So if I want to transfer some avi files from my server (family videos, whatever) I'm infringing burst.com's patents?

Prior art, anybody?

my arse, is he.

same old bloody pirate as the company he likes to belittle so much. he just has a trendier picture of himself in his mind and his adverts.

Who are you referring to?

There are no names in the article other than the author's. Not even your own.

Bit of a a wasted post in my view.

..can "the transmission of compressed audio and video files over the net" be given a patent??

I'm going to patent 'A human interface device that makes use of your hand an index finger'

That's right... watch out all of you that are currently reading this page with a mouse in your hand.

It is despicable that US law permits patents which are simply an application of computers to a well-known principle i.e.

Faster than playback time download - high speed compressed text transmission (used during 39-45 war).

Compressed file reader - any mechanised decoder such as paper tape reader (text transmission is much more compressed than voice).

Compressed information download (to reduce bandwidth) - any number of compression schemes dating from Roman times.

The fact that these have now been applied to video is somewhat obvious. I guess the next patent will be the same principle applied to maps, surround sound, 3d viewers, virtual worlds etc etc. The application of a technique can cover quite a wide range of applications. Some innovation!

Would be barely enough to cover Apple's legal costs if the case went to trial. They must have decided to pay off the troll to just go away - the same result as if they'd won the trial but without the added headache.

The US patent system has become just a legalised instrument of racket and blackmail.

If it cost $10M and, as clearly stated, Burst.com are agreeing to pay Apple's legal bills then I'd say someone got stiffed. I suppose it could be Apple agreeing to pay their legal fees and then we all go home happy. Or it didn't cost that much.