I was waiting for this to come out...

Sounds like a stalemate. Patents are not just patents, and there are claims inside patents that can also be infringed or not, and claims can be appealed for years. It may be that Burst decided Apple had bigger pockets than they did. Or maybe they will decide to work together. If the settlement lets Burst go after rivals to AppleTV, they both win.

Dear Bob, I appreciate you reporting so fast on this important matter that the rest of media seems not to understand...this case is very odd and it does seem like they had some backroom deals? Maybe Apple bought Burst.com?

I dunno, Bob ... I'm guessing death threats were made.

There are always undisclosed factors in a legal settlement of this magnitude, and while they always mean something, they don't necessarily mean anything in particular.

Apple will buy Burst 1st Q '08.

I think psaturn is onto it, and there is an acquisition deal in the works. Apple would be able to aggressively pursue its many competitors infringing on Burst's patents. And maybe Burst will finally return value to shareholders with its whopping purchase price...

Followed your coverage of this one from the get go Bob. Thanks for the continuing updates - and even on Turkey day! This has been a a very interesting one. Obviously, you either hate turkey (or this holiday), or you are just toooo darn'd dedicated to keep cring community updated!

You may be right, more licensing on the DVR front to come to Burst fom Apple - but as noted by psaturn Apple will acquire burst. That's my vote.

It could be that this revolves around next steps for the AppleTV...if Apple is going to add DVR capabilities to AppleTV, which seems likely now that they are getting feisty with the various studios, and Burst is going to sue TiVo, they are attacking the same enemy from two fronts. TiVo gets slammed with a 1-2 lawsuit and killer competitor product.

Apple will announce next Monday they have bought BURST and their portfolio of patents.

I don't think tivo is the strongest dvr company to sue. they have the name recoginition and the best product (IMO) but they haven't made money yet. They'd be better off going after time warner for the dvr they distribute to their customers.

I agree with Larry. I think this deal revolves round Apple TV. I dont think Apple has bought Burst, however i think there might be a strategic partnership going on.

Apple are fairly predictable when it comes to product cycles and development. The lay the foundations for an eco-system and slow release the component part of that eco-system then combine them through product cycle updates. For example the Motarola/itunes deal was simply to peg song download prices and buy Apple time to release the killer product.

Similarly the first release of the Apple TV was about laying a marker down until all the component parts of the eco-system were nailed down, I think one of the component parts was the Burst Technology. So how does this relate to the license deal !!

Well i think Apple have shown Burst the 'whole eco-system picture' and lured them into a licensing deal. With Apple supporting Burst to take on the other industry players. As buying a license for the DVR technology strengthens the Burst case as Apple are he largest online multimedia player in the business.

This will give Apple a free run at the DVR market which i believe will be spun on its head when Apple release the cycle upgrade to the Apple TV. Which interestingly, will not take place until the iTunes movie rentals deals have been announced.

I'd be interested in comment on why the stock closed at $1.43 on Nov-7 and $0.43 on Nov-8.

I understand why prices move -- I just wonder why we lost 2/3 of the value a full 9 trading days before the announcement.

(I'm not complaining as I am in it for the long haul with some loose cash and am down just 10%, considering the last dividend payment.)

Hugo cont.

A look at how the iTunes ecosystem became so dominant, will provide pointers as to how Apple is playing the movie game.

When apple talked to the music labels about launching iTunes it is unlikely that the allowed the Labels to see the whole picture. As the Labels might have realised how successful it was going to be and they would have then drove a harder bargin for the licenses Apple wanted.

The labels were probably expecting iTunes to fail and they would then have said been able to say 'see digital does not work' so lets go back to selling CD's.

The rest is history and Aple now dominats the digital music space, and the Labels are sore because the were out thought

The Movie studio's watched and said 'that wont happen to us" but it may well happen to them. However they need to be on board with movie rentals before Apple push the final pieces into place, and attempt to dominate that space. Having Burst suing everyone in site will be a positive distraction to enable Apple to corner the market quietly.

