





Burst.com and Microsoft Settle 226
prostoalex writes "Microsoft and Burst.com announced a tentative settlement, where Microsoft will pay Californian company $60 mln for allegedly stolen multimedia streaming software. Robert X. Cringely provided the recap of the court case back in 2003 (and Slashdot discussion ensued). According to Burst claims, Microsoft entered a non-disclosure agreement with the company to learn about Burst's multimedia streaming technology. Later the technology, for which Burst has 37 patents, has been found in Windows Media Player. When aksed to present the archives of the e-mails and all communications within the company for the trial, Microsoft somehow presented all the documents that preceded before the deal and the documents that followed it. The e-mails during the 35 weeks that negotiations were held mysteriously disappeared. In court Microsoft claimed the e-mails were erased from employee's desktops, e-mail servers and server backups. The technology was not interesting to Microsoft, lawyers insisted, so the electronic trail of communications was erased."
How does one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how Microsoft's IT structure works but I know at where I work we have snapshots of all of our data done every week and held for a month. Then at the month limit we archive our data for another year. Not to mention the nightly incremental backups. Essentially we can go back to any time of a week for a month, then in month increments and recover that snapshot.
I guess what I'm getting at is how exactly does a company lose "uninteresting" data spanning a period of 35 weeks unless it's intentional?
It would be near impossible for someone to cover ones tracks without going through only God knows how many tapes and erasing said data.
Re:How does one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How does one... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How does one... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite simple. The loss of the data wasn't unintentional, rather it was deliberate. Microsoft simply went in front of a judge to see if he would buy the story, when he didn't and a jury trial was emminent, Microsoft wisely settled. Microsoft's, "the dog ate my homework," defense was a long shot, but Microsoft spends a lot of time in the court room, and it can't really afford to roll over every time someone sues.
Re:How does one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
If (and it's a big if) that is correct, then it would seem to follow that the penalites are simply too small to deter a company the size of Microsoft.
Given that, it would seem to make sense to fine companies a percentage of the net w
Re:How does one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Microsoft floated the one gambit that had any chance at all of getting them off the hook with Burst. If they could have gotten a judge to buy into their story then Microsoft had a chance at trial. Once that scheme fell through settling was really the only option.
Still, Microsoft forced Burst and Burst's attorneys to put up an expensive fight. This litigation went on for a long time. By taking the litigation this far Microsoft has shown that it is not a "soft" target. If you aren't well-fina
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
Crime pays that's for sure.
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
Microsoft: we don't have a email record because we weren't interested in the technology.
Judge: but you were interested enough in it to integrate the technology into your own products?
Microsoft: oh, we were interested in using it, just not paying for it.
Unfortunately, they were never punished. They settled the case. Proving once again that you can flaunt any law so long as your pockets are bigger than your foes.
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
Re:How does one... (Score:5, Insightful)
MICROSOFT LIED
Of course, they got caught, and settled out of court for an appropriate bribe (err...settlement)
You'd be surprised how often this works. The cost of further litigation only enriches the lawyers, not the shareholders involved.
PHB1: How much is this gonna cost us?
Accountant1: $XX
PHB2: Let's lie and say we lost the emails. How much will this cost us?
Accountant1: The same as if we bribed them (settled)
PHB2: OK, let's see if this 'dog ate my homework' defense actually works...sometimes it does!
(time elapses)
PHB1: It didn't work. Release the bankers!
Accountant1: OK!
PHB2: We sure have fulfilled our obligations regarding our shareholders!
PHB1: Amen, brother.
Accountant1: Whatever you say!
Re:How does one... (Score:3, Insightful)
PHB1: I did not intentionally participate in any wrongdoing. I had no idea my underlings were conducting shady business. We run a tight ship here.
Accountant1: I'm just a dumb fucking accountant and I'm not accountable to anyone. And there's no conflict of interest in my line of work. I take a shit on GAAP daily.
Re:How does one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
1) If emails are deleted as they are read, then during a weekly or daily backup, the emails will not exist to be backed up.
2) If the email is downloaded to the local machines and off the server, no email on the server to back up. Of course there are "agents" and other kinds of ways to insure
Re:How does one... (Score:2)
Not all of it.
Every email concerning Burst for 35 weeks? I don't buy it.
Re:How does one... (Score:5, Informative)
This story almost worked, but then Burst's lawyers remembered that during the SUN/MSFT trial, Microsoft testified that ALL company email was backed up off site. So the judge ordered Microsoft to search the backups for the missing emails.
