So why did Apple settle with Burst?

With all the money that has filled Apple's coffers over the years with the sale of iPods, I hope Apple rewards him handsomely with a nice Royalty check. As Steve Jobs would say, 'it's good Karma'!

It's a long way from idea to market. I'm glad that credit goes where credit is due for seminal ideas. The notion, however, that just thinking something up makes it yours, is patently (pun intended) absurd.

Apple spent the $$$$$ to do R&D, negotiate rights to distribute content, built a content delivery system, built a global manufacturing and distribution channel, built an entire ecosystem of complementary products, did the advertising, marketing, technical support, warranty repair/replacement, defended itself against lawsuits, and, by the way, did all of these things and managed to add value to the company's owners, AAPL shareholders.

Mr. Kramer did ... a nice sketch, got patents in 120 countries, then was unable to renew his patents because he could not come up with the $$$$ (okay, ££££) necessary to protect his ideas. This implies (though Mr. Kramer knows the details of his efforts) that Mr. Kramer was unable to get ENOUGH people to buy into his idea JUST TO RENEW THE PATENTS, let alone try to make, market, sell, and support the product.

being an inventor - with no big corporation or their lawyers behind you - is a very lonely road. He could easily have died in the 30 years between his invention and the royalties he is now getting. And if it were not for Burst, it's likely Apple would not have given him the time of day let alone negotiated with him to pay royalties. It was only the need to have him testify for them in the lawsuit, which provided him with the leverage to get what he deserves.

Thank you iPodNN for not posting the same sensational headline as many other news outlets: "Apple Admits They Did Not Invent the iPod", which is so obviously incorrect on so many levels! Yes, this man was the originator of this type of portable media player device and absolutely deserves to be credited for his work (though the reasons for this timing by Apple are not actually at all altruistic). No, this man did not invent the iPod, which has been an amazing feat of engineering, user interface design, and marketing. So again, thanks, iPodNN for the accurate headline.

Apple wasn't the first player of that sort, what about the Rio or Nomad? Did they acknowledge his idea as well?

Patents should only be granted if the party intends to build a product and it should not be given one until at least a working prototype is built. Putting a drawing on a piece of paper seems to be quite a tiny piece of evidence if anything. And when was that drawing actually done? I guess he needed retirement money.

I come up with drawings of cool products all the time. No, I don't have the resources or knowhow to bring them to life. Too bad I can't afford to get every one of them patented. I could use some money in 30 years.

I don't know much about England, but I think in this situation you have to give the man a quid. whatever a quid is.

Regardless of the timing, I think it's awesome that Apple is being nice to this guy. Seriously, If I'd invented something and lost the patent only to see a corporation snap it up, I'd want royalties too. Kudos to Apple for giving this guy the credit he deserves.