AT&T Bans Video Streaming, Tethering, Fun From Its Mobile Data Network

from the no-soup-for-you dept

AT&T has modified the terms of service for its mobile data network, banning "downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and... any applications that tether the device... to Personal Computers or other equipment." So in addition to banning illegal movie downloads, AT&T's banned things like SlingPlayer that consumers can use to legally view content, services like Qik that let them show live video on the web from their phones. Why would it do such a thing? Well, either it's looking to protect its commercial interests by banning services for which it hopes to charge its customers, or its network isn't up to snuff and can't support all the things its customers would like to do with it. This sort of stuff, sadly, is par for the course for the mobile industry, home of the "unlimited" plan that's actually got lots of limits. In the end, the only ones who end up getting hurt by these things are the operators themselves. By seeking to limit what their customers can do with their phones, they're limiting how valuable they are to their users -- which means at some point, they won't be willing to pay as much for them.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RealNetworks Sues Burst, Seeking Judgment Saying It Doesn't Infringe

from the pre-empting-a-marshall-texas-lawsuit dept

We've covered the history of Burst.com and its questionable patents before. While the company was recently able to squeeze $10 million out of Apple, following the $60 million it got from Microsoft, speculation had begun on who the next target would be. In fact, apparently a Burst investor had started posting videos to YouTube trying to show how a variety of companies all infringed on Burst's patents. Of course, if we had a sane patent system, most people would look at this to suggest that the concepts in Burst's patents were fairly obvious and never should have received patent protection in the first place -- but that's not how things work these days. Among the companies listed in the videos were Google, AOL, Adobe and RealNetworks. Apparently, that was enough to worry RealNetworks, who has filed for a declaratory judgment in Northern California claiming that it does not infringe on Burst's patents. This was, by the way, the same strategy that Apple took (suing first) almost exactly two years ago. With so much fear of cases getting forced into Marshall, Texas, it's no surprise that those threatened would try to file for declaratory judgments on friendlier grounds. It will be interesting to see if Google, AOL or Adobe follow suit.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Tries To Point Out How Little Burst's Patents Matter

from the interesting-strategies dept

You may recall the story of Burst.com, a startup that had come up with some video streaming technology that they later claimed Microsoft copied. While many people still feel that Burst's patents are of questionable validity, there did appear to be evidence of questionable activity by Microsoft, so it was hardly surprising that Microsoft eventually settled the case for $60 million. That payoff then turned Burst onto the wonders of suing for patent infringement, and they started approaching plenty of other companies who were doing things with multimedia content. After threatening Apple, Apple went on the offensive and sued to have Burst's patents invalidated (or to, at least have a court say that Apple wasn't infringing). In response, Burst quickly sued Apple right back for patent infringement.

Apple is now asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit (via MacWorld), though the strategy they're using seems a bit odd. They're focused on Burst's claims that its patents are central to the success of the iPod -- an idea that Apple practically guffaws at in the lawyer's statements: "It's not some epiphanous, oh my God, when you put all these things together you have an iPod." What's odd is that courts usually don't care how important the patented technology is to the final product (which is one of the things the new patent reform law tries to change). Apple then goes on to suggest that there's plenty of prior art in the space and to suggest that the concept behind streaming video is an obvious progression, which makes more sense, given the Supreme Court's recent Teleflex decision, lowering the bar for determining what's obvious. The key point, though, is whether or not Apple would have been able to offer similar video products in the absence of Burst's patents. It seems fairly difficult to believe that no one would have figured out a way to do such a thing without Burst's patents.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..