Although the bogosity of the Lang/Burst patents is now moot
(even Apple's prior-art citations were anticipated many
others [Ampex, Bell Labs] years before...), here's a cynical
patent tidbit from Apple's past:

Years ago, when I was obsessed by the very notion of
software patents, I combed through some court docs
on the infamous XOR/cursor patent, used by the
defunct Cadtrak to troll against Apple. Turns out
that Apple settled for a token amount,
but with the proviso that the payoff was contingent upon
Cadtrak suing Apple's competitor of the day, Commodore!
Dirty pool, but probably not rare in settlements.

Apple buy Burst?

It's not dirty pool. It's you sue every one or get out of my face.
Commodore should not get a free pass.

I don't think Burst can go after Time Warner since they don't make a DVR unit. They are the customer. Scientific Atlanta makes the DVR boxes that Time Warner rents to their customers.

I think it's regrettable that Apple gave Burst a penny. I understand the business decision to throw them a bone instead of spending far more on the litigation, but the patents were bullshit from the get-go, just like Amazon's "one-click".

Burst is an example of the desperate need for competent patent examiners.

-jcr

Let me see, Apple hires a former officer of El Gato, El Gato is now developing an upgrade that allows the Turbo H264 to be used with QT Broadcaster for hardware encoding and now they have settled with Burst, man I hope there is going to be a big announcement at MacWorld.

Maybe Apple doesn't use the technology in the DVR patents

DVR patents pending?? Either the patent office moves amazingly slowly, or these patents were filed, AFTER Replay TV and Tivo hit the market in which case they are as worthless as the other Burst patents that the court recently threw out.

Count me as believing that Burst settled for so little money, because their patents aren't worth a thing. I am very suspicious of companies that manufacture patents and then sue, instead of making products. Especially where software patents are concerned, which really shouldn't exist at all.

Writing on the wall is clear: Apple is buying Burst, and getting this out of the way so the purchase can go through smoothly.

Could it be something bigger here, bigger as in Apple negotiating to buy Burst, lock stock and barrel?

Like you, I think something bigger is cooking than what we have been led to believe.

I don't think Apple is planning to buy Burst, they don't have any real assets to offer that Apple isn't already offering, even if they are infringing.

The streaming patents aren't worth very much when they're already licensed to Microsoft, Apple's biggest streaming rival.

That means Apple couldn't use Burst to pester Microsoft, and they couldn't use it to make MORE money.

Buying someone is always going to be more expensive than paying them to go away.

What I think is really going on here is Apple paid Burst to go away and stop bothering them. Because if Burst's lawyers told them they only had a a 1% chance of winning their $1b they wouldn't be so foolish to take $10m. So why would apple spend $10m when they knew they would win? Because it probably saved them $10m in legal fees and the agreement with Burst allows Burst to go after TiVo and dozens of smaller PVR manufacturers, something Apple would love because if it works, it will breath life into the future of Apple TV.

One common reason to grant a covenant not to sue is to keep the resale value of the patents. Boost only promises not to sue Apple. If they sell the patents, then that promise is void. Also, Boost is able to sue Time Warner since patents allow one to restrict another party's ability to make use or sell products.

Sounds pretty shaky to me...

Everyone has heard of Quicktime and other streaming players, but how many have heard of Burst?

Sounds like another case of flawed prior work research on the part of some patent office.

Exo

No, it's not the Steve Jobs reality distortion wave effect that saved Apple's bacon, this time. I'm sure we'll hear something about this here. Someone else is buying Burst.com and they are dictating terms of the Apple lawsuit, however bizarre, before they buy the company. Who else is able to afford to buy the company and or it's technology, and tell them to stand down in court - someone who is very friendly - for now - with Apple - yep, it's Google.

how would this effect netflix downloads (if at all ) if apple were to buy burst? wouldn't appletv with movie rentals and DVR be competing with tivo and netflix?

It sounds like Apple has an 'unannounced product' in the wings, maybe a DVR-like AppleTV, due in January 2008. Cover the court costs now, leave everyone's honor intact, shut up the press, and announce product fresh with 0.1% of Apple's new rentals programs going to Burst for 5 years. Win-win.

I'm no expert... but: Perhaps the reason for Apple & Burst to make this all so quietly would be to minimize the impact on stock prices. Why? Already people here speculate about Apple buying Burst. Maybe there's a connection? Who would benefit from stock price NOT going up or down after this settlement?

