RSS
Twitter
Did Microsoft Try To Kill A Tiny Internet Video Company? - Part II
from the lots-of-whining dept
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.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Tech doesn't seem that novel
The basic idea of Burst.com is that when doing streaming and the available bandwidth is greater than that of the stream start sending more data to increase the size of the data buffered on the client. This seems so basic an idea that I think it is hard for Burst.com to claim nobody else thought of it first or at least independently.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment