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 4963995 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
Orignal From: How "obvious" Were The Burst.Com Patents?
Post a Comment