Microsoft is being sued by Burst.com over its use of instant-on streaming technology which Burst patented. This technology appears to be in Windows Media Player 9 and the latest versions of RealPlayer and QuickTime.
From the article Stupid Microsoft Tricks by Robert X. Cringely
. . . Burst claims that Microsoft negotiated in bad faith for over a year, then stole Burst's patented technology for increasing the efficiency of video and audio streaming. "Bursting" is protected by a total of 37 U.S. and foreign patents. A jury will decide later this year whether or not Microsoft is infringing Burst's patents and whether Redmond actively stole Burst's technology despite having a nondisclosure agreement in place. This all has yet to be proved.
What doesn't have to be proved is what was stipulated in this week's hearing. The hearing came about because Burst felt Microsoft was not divulging all the documents it was supposed to as part of the discovery phase of the case. Discovery is where each side asks the other for pertinent information and documents important to its case. Among other things, Burst asked for copies of all Microsoft e-mail messages concerning Burst during and shortly after the time when the companies were trying to negotiate a license for Microsoft to use Burst's intellectual property.
Microsoft handed over the e-mail messages on a disk, and when Burst's lawyers had printed all the messages they filled 140 boxes. That's a lot of messages, but not surprising for Microsoft, where the business culture of the company literally happens on e-mail.
When Burst's lawyers put the messages in order by date and time, they claim to have noticed a peculiar phenomenon. There were literally no messages from approximately one week before until about a month after all seven meetings between the two companies. This meant that either Microsoft completely suspended its corporate e-mail culture for an aggregate period of 35 weeks, or there were messages that had been sent and received at Microsoft, but not divulged to Burst.
Presented with this charge in court, Microsoft's attorneys acknowledged that the message gaps existed. . . .
. . . Then one of the Burst lawyers pointed out testimony from a hearing in the Sun v. Microsoft antitrust case where Microsoft representatives said all e-mails were backed-up on more than 100,000 tapes that are held off-site. Surely the lawyers representing Microsoft weren't aware of this because if they had been, they wouldn't have said there was no back-up.
So the judge ordered Microsoft to produce the missing messages. The employee PCs, the servers, and the off-site backup tapes have to be searched and soon. The Microsoft lawyers complained that would be like finding a needle in a haystack. The judge reminded them that it was they who had put that needle in the hay.
The full article is HERE.
From the article Stupid Microsoft Tricks by Robert X. Cringely
. . . Burst claims that Microsoft negotiated in bad faith for over a year, then stole Burst's patented technology for increasing the efficiency of video and audio streaming. "Bursting" is protected by a total of 37 U.S. and foreign patents. A jury will decide later this year whether or not Microsoft is infringing Burst's patents and whether Redmond actively stole Burst's technology despite having a nondisclosure agreement in place. This all has yet to be proved.
What doesn't have to be proved is what was stipulated in this week's hearing. The hearing came about because Burst felt Microsoft was not divulging all the documents it was supposed to as part of the discovery phase of the case. Discovery is where each side asks the other for pertinent information and documents important to its case. Among other things, Burst asked for copies of all Microsoft e-mail messages concerning Burst during and shortly after the time when the companies were trying to negotiate a license for Microsoft to use Burst's intellectual property.
Microsoft handed over the e-mail messages on a disk, and when Burst's lawyers had printed all the messages they filled 140 boxes. That's a lot of messages, but not surprising for Microsoft, where the business culture of the company literally happens on e-mail.
When Burst's lawyers put the messages in order by date and time, they claim to have noticed a peculiar phenomenon. There were literally no messages from approximately one week before until about a month after all seven meetings between the two companies. This meant that either Microsoft completely suspended its corporate e-mail culture for an aggregate period of 35 weeks, or there were messages that had been sent and received at Microsoft, but not divulged to Burst.
Presented with this charge in court, Microsoft's attorneys acknowledged that the message gaps existed. . . .
. . . Then one of the Burst lawyers pointed out testimony from a hearing in the Sun v. Microsoft antitrust case where Microsoft representatives said all e-mails were backed-up on more than 100,000 tapes that are held off-site. Surely the lawyers representing Microsoft weren't aware of this because if they had been, they wouldn't have said there was no back-up.
So the judge ordered Microsoft to produce the missing messages. The employee PCs, the servers, and the off-site backup tapes have to be searched and soon. The Microsoft lawyers complained that would be like finding a needle in a haystack. The judge reminded them that it was they who had put that needle in the hay.
The full article is HERE.