I don't know, just wondering...

I am surprised Burst settled. It seemed to have a pretty strong case, and it was by no means losing in Court. Apple had far more to lose here then Burst did.

With all that said, there is no way Apple is buying Burst. I suspect two scenarios. First, Apple simply has bigger pockets then Burst, and the law firm representing Burst was running out of money. It could have convinced Burst to settle on those grounds. Second, Burst and Apple made a deal where Burst would make money off of some unannounced Apple product. Both possibilities would make sense.

Great! It's all over! Can we see NerdTV Season 2 now?

Here's the obvious scenario (although not necessarily true for all it's obvious-ness), ...

Apple buys Burst freeing up the release of the rumoured new (larger) Apple TV with the optical drive and PVR capability.

Burst sues the next obvious candidate which is TiVo and Apple slips in the giant hole left by TiVo's exit from the market.

If TiVo collapses by means of the lawsuit, Apple/Burst picks up TiVo for a song.

With respect to the comment that Apple would be competing with Net Flix, you are currently able to watch stream movies online with Net Flix. However, you must watch them on a crappy monitor as opposed to your nice, big TV. Secondly, you can't stream on a Mac, or any non-MS OS for that matter. If Apple were to get into this market with AppleTV, well they would address their most loyal customers - the people that buy their hardware. In addition, you would get to use your (HD?) TV. It would seem that Apple is taking Net Flix truly into the digital age.

Here is someone who thinks like Cringeley

Digital Daily by John Paczkowski
Burst Case Scenarios

Posted at 02:11 AM on November 23, 2007 Print Share Sphere

Burst has added another notch to its patent-infringement settlement belt. The scrappy three-man company, which once beat a $60 million settlement out of Microsoft over charges that the software giant had stolen its streaming media technology, has managed to squeeze a few million out of Apple as well.

Bringing an end to an often contentious legal battle that began about two years ago, Apple on Wednesday agreed to pay Burst.com $10 million to settle charges that it illegally incorporated the company’s audio and video-on-demand media delivery solutions into the iTunes ecosystem. In return, Burst agreed to grant Apple a nonexclusive license to its patent portfolio–with certain eyebrow-raising exceptions and caveats. The settlement specifically excludes from Apple’s license one issued and three pending Burst patents on digital video-recorder technology. But it also precludes Burst from suing Apple for any future infringement of the those patents. Now that’s an odd twist, isn’t it? Especially since a patent license is often little more than a covenant not to sue the licensee.

Why promise not to sue for infringement, but refuse to license? Why accept a settlement of just $10 million ($4.6 million after court and attorney fees), when a damages award might have been many, many times greater? And why announce the settlement of a bitter legal battle on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday when so few people will pay attention to the news? Why do all that, unless there’s something more here? An acquisition in the works, perhaps. Or something else entirely. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20071123/apple-burst/

This agreement does not mean Apple will buy Burst, you dummies. It means Apple will buy TiVo. By specifically excluding the DVR patents, Burst will get the money it thinks it's due, but only after Apple buys TiVo (after Burst goes after TiVo for patent violations and reduces TiVo's market cap, TiVo is only worth 600m now) and subsequently will need to license the DVR patents.

Only one possible reason - Apple to buy Burst (later). Later could be after Burst starts and/or finishes suing everyone it can about old and yet to come patents. (Apple likely supplying the millions needed for lawsuits.)

A price likely has been agreed to between Apple and Burst; that might be scaled up or down - dependent on how well Burst does in the suits.

Apple's overall game plan is to isolate Microsoft, at least temporarily, so that Apple can establish itself as the number one "player" in the seven trillion dollar a year market for video on/over the internet.

There's no reason for Apple to buy Tivo. Most likely, Apple will never get into the PVR business. Think iTunes and digital distribution. PVR is going against the trend Apple is building with iTunes. Movie rentals on iTunes on the other hand is strengthening this strategy. Think digital distribution and it explains a lot about Apple not doing PVR and not doing HD-DVD or BluRay currently.

