Comments on: Burst.com’s streaming snake oil http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/ Digital Media News & Opinion Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:35:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Slashdot | Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1034 Slashdot | Apple Sues Burst.com in iTunes Patent Dispute Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:23:36 +0000 http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1034 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%--> <p>[...] at least according to Groklaw -- seems like it's definitely invalidated by prior art. According to this article [playbacktime.com], both Apple and Real (and possibly Microsoft) had their own versions of the same [...]</p> <!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback

[…] at least according to Groklaw — seems like it’s definitely invalidated by prior art. According to this article [playbacktime.com], both Apple and Real (and possibly Microsoft) had their own versions of the same […]

]]> By: graphicallyspeaking http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-780 graphicallyspeaking Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-780 <p><!--%kramer-pre%--> The patent fun continues: Apple is now being sued by Burst technologies - they want 2% of iTunes revenues. I'm familiar with Burst (andiTunes/Quicktime), though I don't know the details of the case, so everything I say should be taken with the view that I'm an armchair critic. In my view, Burst may have been the first to suggest their ideas on media streaming, but mostly (and likely only) because<!--%kramer-post%--></p> links from Technorati The patent fun continues: Apple is now being sued by Burst technologies - they want 2% of iTunes revenues. I’m familiar with Burst (andiTunes/Quicktime), though I don’t know the details of the case, so everything I say should be taken with the view that I’m an armchair critic. In my view, Burst may have been the first to suggest their ideas on media streaming, but mostly (and likely only) because

]]> By: The Technology Liberation Front http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-779 The Technology Liberation Front Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-779 <p><!--%kramer-pre%--> that they invented "faster-than-real-time delivery" of media content, and that Microsoft copied their technology after Burst showed them a technology demo in the hopes that Microsoft would license Burst's software. This is nonsense, as an excellent 2002 blog post explained: Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime. Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a<!--%kramer-post%--></p> links from Technorati that they invented “faster-than-real-time delivery” of media content, and that Microsoft copied their technology after Burst showed them a technology demo in the hopes that Microsoft would license Burst’s software. This is nonsense, as an excellent 2002 blog post explained: Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime. Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a

]]> By: buzzYA! http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1651 buzzYA! Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1651 <p><!--%kramer-pre%-->Now Apple, too, has buckled, agreeing to pay Burst $10 million for a license to its patents. The thing that the media coverage of the patent seems not to convey is how spectacularly unoriginal Burst's patent claims are. Asthis great postexplained way back in 2002, Burst's secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce. Burst's patent describes "faster than real time" streaming. There's simply nothing novel or innovative about this; it's perfectly obvious that if you've got a fat enough<!--%kramer-post%--></p> links from TechnoratiNow Apple, too, has buckled, agreeing to pay Burst $10 million for a license to its patents. The thing that the media coverage of the patent seems not to convey is how spectacularly unoriginal Burst’s patent claims are. Asthis great postexplained way back in 2002, Burst’s secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce. Burst’s patent describes “faster than real time” streaming. There’s simply nothing novel or innovative about this; it’s perfectly obvious that if you’ve got a fat enough

]]> By: Techdirt. http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1686 Techdirt. Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://playbacktime.com/2002/10/31/burstcoms-streaming-snake-oil/#comment-1686 <p><!--%kramer-pre%-->Now Apple, too, has buckled, agreeing to pay Burst $10 million for a license to its patents. The thing that the media coverage of the patent seems not to convey is how spectacularly unoriginal Burst's patent claims are. Asthis great postexplained way back in 2002, Burst's secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce. Burst's patent describes "faster than real time" streaming. There's simply nothing novel or innovative about this; it<!--%kramer-post%--></p> links from TechnoratiNow Apple, too, has buckled, agreeing to pay Burst $10 million for a license to its patents. The thing that the media coverage of the patent seems not to convey is how spectacularly unoriginal Burst’s patent claims are. Asthis great postexplained way back in 2002, Burst’s secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce. Burst’s patent describes “faster than real time” streaming. There’s simply nothing novel or innovative about this; it

]]>