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.
Cringely points out that the timing of the settlement is odd and seems to have been intended to make the story go away quietly. He may be right. I did a quick check of sites like ars technica and CNET, which have covered the Burst story in the past. None have stories up about the settlement, even though I gave them a couple days to catch up.
The next question is why such a small sum - given Apple's dominant position in the digital media selling business it might have been possible to sue them for hundreds of millions in claimed infringement. Cringely also points out that it's odd for companies to downplay a settlement to this extent. Usually at least one side wants to claim public victory.
One possible clue may be the decision earlier this month to dismiss 14 of the Burst patent claims on the basis of "obviousness." Patent lawyers are still trying to figure out what to make of these new standards and Burst may have feared that even though the judge was willing to let the case go forward on the remaining 22 claims, those claims might have been knocked out on various appeals leaving the company not only with no settlement but with no valid patents.
In essence, litigation is always a risky maneuver and Burst may have decided the risk was too big so now was the time to walk away with what they could get.
Cringely's theory is that Burst is trying to clear the decks for its next move, which will depend on issuance of patents covering DVR technology. Burst agreed not to sue Apple on the basis of those patents, which makes TiVo the obvious next target. I guess we'll have to wait for those patents to see what use can be made of them.
The usual media are largely paid syncophants of MSFT, Inc. They won't cover this settlement in detail because Apple had better lawyers than MSFT and got a better deal.
1. Drewberrt on November 29, 2007 9:18 AM writes...
Ars covered it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071123-apple-burst-com-settle-patent-infringement-case.html
Apple got lucky, I think.
Permalink to Comment2. Tom B on November 29, 2007 10:39 AM writes...
The usual media are largely paid syncophants of MSFT, Inc. They won't cover this settlement in detail because Apple had better lawyers than MSFT and got a better deal.
Permalink to Comment3. drwex on November 29, 2007 11:12 AM writes...
Drew: thanks for the link. I wonder why that didn't turn up when I did a search on ars...
Permalink to Comment4. Twizzler on November 29, 2007 1:10 PM writes...
Your theory explains the low dollar amount and Burst not crowing, but fails to explain Apple not trumpeting a victory here.
Permalink to Comment