Regarding Burst, it's really a fascinating question… I'm guessing MacWorld will be very interesting again.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just admit you were wrong
about the validity and/or value of the Burst
patents. Cognitive dissonance.

One other possibility: Burst may now receive some access to Apple patents that they will use in their package down the line. The scratch my back and I'll scratch your's exchange of patents is fairly commonplace among technology companies.

The universe Jobs is plotting course for is unknown to us. PVR technology, while monetizable, goes nowhere further. Home video capture does at least have after market editing and broadcast markets to expand into, and consumers have to have their home video market served by Apple. PVR is just a little extra income now for Apple. They do want to offer an all-in-one box, if possible, but the PVR stuff does not seem critical to me.



The streaming and intelligent pre-caching technologies are where this market is going to grow. How broad Apple's vision on this is is anyone's guess. Maybe Jobs already sees the pieces all falling into focus when iTV's form a distribution network with enough content providers to make the iTV system self-sustaining -- able to weather any protests by the labels or studios. Then Apple can be in the driver's seat of this new world -- more central than Google has ever been in search.

An alliance between Apple and Burst does not seem to make much sense, since any partnership might fall apart in a few years time. Apple is looking long term.

Surely Burst would have looked at similar such scenarios. Their settlement for $10 million would perhaps mean that Apple has shown them a long-term workaround of Burst's patents in the evolving iTV/iTunes universe. Burst decided to settle now, get some compensation, and leave Apple alone to create the new pervasive on-demand multimedia universe; Burst continues its lawsuits uninhibited by the Apple deal.

Why would a company that received 60 Million fom MS take a mere 10M from Apple (after lawyers only 5 Million from Apple on 45 Million shares). That is 1/9 of a dollar. Management is allowing Apple to acquire the shares now due to this bad deal for for 30 so it acquires the shares over the next three days.


The shares are plummeting. Why? Normal volume is 100,000 or so shares traded per day. Today 1.2M shares traded around 20 cents.
Apple will want to acquire 5% or 4.5 Million at .20, which is about 1 million dollars of spending. It can then announce a takeout price for the rest of the company

Why would a company that received 60 Million fom MS take a mere 10M from Apple (after lawyers only 5 Million from Apple on 45 Million shares). That is 1/9 of a dollar. Management is allowing Apple to acquire the shares now due to this bad deal for for .20 to .30 cents per share so it acquires the shares over the next three days.at a million per day


The shares are plummeting. Why? Normal volume is 100,000 or so shares traded per day. Today 1.2M shares traded around 20 cents.
Using that logic Apple will acquire 5% or 4.5 Million at .20, which is about 1 million dollars of spending. It can then announce a takeout price for the rest of the company

wow, i cant believe that you didnt figure this one out robert since its such an "apple takes over the world" type plot. The reason that apple is really interested in those dvr patents likely has to do with a not very well known technology called push video on demand. PVOD is basically where you take a PVR type set top box and dedicate a storage partition exclusively to background buffering of video selections. The idea is that when you are sleeping the box uses spare bandwidth to download things you might like to watch: if you watched "lost" last week then there is a good chance you will want to watch it this week or if your data shows that you fit the statistical profile of liking action movies then the box downloads all the new action movies. combind this with a bittorrent-type p2p swarm sharing protocol and you have all the makings of a seemless VOD system; In fact PVOD is the only VOD technology that stands a *real* chance of working given the unreliability of the internet at high bandwidth transfer levels.

Burst has probably the best patent portfolio position given that their existing patents dating back to 98 detail many of the seperate methods needed to build a PVOD system. Ill bet that the new DVR patents fully solidify that position and apple knows it. The problem for apple is that while they like to make money building hardware they probaby realize that it may not be in their best interest to attempt to become a STB manufacturer given their inexperience and the large number of existing manufacturers that can do the job and make money at the same time. Additionally i would question whether apple could build enough STB's if their service realy took off. The key to apples plan is going to be to liscense the STB IP to various manufacturers and let them build them in this case choosing to make money on royalties and subscription fees. Whether apple buys burst or cross liscenses IP doesnt matter. Both will make money and i suspect Burst will do quite nicely just liscensing the set top boxes.

naturally the whole story is a bit more involved than this but you get the idea. so far the few companies that have attempted PVOD have had moderate response, mainly because of the typical issues of not being able to liscense enough content or not suiting the content to the viewers. In the end apple will succeed simply the way they usually do: taking a poorly executed idea and finally doing it well.

No one's going to get any money out of Tivo (great product, unprofitable company)

But I can see forcing Tivo into liquidation so their assets can be cheaply bought, as happened with Replay.

Of course, given Apple's technical expertise, they could then thumb their nose at Burst by developing a work around any DVR patents granted Burst.

In any event, those of us who already have lifetime Tivo service needn't worry (my lifetime Replay still works just fine)

I think you're looking at the wrong conspiracy theory. You should be thinking about the other very expensive patent license that Microsoft paid for - the multi million dollar UNIX license fee that it paid SCO. Most people (not just conspiracy theorists) agree that MS did this just to bankroll SCO's attempts to go after Linux. Likewise the $60 million they paid Burst was probably to encourage them to go after Apple and other software companies.

As you wrote in a recent article, a predatory company like MS usually devours small companies like SCO and Burst. It does not pay them huge amounts of money for worthless "licenses".

I don't know the details of the Apple/Burst case, but judging by the outcome ($10 mln settlement and $4.6 mln layers fees), I suspect that Apple could have acheived a lower settlement or maybe even an outright victory but that would have them a lot more in lawyers fees and a lot more of their time.

Nice read from investorsvillage.com BRST's board

My reason the DVR stuff is called out.
I'm a shade tree inventor. Not a lawyer. But here's my opinion about the DVR stuff.

It is very curious that they call it out. Why not just simply say that all patents outstanding and pending are licensed and leave it at that?

."...Apple agreed to pay Burst a one-time payment of $10 million cash in exchange for a non-exclusive license to Burst’s patent portfolio, not including one issued U.S. patent and 3 pending U.S. patent applications related to new DVR technology. Burst agreed not to sue Apple for any future infringement of the DVR patent and any patents that might issue from the pending DVR-related applications..."

The license excludes DVR stuff - 1 patent and 3 apps pending..

Burst cannot sue Apple for use of the DVR stuff. Nor can they sue for any future stuff coming out of the DVR stuff.

So Apple is free to use the DVR stuff and any future stuff. As if it had a license. But its is actually ...more... than a license because it extends into the.... future.

I think that is the reason that the reason the DVR stuff is called out. You can't credibly grant a license to intellectual property that has yet to appear. But you can enter into a binding contract not to sue a party for its future use.

So as far as the DVR stuff goes Burst has granted to Apple even... more... than a license for existing or pending IP. When you license you give up claims for just what can be identified -- the patents granted or pending. But they have given up even more than that.

They have given up any future claims against Apple over all now and future DVR stuff. As far as the DVR stuff goes they have given up more than just a license for what exists now.

Why would they do that. I mean, lets assume Apple was about to win on the four patents the law suit was about. Fine, then settle by licensing those patents for a pittance.

But why kiss off the DVR stuff too?

What would force Burst to do that?

Remember there was a lot stuff redacted from all the legal papers along the way....

Maybe some of the lawyers quit and forced Burst to go to Apple. Burst would have been over a barrel. Apple seeing that the DVR things were a real plum wanted not only a license to cover everything else, but future proofing for the DVR stuff.

Or maybe Apple wants protection from things Burst has told them are about to happen -- like new patent applications, like an acquirer of Burst.

Maybe this terrible deal had to be done to clear the decks because the acquirer demanded it. They saw the way this this was going, they wanted to avoid invalidation of some of the patent portfolio they are about to buy getting into the record , so they said -- do what it takes to get Apple out of the picture completely. Apple getting wind of what was up took everything they could get. All the existing patents and in effect (no suing) important future one too.

?

All I want to know is: "should I sell my Burst stock or not?"

While the DVR patents are intriguing to think about, I find it hard to think that it will find itself into the Apple business model. There are too many other issues of content ownership to deal with and DVR tech can be hopscotched faster than legal rulings. Maybe Apple can now make the ultimate AppleTV/DVR component, but that still seems unlikely. I think on-demand content will be easier and more elegant in the long run and not waste people's storage.

