Following yesterday's Part I, Salon is publishing the second part of their story about how Burst.com thinks Microsoft purposely crushed them to steal their technology. The more I read about this case, the more it sounds like sour grapes. As a company, Burst should have known they were in the weaker seat, since they made the decision to go with the licensing business model. Their claims about collusion between Real Networks and Microsoft seems to be out of left field (and significantly weakened by the lack of a similar lawsuit against Real). This doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't do some shady dealing with the company, but Burst made the decision to target Microsoft as the customer of choice in the first place.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops
- Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
- Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
- German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community