Skip ahead half a year, and Microsoft claims in sworn testimony that they can't search the backups, because each company employee can choose which backup server they wish to archive on, and the company doesn't keep a master list of who's emails are on which server.
Burst's lawyers then start subpoening the backup site employees, and get testimony from the woman in charge of email backups. Her name is Candy Stark. Candy's testimony was "Oh yeah, of course we've got a master spreadsheet that matches employees to servers. How else could we search the backups? Here it is right here."
This past Thursday was when the hearing was to take place that would seal the fate of the Microsoft executives who'd given false testimony about said backup list. It was also probably going to result in the judge ordering Microsoft's backup servers seized by the court and searched by a third party. Not surprisingly, Microsoft settled 1/2 hour before that hearing was to start. Surprisingly, and unfortunately for BRST shareholders like me, the amount they paid to settle was a pittance.
If you'd like to really dig into all the dirty detail of this lawsuit, go dig into the posts at Yahoo's BRST message board, or check out burstinvestors.com [burstinvestors.com] which is a site set up by one of the longtime BRST shareholders.
A missing email! (Score:3, Funny)
Strange, I found this one in my box a few years ago...
Shows the fluidity of the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Criminal, Civil (Score:2, Offtopic)
Much like music piracy, this wasn't theft. It's not a legal issue per se, it's a civil issue. Hence why it was a lawsuit and not criminal investigation. Cash settlements don't usually end criminal investigations.
Re:Not Criminal, Civil (Score:2, Interesting)
Worked for Michael Jackson at least once before. If victims refuse to testify or recant, it's pretty hard for even the best prosecutor to get a confiction. And with enough money (or intimidation, or both) victims can be made to do those things.
Re:Not Criminal, Civil (Score:2, Interesting)
MS history and monopoly status should make this more then civil.
Cash settlements don't usually end criminal investigations.
Consider Michael Jackson -- cash can stop criminal investigations from even starting.
Closed settlements are bad for criminal investigations, and we only allow them to discourage long trials. This is almost ideal for large companies: a game few can afford, or sealed settlement.
Re:Not Criminal, Civil (Score:2)
That all depends upon who is paying whom.
Re:Shows the fluidity of the law (Score:3, Insightful)
But I've never personally seen the Machiavellian stuff you're alluding to, and that MS eats for breakfast.
It's interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies that exist for the sole purpose of patenting ideas and sitting on them disgust me.
Re:It's interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should be worrying about Microsofts actions and seeming lack of punishment instead.
Microsoft disgusts me.
Re:It's interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's interesting... (Score:2)
Huh?
Burst didn't to that. Burst didn't do anything close to that. Burst is not Rambus, or SCO, or that company that claimed a patent on GIFs. They were trying to sell their technology to Microsoft, and then Microsoft stole it.
New version of Clippy (Score:5, Funny)
"It looks like you're being sued. Would you like me to delete all correspondence related to the lawsuit?"
Re:New version of Clippy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New version of Clippy (Score:3, Interesting)
I was told it was for the movie industry and it was explained to me they would take out 10K in the morning in cash, buy tons of drugs then needed to put it on the books as various production expenses while putting whatever cash was left over, b
Leaving rotten fruit was a stupid thing to do (Score:2)
Rotting Fish (Score:2)
Re:Leaving rotten fruit was a stupid thing to do (Score:2)
Nah, you can find fish by the smell. A fifty pound bag of oranges only cost four dollars back then and there. And only the flies could find them.
Limburger in light fixtures works well too but who can stand the smell of putting it there?
Proper Usage (Score:4, Informative)
Trivial software patents are bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Double standards, anyone?
Re:Trivial software patents are bad... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trivial software patents are bad... (Score:2)
Re:Trivial software patents are bad... (Score:2)
Re:Trivial software patents are bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is core argument, companies like MS pushing hard for IP legislation ignoring the laws at will. So yes, I'ld like to see them roast for the hypocrisy.
Yet another case MS doesn't take the fault (Score:5, Insightful)
This case had all the indications that MS workers would finally be found guilty of perjury and sent to jail.
And if they were found guilty of perjury, I would really like to see the crooks doing hard time. In fact, I wish some DA picks up the leads (even after the settlement) and investigate what would possibly be the most blatant case of lying to a Court Judge we have notice of.
Then comes money and it's all forgotten. Now they can go on and do the same thing to the next victim they can find.
Someone define Justice for me, please.
Definition of Justice (Score:2)
Easy, it's also known as the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Microsoft has enough money to buy themselves out of the jaws of justice time and time again. The only way that won't happen is if a) someone goes after them where the motive isn't money and they can't be bought (sort of like what IBM is doing to SCO right now); or b) the government starts enforcing illegal monopoly regulations, and illegal business practices, or the like.
Until eithe
Re:Yet another case MS doesn't take the fault (Score:2)
Re:Yet another case MS doesn't take the fault (Score:2)
Well, it just ain't gonna happen.
Something needs to be done, and it's damn sure our fucked up (both teams) government isn't going to do it.
I propose to put my money where my mouth is.
I'll offer $5.00 to anybody who kills a Microsoft employee. $10.00 if they're in management.
Like it or not, I defy anybody to come up with another solution that actually has a chance in hell of working.
Re:Justice debunked (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this lawsuit reform? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this lawsuit reform? (Score:2)
great company (Score:5, Funny)
MS is no stranger (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MS is no stranger (Score:3, Informative)
Destroying evidence that you are supposed to hand over during discovery looks extremely bad to judges and lawyers.
Re:MS is no stranger (Score:2)
Re:MS is no stranger (Score:2)
So... are you saying I got modded +4 Insightful for not reading the article?
Welcome, you must be new here.
Breaking the law for fun and profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite... (Score:2)
Enron would like to disagree with you.
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
And let's not forget that MSFT's decision to start paying a divided came on the heels of renewed investor scrutiny about overvalued stocks, and enough people asking the pretty obvious question "why doesn't a company with 30 billion in the bank pay a dividend?"
Microsoft isn't a growth stock anym
Re:Breaking the law for fun and profit (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the legal system is not broken, the settlement shows that the law worked as it should. Microsoft saw that there was a good chance they would lose the case and face heavy fines and penalties, and thus they chose to offer a settlement. Burst could have declined the offer and allowed the law to work, but they chose to take the money and run. That doesn't mean the law is broken.
In accepting the settlement Burst dropped the claim of copyright infringement. Remember, copyrights are infringed only if it's unauthorized. If Burst accepts the settlement they're authorizing MS to use the code and thus there is no copyright infringement. This time the law worked as it should.
Re:Breaking the law for fun and profit (Score:5, Insightful)
No it didn't. The law pretends that corperations are legal entities when it wants to protect execs from taking responsibility but when a company comes up in court over and over again it doesn't get three-strikes rules or any of that shit you or I would get. Just one more slapped hand. Again. That's not how the law should work.
If Burst accepts the settlement they're authorizing MS to use the code
No, they're accepting that they have to let MS do that or become a company that has no resources other than those needed to fight their case. They look like they would win after a decate or so in court, but maybe they don't want to do that; aybe they're rather get some work done.
TWW
Re:Breaking the law for fun and profit (Score:2)
Uh, actually they are being treated exactly like how you or I would. 3 Strikes laws are part criminal law. What we are discussing with Microsoft and Burst is civil law. There's a big difference between the two types of law and I suggest you look into
Re:Breaking the law for fun and profit (Score:2)
So on one hand you have people getting ridiculously wealthy off punitive damages, sometimes more than the damag
Really, this is nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
Stacker (Score:2)
Re:Really, this is nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out the many, many articles on the DEC lawsuit with Microsoft, and how they settled for making NT always run on Alphas. Ooops, the Alpha hardware secrets got stolen by Microsoft's bed-buddy, Intel? Too bad how that happens when you focus on building new technologies and prefer to sett
Re:Really, this is nothing new (Score:2)
Nixon tapes (Score:2)
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
He was? [gotfuturama.com]
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
Nixon (Score:2)
One's life should not be judged by one mistake.
I really doubt you have led a perfect life either.
Re:Nixon (Score:2)
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
mega-corporations. He opened up a 1-1/2 billion
person commercial market (PRC) to USA's products.
That was, what, thirty years ago? I fully expect
that the PRC will OWN most of the American economy,
lock-stock-and-barrel, within 10 years.
Considering that our high technology, IP, and
jobs are already mostly their's, all they will
need to do is cash in all the balance of trade
IOU's to make the deal complete. I plan on
studying French history, Chinese language (Mandari
Re:Nixon tapes (Score:2)
When one of your asshole relatives die do you go to the funera
Big mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big mistake - not really (Score:2)
MS will eventually disclose what this amount is on their quarterly reports - it should be fairly simple for someone to determine the extra amount being paid out for royalties and licensing. It won't be a billion, but it'll be many, many millions over a short period.
Think of a fair, small sum for every copy of Windows or Media Player that has been shipped, and every one that ever will be.
Re:Big mistake - not really (Score:2)
No, the $60 million IS the licensing revenue. That's all we get (I'm a BRST stockholder). And $20 million of that goes to the law firm that represented Burst. And another $6 million of it goes to Lang as per the terms of his contract. We shareholders got truly screwed by this settlement.
Re:Big mistake - not really (Score:2)
Re:Big mistake - not really (Score:2)
It's quite shabby, considering the strong position Burst held in the trial. They really and truly had the goods on Microsoft and let them off the hook for a sum that's pocket change to Microsoft.
will go to help Burst create new products/technology to sell.
No, there will be no new product development.
from an interview [pressdemocrat.com] with Lang (Burst CEO):
He said instead of hiring more workers to develop more technology, the company will move to enforce its pate
Re:Big mistake - not really (Score:2)
I still don't see how the stock holders were screwed. They're in a better position today than if Microsoft passed on the technology and did not infringe on the patents, and better than waiting several more years in the h
The Corporation (Score:4, Insightful)
Officer's responsibility (Score:2)
This is damning? (Score:2)
The e-mails during the 35 weeks that negotiations were held mysteriously disappeared. In court Microsoft claimed the e-mails were erased from employee's desktops, e-mail servers and server backups. The technology was not interesting to Microsoft, lawyers insisted, so the electronic trail of communications was erased.
If you learn something under NDA and want to make sure you don't break it, one way of doing that is to forget everything you learned.
Companies don't have conscious memory, but they do cont
Mass use of Sift-Delete (Score:2)
Maybe MS ordered everyone involved to destroy all the emails?
Of course if the email was on the server during at least one backup cycle it would be possible to restore it.
mln? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gods damn it, you ADD children with your IM and SMS vocabularies need to stop making up your own abbreviations when talking with regular people. Appropriate abbreviations for "million" are "mil" or "M". Saying "mln" is just ignorant.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Got off cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Got off cheap. (Score:3, Interesting)
The most comprehensive discussion of this case is over on the Yahoo's BRST message board. Two days ago over there we were all picking out the color of our Porches. Now we're hoping we can get out with our shirts on Monday.
The SCO connection (Score:5, Interesting)
And who can forget when Sun bought SCO licenses too [computerworld.com] and then less than a year later, Microsoft and Sun were best friends [pcworld.com] and settled their lawsuits with each other.
Maybe some of this stuff is a coincidence and then again maybe none of it is. I find it hard to believe that all of it is a coincidence though.
deleting vs. keeping emails (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to take M$ defense here, what they did is bad. But for all of those who say "How could they have deleted emails ?", well there are two school of thoughts around these days:
Re:In other news (Score:2)
We have alwasy been at war with Eastasia!
Its time for you to go to room 101.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
This no doubt relates to the apparent belief that
Re:again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another (Score:3, Funny)
Is that like in the old story, The Debil and Daniel Wevster?
Re:Aksed? (Score:2, Funny)
I'd say "aksed" is a product of our edumacation system.
Re:Aksed? (Score:2)
Read the following aloud (don't read the last paragraph before):
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
When you got to "fifth", did you actually say "fif-th", or did you say "fith"? It's almost two syllables, or should be if you stick to how it "should" be pronounced. I'd bet that you didn't enunciate that second 'f' in there; most people don't.
Re:Aksed? (Score:2)
I should preview what I write:
'I'd just like to point out that while "aks" is unfavored as far as pronounciation goes, there's a lot to be said for the fact that it's not any worse than anything we do.'
Re:Aksed? (Score:2)
yes, but then I'm English and can pronounce things properly.
Re:at a past employer... (Score:2)
But, in Microsoft's case, they were able to provide emails from before and after the negotiating period. It was only during the 35 week window that the emails were mysteriously purged.
Re:Evil..yes..but? (Score:2)
Why do you attribute the expansion of personal computing to Microsoft? They aren't responsible for any relevant innovation. They had nothing to do with the developments that made the hardware cheap enough for ordinary people to own computers. They didn't invent the GUI, or even have much to do with improving it. They didn't create the first popular word processor. That was probably Wordstar, and then of course WordPerfect. They didn't have anything to do with the creation of the web, and it was Netscape th