I think there are other devices in the works at Cupertino. I think the Amazon Kindle will be blown away, by a "print media" device from Apple that brings the "ibook" nomenclature back to the company. I think whatever ultranotebook is under R&D will find a form and functionality that could use future Burst patents. I think the DVR patent stuff is merely cleaning up issues to prevent future lawsuits in the growing grey area of media manipulation and transportation.

"Why would Burst.com let Apple off the hook for only $10 million?"

Uhh, because there was never any case there to begin with, as I stated repeatedly in comments to this blog?
The only question is why Apple bothered paying even $10 million, which I imagine boils down to a calculation by Apple that this was cheaper than the legal fees and hassle generated by the bad publicity of know-nothing blogs.

This has been another episode of
"Trivial Answers to Easy Questions".

Here's another interesting post from the investorsvillage.com board

Time Shift TV = the DVR patent(s)
The patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22burst.com%22.ASNM.&OS=AN

Applications pending.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch
-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=burst.com&FIELD1=AS&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01

The history.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/1999/11/22/17/0000950005-99-001037/Section14.asp
“..On August 3, 1999, the Company acquired Timeshift-TV, Inc. for 200,000
shares of common stock in a stock only transaction from Richard Lang,
the Company's Chairman and CEO, Earl Mincer and Eric Walters, who are
employees of the Company. Mr. Walters is Mr. Lang's brother in law. Mr.
Lang and the other parties were not employed by the Company at the time
they formed Timeshift-TV. The Company's board of directors unanimously
approved the acquisition of Timeshift-TV. Timeshift-TV assets consist
of intellectual property in the area of time-shifted real-time
broadcasting, which we plan to integrate into our advanced video and
audio delivery solutions. We also plan to license the Timeshift-TV
intellectual property to other parties for various applications. The
Company booked $1,330,000 of expense for the purchased research and
development costs in connection with this aquisition….”

http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.63fw.c.htm
INSTANT VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IVDO) ACQUIRES TIMESHIFT-TV INC.
TIMESHIFT-TV TECHNOLOGY COMPLEMENTS BURSTWARE(R)
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST 3, 1999: Instant Video Technologies (OTC:
IVDO) www.burst.com, today announced that it has acquired Delaware-based
Timeshift-TV, Inc., developer of digital video technology that allows users to
personalize their TV viewing experience by adding VCR functionality to live
broadcasts.
This marks the first acquisition by Instant Video Technologies, enabling the
company to add time-shifted, real-time broadcasting capabilities to its
intellectual property assets. IVT currently holds patents relating to
Faster-Than-Real-Time(TM) delivery of video and audio over networks--the
technology underlying IVT's Burstware(R) software. It is IVT's intention to
incorporate aspects of Timeshift-TV's intellectual property into upcoming
releases of Burstware(R).
"Timeshift-TV's technology puts control over broadcast television scheduling in
the hands of the viewer," said IVT Chairman and CEO, Richard Lang. "The
technology dovetails well with IVT's Faster-Than-Real-Time video and audio burst
technology by giving users full, VCR-like control in conjunction with IP network
video delivery. We believe the combination of time-shift functionality and
Burstware(R) software will also have particular relevance in set-top box

implementations". According to Lang, Timeshift-TV's technology, which uses only
digital recording media instead of tapes, provides "always-on" cyclical
buffering that lets users choose a program already in progress and watch it from
the beginning, while the show continues to be recorded. Viewers can pause and
skip forward or backwards within a broadcast. Timeshift-TV can record several
adjacent channels simultaneously or record a group of channels specially
selected by the user.

According to Lang, the technology underlying Timeshift-TV's intellectual
property originated several years before the emergence of other digital TV
technologies available today. "IVT intends to leverage important features that
distinguish Timeshift-TV's technology from other digital VCR technologies to tap
into new markets and applications," said Lang.

