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 (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Mark Fox, Oct 30th, 2002 @ 8:35am

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This