Apple vs. Burst: dismissal

Apple has asked the judge presiding in a patent infringement case, filed by Burst.com, to throw out the claims entirely. Burst first filed suit against Apple in 2006, charging that the latter stole patents for compressing, storing and distributing media at high speeds over a network. This in turn was a response to a reverse suit by Apple, which Burst argues was begun only when negotiations broke down over licensing patents for use in Apple's iTunes software and the iPod. Previously, Burst had managed to settle a 2005 lawsuit against Microsoft for $60 million.

The heart of Apple's dismissal plea lies in an April ruling of the US Supreme Court, which states that patents which are obvious and expected changes should be rejected. Burst, says Apple lawyer Matthew Powers, simply combined previous inventions -- legally termed "prior art" -- and labelled them new.

"It's not some epiphanous, oh my God, when you put all these things together you have an iPod," Powers told judge Marilyn Patel in a US District Court. "That is what they are trying to do to save the core, which is obviously all in the prior art. None of which is invented by [Burst founder] Mr. Lang."

by MacNN Staff