Timeshift-TV, Inc. was acquired in a stock-only transaction from Richard Lang,
current Chairman and CEO of IVT, as well as other persons affiliated with IVT.
Lang and the other parties were not employed by IVT at the time they formed
Timeshift-TV. IVT's board of directors unanimously approved IVT's acquisition of
Timeshift-TV. Timeshift-TV holds assets, including intellectual property, in the
area of time-shifted real-time broadcasting, which IVT plans to integrate into
its advanced video and audio delivery solutions. IVT also plans to license the
Timeshift-TV intellectual property to other parties for various applications.

http://ultimateavmag.com/news/10494/
More Good News for Time-Shifting TV Viewers
By SGHT Staff
August 8, 1999 — Early last week, Instant Video Technologies announced that it has acquired Delaware-based Timeshift-TV, a developer of digital-video technology that allows users to "personalize their TV viewing experience by adding VCR functionality to live broadcasts." Similar in concept to recent products released by TiVo and RePlay, these digital recording devices are aimed at giving consumers more control over when and how they watch their favorite TV shows.

This marks the first acquisition by San Francisco-based Instant Video Technologies, which the company says will enable it to add time-shifted, real-time broadcasting capabilities to its intellectual-property assets. IVT currently holds patents relating to "faster-than-real-time" delivery of video and audio over networks—a technology that underlies IVT's Burstware software. IVT says its intention is to incorporate aspects of Timeshift-TV's technology into upcoming releases of Burstware.

IVT's chairman and CEO, Richard Lang, states that "Timeshift-TV's technology puts control over broadcast television scheduling in the hands of the viewer. The technology dovetails well with IVT's faster-than-real-time video and audio burst technology by giving users full, VCR-like control in conjunction with IP network video delivery. We believe the combination of time-shift functionality and Burstware software will also have particular relevance in set-top box implementations."

According to Lang, Timeshift-TV's technology provides "always-on" cyclical buffering that lets users choose a program already in progress and watch it from the beginning, while the show continues to be recorded. Viewers can pause and skip forward or back within a broadcast. The company also claims that Timeshift-TV can record several channels simultaneously.

Lang also states that the technology underlying Timeshift-TV originated several years before the emergence of other digital-TV technologies available today. "IVT intends to leverage important features that distinguish Timeshift-TV's technology from other digital VCR technologies to tap into new markets and applications," says Lang.

Copyright infringement.

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Home/
“…Watch and record TV on a PC Watch, record and TimeShift TV on your PC or stream PC media to a TV…”

http://www.latens.com/files/resources/MMP_Case_Study_2007.pdf
“Protects VOD and Timeshift-TV, Network PVR services as well as linear (live) TV…”

http://www.pvrworld.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=129.new
“Timeshift TV-Pause Live TV”

What does this all mean.

?

Apple buy Burst?

Why should they? What does Burst have that Apple needs. More likely that Apple will buy Dell, plow Dell's headquarters and factor into the ground, and then salt the earth. At least, Steve Jobs gets some satisfaction out of that.

But Burst? All they have is a few patents that Apple has already licensed. Look at Burst's stock price. Even the investors know the company is worthless. Why would Apple want them?

Nor, do I think that an Apple DVR is in the works. No one except the cable companies and Scientific Atlanta has made a dime because no one wants to buy a DVR for $300 to $1000 when you can rent one from your local cable cabal for only $4.95 per month. Adding cable card and DVR capabilities to an Apple TV won't increase its sales, and it will simply remove it further from the iPod/iTunes universe where Apple makes real money.

What if Apple is sending NBC and other networks a warning shot? Either start selling shows on iTunes or Apple comes out with a DVR AppleTV and lets everyone get your shows for free and stripped of commercials. Denying them sales revenue from shows and reducing their advertising value.

How about a loaded gun pointed at Microsoft? Now there is precidence that Apple is paying for the patents. Give company A a break so that your teath are nice and sharp for company B? And maybe this positions them better agains Microsoft or Google. Maybe Burst will become Apple's dog the way Microsoft used SCO?

How about a loaded gun pointed at Microsoft? Now there is precidence that Apple is paying for the patents. Give company A a break so that your teath are nice and sharp for company B? And maybe this positions them better agains Microsoft or Google. Maybe Burst will become Apple's dog the way Microsoft used SCO?

How about a loaded gun pointed at Microsoft? Now there is precidence that Apple is paying for the patents. Give company A a break so that your teath are nice and sharp for company B? And maybe this positions them better agains Microsoft or Google. Maybe Burst will become Apple's dog the way Microsoft used SCO?

