Apple, Inc.
v
Burst.Com, Inc.
Trial Date: February 26, 2008
Apple says that the Burst.Com
patents are invalid because they
are "obvious". Here is a clip
from 1999 which suggests the
patents were NOT "obvious" as
late as 1999. The first patent
was granted in 1990.
Streaming Media '99
June 30, 1999
Paul Boudreau
Microsoft Program Manager
Windows Media Technologies
Streaming Media Expert
Richard Lang - Inventor
US Patent 4,963,995
October 16, 1990
On June 30, 1999, Microsoft
streaming media expert Paul
Boudreau says "I'm just curious
about your particular tool for
doing this time acceleration issue.
Sounds like a quantum
mechanics nightmare."
Paul Boudreau continues with
"I mean this is a little heady
stuff man. We're reaching into
the future now.
I'd like to know how you're doing it?"
If the ideas found in the Lang
patent were not obvious to a
person skilled in the art of
streaming media in 1999, how
obvious would the ideas in the
first patent have been in October
1990 when it was granted?
Apple says that the ideas in the
Lang patents were "obvious" but
the historical facts indicate that
the Lang ideas were NOT
obvious. Even as late as 1999.
For more information on this
issue visit:
www.squidoo.com/bursting
I pioneered for Burst.com raising awareness across europe with large brands. Nobody was doing what burst software was doing at that precise time 1999 / 2000 ..... the MS settlement is proof that it was ahead of its time. 1990, the internet was hardly out there albeit a few geeks like me on Janet and private networks.
JimTheDj1965 3 months ago
The MS guy was clearly being sarcastic.
Keys1337 4 years ago
Being a searcher in software patents I find that to be a very damning admission by a Microsoft programmer.
dynmohum 4 years ago
I'm BURSTING in laughter.
schestowitz 4 years ago
Let's hope that the attorneys for Burst use this in court!!
smkcpa 4 years ago 2
Great stuff thanks to the genius and diligence of bursting squidoo
rams1942 4 years ago