Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
Yes, you read that right. Microsoft settled with Burst some time ago, to the tune of USD 60 million. But that's peanuts next to the nearly half billion that Burst figures its owed from Apple, due to the use of its patented technologies in a little thing called iTunes (and the store, and iPods). If Burst wins big it will be because Apple used the technology in a big way where Microsoft did not.
Robert X Cringely's Pulpit column on this case makes that point that the news reporting on it has... well, sucked. In general the press coverage of IP cases tends to be slanted or just outright wrong as the reporters don't know what they're covering. I'm sometimes guilty of this myself.
In this case, Cringely slams the reporters for both falling victim to the Apple mystique and just plain getting its facts wrong. He has particular harsh words for ars technica (this time in the personage of Justin Berka) for getting Burst's history wrong.
You can read the original linked pieces to see the details but I think Cringely is spot-on. Despite us being into the second decade of the "Internet revolution" we still get mass media reportage that can't tell the Internet from the Web, and that makes basic mistakes I wince over regularly. Ars is usually better than that, but clearly even they mess up now and then.
Actually, that's quite unfair to Ars. The Ars article was not that bad at all. Cringely's complaint seems to be that Ars left out some of the details about Burst's history (Cringely has been a long time supporter of Burst, and not an unbiased party). However, Cringely is actually guilty of much worse reporting. He totally ignores the point of the Apple complaint, which is that based on the recent Supreme Court Teleflex ruling, Apple now believes it can show that Burst's patents shouldn't have been issued.
In other words, Cringely is equally guilty of what he claims Ars did: conveniently ignoring important points of the story to take one side.
1. Mike Masnick on September 26, 2007 2:23 AM writes...
Actually, that's quite unfair to Ars. The Ars article was not that bad at all. Cringely's complaint seems to be that Ars left out some of the details about Burst's history (Cringely has been a long time supporter of Burst, and not an unbiased party). However, Cringely is actually guilty of much worse reporting. He totally ignores the point of the Apple complaint, which is that based on the recent Supreme Court Teleflex ruling, Apple now believes it can show that Burst's patents shouldn't have been issued.
In other words, Cringely is equally guilty of what he claims Ars did: conveniently ignoring important points of the story to take one side.
Permalink to Comment