There shouldn't be any problem licensing a process that is not yet covered by patent, or even one that will never be covered. It is the right to use the process that is licensed, a patent just means that the licensee cannot legally use the process without a license. You and I could enter into a license whereby I allow you to write a column in exchange for some exorbitant fee, but you probably have no reason to enter into that agreement. But if we did, failure on your part to comply would be covered by the terms of the license (contract), even if you would have been free to write without signing my contract. In fact, trade secrets are often licensed despite the fact that they have little or no legal protection.

Van

Patent infringement litigation is not a one way street. My guess is Apple found prior art that would seriously weaken Burst's claims. Rather than spoil their party against smaller, weaker targets, Burst's attorneys settled for $10 million and sealed the files. Apple probably now has full license to all of their IP (just like Microsoft) and this nuisance is over and done.

It could be that Apple decided not to take Burst down and getting a free ride from them, so that Burst is still free to go out and sue others heading in the DVR direction. While this won't stop the big players (MS, Google, etc.), it will act as a gate keeper on smaller start ups, if they can't/won't pony up the Burst fee to deploy new DVR type tech. Helps keep the playing field full of known players which is easier to chart a course around.

The peculiar status of the DVR non-license may simply be the end result of complex negotiations. Burst probably wanted to exclude the DVR patents from the settlement, while Apple did not. This sounds like a sort of splitting down the middle.

The interesting outcome of this DVR part of the settlement is that Apple will get a better price for Tivo, if they ever choose to try and acquire them. Apple would be the only suitor who could eliminate the cost of any Burst-Tivo license.

Apple TV is lame because it doesn't do Tivo-like function. Could it be that there will be a new Apple TV which competes with Tivo, and which needs Burst technology and a license (with royalties). And it wouldn't hurt Apple if Tivo got sued at the same time while Apple doesn't get sued.

It wouldn't be surprising if Apple and Burst have a pending deal that's contingent on Burst's pending patents. If those patents are approved, Burst and Apple would have a separate deal, which could be worth more in the long run than a costly drawn out legal battle over the existing patents. Plus that was looking like less of a slam dunk as time went on.

If those patents aren't approved, then no deal. The carrot of the potential deal contingent on the patent approval could have just been too attractive to pass up.

Maybe it involves a stock swap--just look at Apple's stock performance and the predictions of what it's going to do in the near future. Perhaps that's how Apple would buy out Burst. Burst's principles and shareholders could get several times the company's value in Apple stock, which has been seeing the best growth in the industry.

Please, why doesn't someone just get to the point!?

Apple will add HD DVR functionality to the Apple TV, another device or to an Application.

Apple will be the first licensee of Burst's DVR patents which will help Burst ENFORCE their patents against the likes of Tivo and allow them to seek lofty settlements from these violators.

Apple learned from their EXORBITANT settlement with Creative over the iPod interface. Creative was expected to aggressively enforce their patent against other violators at the same time making it prohibitively expensive to enter/ compete in the gadget market with an iPod-like interface.

(If you look at Creative's Financials/ Earnings, they haven't done much to enforce their interface patent - which may irk Apple.)

Tivo's entire business is built around DVR, HD DVR functionality is just an obvious multimedia capability for Apple.

My only question is who (Burst or Apple) wanted it to be prematurely known that the DVR patents were in play?

Either way, the DVR disclosure was just an overzealous lawyer's proclamation.

Could be one of Apple's patents is essential for Burst's prosecution of its portfolio. Apple has been in the multimedia game for almost twenty years now, they could very welll have some fundamentals.

Intriguing is the suggestion above that this, perhaps combined, portfolio, could be used to prevent iTunes secessionists from doing shows on their own sites. Apple wins, everybody else loses.

I'd bet Apple has prior art and a few patents of its own that were taken into consideration.

In way, if Burst scored a major victory and made mortal enemies of Apple it probably would have ultimately lead to the end of Burst ( even if they did take a load of cash to their grave ).

EchoStar is going to buyout Burst.com and sue TiVo :D

so the dust has settled and it seems nothing will rise from the ashes