation better?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Seagate Wireless

It seems like no matter how much internal storage is included today's mobile devices, we, as users, will always find a way to fill th ...

Brother HL-L8250CDN Color Laser Printer

When it comes to selecting a printer, the process is not exactly something most people put a lot of thought into. Printers are often t ...

Moshi iVisor AG and XT for iPad Air 2

Have you ever tried to put in a screen protector that relies on static to cling to the screen? How many bubbles and wrinkles does it h ...


Most Commented