Streaming media?
Posted on 01/10/2005 3:24:45 PM PST by Peelod
Carrying over from last year, I predict that Burst.com will beat Microsoft in their current lawsuit. But to avoid having to eat crow again over timing, let me put this in greater context. IF a trial actually takes place, as it is now scheduled to do this summer, Burst will easily win. Microsoft is at a disadvantage already as a bully. Burst will probably get Judge Motz to tell the jury that Microsoft deliberately destroyed evidence, and it doesn't hurt, either, that Burst is just plain right on all counts -- Microsoft DID violate their patents, DID violate Burst's non-disclosure agreement, DID attempt to illegally put them out of business, and DID attempt to control the market.
Of course, Microsoft might settle before trial, but at this point, I don't think that is likely out of simple arrogance on Microsoft's part. Microsoft is furious with Burst for the little company's continued survival, plus Microsoft is listening to the wrong lawyers on this one. So Burst will win on some or all counts ,and I expect the damage award to be in the billions. Of course, Microsoft will appeal. But the key difference between this case and other Microsoft cases is that once Burst wins, Real Networks and Apple Computer, both of which are also infringing Burst's patents (along with TiVO and a bunch of other companies), will immediately buy Burst licenses, throwing $100+ million into Burst's coffers and leading to everyone else EXCEPT Microsoft taking a Burst license, too. At that point -- if it goes that far and Microsoft is that stupid -- Redmond won't be able to risk not having a Burst license and will settle, too. Only by waiting so long Microsoft will have blown any number of advantages it could have had. Typical.
(Excerpt) Read more at pbs.org ...
What does Burst make, and what does TiVo have to do with it?
Streaming media?
Burst.com holds patents for more efficient transfer of data. Burst contends that this technology is being used without permission in Windows Media Player.
I have heard they are going to release a free anti-virus package and I can't wait. Say what you want, but Microsoft does software for the common man, the right way. They make it easy to use and affordable. Bill Gates, you da man!
If MicroSoft figures out the technology, even if there is a patent, can MS use it? pardon my ignorance
PS(I think that its Bursts and Bursts alone if they patented it, but I'm just wondering what the laws are, I'm not a patent lawyer - or a lawyer at all for that matter)
I hate to be picky, but do you mean no-cost software, or real free software? (I would guess the former. See gnu.org if you don't know what I'm talking about.) I think Richard Stallman is a bit of a crackpot, _but_ he basically called it correct decades ago that the software barons would use the law to control the future.
Yikes. This is one to keep an eye on. Thanks.
Cringely seems to write that Microsoft used information from the non-disclosure agreement to improve WMP. Emails during this period are now missing, hence the spoliation claim.
Hmm...that sounds like a case of out-and-out theft. Or more exactly, a sort of information embezzlement.
I'm a pretty freemarket guy, but as an engineer, there have to be laws that keep the individual inventor or small companies safe from behemoths who can sue the pants off anyone to get them to capitulate.
In the mid 90's Intel's legal costs made up 25% (!) of their total budget expenditures.
How is code theft viewed at Media Lab?
If you go thru Cringely's old columns, Intel is also involved.
Isn't Burst the bankrupt company that was bought by a bunch of lawyers years ago? I guess lawyers need to eat, too...
I haven't followed this case, so I am not sure if Microsoft is guilty of anything or not. But they do get wrongfully bullied a lot of times, most likely because they are so big, but in a lot of these cases Microsoft did nothing wrong.
Why would anyone, even a lawyer, buy a bankrupt company.
The company is not listed on the Naz.
Asking is not ignorant; it's simply requesting information. And I'm happy to respond. When you have a new and/or original idea, you can patent it. A patent is a declarion of what your idea is, how it works, and what problems it may solve. You then explain in legal terms (generally, in as vague terms as possible, to thereby have the broadest possible interpretation) how your idea works. The Patent Office studies your patent, and if it is original, or a non-obvious extension to an existing patent; will issue you a patent. If someone else figures out your idea, so what. You now OWN that idea for a period of 7 years (with possible extensions). The gov'ts goal is to protect the inventor, so he may capitolize off an idea. Anyone who uses your idea must do so with your permission, or risk legal infringement and levies. Usually, the court will issue a 'Cease and desist' order; which means that MS will be prohibited from continuing to use the idea from that day forward. As Media Player is a revenue stream for Microsoft, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to work out an 'arrangement'.
As the patent holder, especially if you get a cease and desist order, you can name your own price. You could say "Bill, I want $39 Kazillion, billion dollars paid to me in the form of 1987 nickles.
The idea is to arrange your royalties such that Micorsoft decides it's easier to write a check instead of changing your idea such that they can patent it themselves.
For example, if I patent a tri-cycle; you could patent a bi-cycle. The ideas are similar, but the bicycle is not an obvious extension of a tricycle. If you made your tricycle blue, and mine was red; otherwise they were identical, the change is not patentable. This gets rather abstract quickly. The idea is that if you patent something, and I can improve upon your idea, I can patent it too.
Microsoft has already declared this will be a subscription service. It won't be 'free' for very long.
In theory, that is. In practice, patents have been issued for stuff like "selling products over the Internet".
It's Microsoft, that alone tells me they're guilty of something.
My favorite Patent Abuse story is the lawsuit against EBay for the "Buy It Now" button
I have never believed that Microsoft was an evil empire. I love the rich! More power to them. However, isn't Gates a lib?
In theory, only worthy applications are granted patents. In theory, copyrights expire. In theory, Democrats are prolife.
ping
He uses his billions to support infanticide (abortion) around the world though donations to the UN Population Control activities.
I'm using MS anti-spyware. I also have Spybot, AdAware and spyware Blaster, but the MS product cleaned a couple of annoying things the others couldn't remove.
It's too early to endorse the product, but it seems pretty good for a Beta.
Shameful. And from a father of, I think, at least two children.
This is gonna cost Bill "$39 Kazillion, billion dollars".
No.
You can reverse-engineer technology and use it, but to make it legal you have to jump through hoops...like you have to pass the specification from the discovery team to the implementation team with no contact between them.
It's quite exquisite, actually. This puts big companies (the smart ones, at least) at an advantage, since they can put out huge teams to 'pop the top' on competitors' products.
I try not to associate with the Media Lab...I worked there once and saw gallons of money flushed down the safety shower drain.
For the potential lawsuit winnings.
I hate to stick up for Microsoft, but Software patents are a really BAD idea. It's like being able to patent a plot-twist
in a new novel...and then nobody else could ever write such a story twist without paying you (or your heirs) tribute.
If there were no software patents Microsoft would be the worlds biggest loser... that alone is a great reason to abolish them :-)
Burst's position is that MSFT would appoint someone to be "in charge" of a particular project and thus that person's email would be searched in case of discovery; BUT the person who was listead as being in charge did not actually work on the project. Thus MSFT hid the actual people and their emails were never searched. If Burst is accurate, then MSFT is guilty of misleading the court, committing perjury, filing false affidavits, etc. Should it go to court and Burst win, there could be stiff fines and even jail time for the in-house lawyers.
> ... putting more free software out with the release
> of it's anti-spyware ...
They bought an anti-spy company, changed a few logos and
put it out as MS software. The cynical have also noted that
MS is using it as a tool to discover and turn pirate copies
of Windows. (I have no sympathy for the pirates, but this
is part of a longer term plan to foist subscription-based
licensing [assured revenue flow to Redmond] onto everyone.)
> ... heard they are going to release a free anti-virus package ...
You mean like they briefly did in DOS 6.2? How long ago
was that? Where have they left you in the meantime?
With MS, nothing is ever really "free".
One of the really cool things as far as software patents go, is the original Bell Labs patent on the UNIX setuid function was done as an electronic circuit, using logic gates. IIRC, for many years, you could only patent an "invention," not an idea, like a mathematical formula or algorythm.
Mark
It's not quite that simple...software patents include things like algorithms, new and novel ways of processing data - on the same plane as new and novel ways to process plastic, or silicon, or petroleum.
Inventors deserve protection and profit opportunity for broadening the scientific knowledge of mankind, software people included (software people especially, since the next wave of computation will fold hardware and software over one another in a way we haven't yet seen).
If there were no software patents Microsoft would be the worlds biggest loser... that alone is a great reason to abolish them :-)
Don't bet on it. More likely, Microsoft would be able to appropriate without cost anyone else's software, and since they have the best programmers, and probably the most of them, their capital advantage alone would let them flood the market with ripoffware.
Only software patents issued to Microsoft are valid.
Software patents issued to other companies are invalid and can be ignored... by Microsoft.
Microsoft invented computers, don'tcha know?
Okay, on that issue, I'm not ignorant. Xerox invented personal computers but did not patent them because they did not realize the importance of them. I picked up on the sarcasm, but HA! I actually know something!
Would you happen to know if he specifically targets the abortion-related activities or if it is more of a general donation? I don't like it either way, of course.
Microsoft's entry into the anti-virus and anti-spyware businesses will be a disaster for users. This is based on everything I know about Microsoft, having watched the company for almost 28 years. They will make a big fanfare, spend a lot of marketing dollars, but in the end, the company simply won't be able to keep up with the demands of keeping virus signatures current, which isn't the real point of this gambit, anyway. There is so much to this story and so much that I could write that I think I'll do so next week, and just move on to the next prediction.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030828.html
"Well, I don't know what was in those e-mails, though I'd be inclined to guess it was something along the lines of "Let's steal this cool stuff from Burst." But I do have a fairly good idea why Microsoft took the risk. It was a calculated risk. Burst.com was a little company about to run out of money at a time when dot coms were folding by the hundreds, their patents sinking from sight. If Microsoft bought a license from Burst, it would be propping-up the company and helping Burst to survive. But it wasn't in Microsoft's interest for Burst to survive because Burst's technology was cross-platform. If Burstware had run only on Windows, Microsoft might have felt inclined to buy a license. But Burstware also ran on Solaris and Linux, and that threatened to weaken Microsoft's plans to have Windows dominate digital entertainment delivery. It made more sense to let Burst die and then duplicate the technology based on what had been gained in those seven meetings and from materials acquired from Burst under a non-disclosure agreement. At least that's the way it looks to me, I could be wrong.
The only problem for Microsoft was Burst did not die."
Software patents are a perversion of nature, but at least MS is getting hoisted on its own petard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.