Text 16205, 55 rader
Skriven 2007-02-17 08:21:56 av mike (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 16203 av mike (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Microsoft dirty tricks that were never revealed
===========================================================
From: mike <mike@barkto.com>


I wonder if Burst, now involved in a legal fight with Apple, will or can
re-open the case with Microsoft given the new information that has surfaced.

Burst v Apple info:
http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/pressrelease0014.htm

===
Santa Rosa, Calif., (April 17, 2006) – Burst.com, Inc. (OTC: BRST) today
announced that it has filed counterclaims accusing Apple Computer of infringing
four of Burst’s U.S. patents. In the counterclaims, filed in Federal District
Court in San Francisco on Monday, April 17th, Burst alleges that Apple’s iTunes
Music Store, iTunes software, the iPod devices, and Apple’s QuickTime Streaming
products infringe Burst’s U.S. Patents 4,963,995; 5,995,705; 5,057,932 and
5,164,839.  Burst’s filing responds to a suit that Apple filed against Burst in
January of this year, seeking a declaration that Burst’s patents are invalid
and that Apple does not infringe them.  Burst requests in its counterclaims
that Apple pay a reasonable royalty for Apple’s infringing products and
services, and also seeks an injunction against further infringement. A copy of
the filing can be found on Burst’s website: www.burst.com.

Burst.com is represented in the action against Apple by San Francisco law firm
Hosie McArthur, who also represented Burst in its successful litigation against
Microsoft Corporation. In March 2005, Microsoft settled that litigation by
paying Burst $60 million for a non-exclusive license to Burst’s patents. Burst
has also expanded its legal team in the Apple litigation to include attorneys
from the Seattle office of Susman Godfrey, LLP, as well as Houston-based
intellectual property firm Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP. Also representing Burst
is Palo Alto-based intellectual property firm Carr & Ferrell, LLP.

Burst.com Chairman & CEO Richard Lang indicated that the company would rather
not have to resort to litigation, but is committed to enforcing its patent
portfolio, which was developed over an 18-year period. In its April 17 filing,
Burst alleges that its technology has been essential to Apple’s success,
providing it with a critical audio and video-on-demand media delivery solution.
 According to Lang, “We have a responsibility to protect our patents and to
seek a fair return for the many years and tremendous investment that we have
made in developing Burst technology and patents.ö

Apple failed to license Burst’s technology when it introduced its iPod and
iTunes products in 2002. According to Lang, Apple may have assumed that Burst’s
patents would be invalidated in Microsoft’s defense of the then-pending
litigation.  Instead, Microsoft ultimately licensed Burst’s patents. “While we
had hoped to avoid litigation and negotiate a reasonable license fee, it is
Apple’s own actions that have forced our hand. We now look to the courts to
reaffirm Burst’s rights as innovators and to be paid fairly for our widely
acknowledged contributions to the industry.ö
===

  /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)