Lucent Sues Microsoft over Xbox 360

[Deepak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060405/tc_pcworld/125317

At the center of the dispute is a patent on a technique for implementing video frames, issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to Lucent on July 19, 1993, according to legal papers filed by the company in U.S. District Court in San Diego. Lucent, which is in the process of merging with Alcatel, filed the papers on March 28.


Lucent claims Microsoft is using its patented technology in the Xbox 360's built-in MPEG-2 decoding capability. MPEG-2 is the latest industry standard for encoding video found on DVDs.

The patent in question is No. 5,227,878, described as "Adaptive Coding and Decoding of Frames and Fields of Video." The same patent has previously been the subject of legal dispute between Lucent and Microsoft. In a 2003 suit, the tables were turned, with Microsoft suing Lucent in an effort to obtain a judgment of noninfringement, according to court papers. The company was successful; a judge last year granted summary judgment in Microsoft's favor because of a typographical error in the patent.

 

[booomups]

because of typographical error in the patent ???????????

please?



most likely its one of those junk patents again, but anyway:

is the patent microsoft and xbox specific? or does it involve all mpeg2 using companys/consumerhadware?

 

[NavNucST3]

I read that yesterday, apparently the first suit was thrown out because Lucent had a typo...A TYPO! What kind of costly mistake is that.

Let me be the first to say that patents are beginning to suck. Patent law and copyright law are being abused, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Jabbah]

Lucent is seeking unspecified damages from Microsoft and is requesting a jury trial to resolve the suit.

I always wonder when a jury trial is requested in a dispute. Jury trials for technical issues always seem to be more about whos lawyer is better at convincing the jury.

Interesting that this was originally against the xbox (lost due to typo) and since they fixed their patent its now against the 360. I wonder if this is to do with HD and scalable output, if so will the other consoles be at risk when released?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I read that yesterday, apparently the first suit was thrown out because Lucent had a typo...A TYPO! What kind of costly mistake is that.

Let me be the first to say that patents are beginning to suck.

That's not a problem of Patent law, but Law in general. The old loopholes and technical clauses which get in the way of what's right.

 

[FiggyG]

This is just insane, is there some special way of decoding that only the Xbox does? I hope Microsoft wins this

 

[NavNucST3]

That's not a problem of Patent law, but Law in general. The old loopholes and technical clauses which get in the way of what's right.

Actually, I shouldn't blame Patent law at all, I should blame the patent holders. I'm beginning to think that the majority of patents now introduced are more about hoping someone else stumbles onto "your idea" and winning a lawsuit. I think the day I realized this is when someone can't remember who claimed a patent on hyperlinks.

The only reason Lucent would request a jury trial is to play to Microsofts weakness, the general publics attitude towards them.

I also don't understand how this was brought about on the original xbox, I mean how much of it was MSFTs in the first place, they used every one elses parts, and what code did they write that is different from every other field frame decoder. Guess I should read it before asking...I will do that now.

edit: This is also the first time I have seen a general consensus that Microsoft SHOULD win a lawsuit, lol.

 

[AlNom]

edit: This is also the first time I have seen a general consensus that Microsoft SHOULD win a lawsuit, lol.

The jaded crowd

 

[scooby_dooby]

Actually, I shouldn't blame Patent law at all, I should blame the patent holders. I'm beginning to think that the majority of patents now introduced are more about hoping someone else stumbles onto "your idea" and winning a lawsuit. I think the day I realized this is when someone can't remember who claimed a patent on hyperlinks.

Doesn't it seem like a budget issue too? Triple the man-power, each patent could be given more time, and they might actually begin to clear their backlog.

 

[NavNucST3]

Doesn't it seem like a budget issue too? Triple the man-power, each patent could be given more time, and they might actually begin to clear their backlog.

I guess what pisses me off, is that the truly smart companies NEVER patent their "technology", they don't want it EVER to become public (e.g. Coca Cola). So these patents are just temporary tech markers that companies have that will eventually become public domain (unless patents have gone the way of moronic Copyright law).

Regrettably, I am starting to see some of this type of thinking in the scientific and academic communities as well, now that, is truly a shame.

 

[drpepper]

Actually, I shouldn't blame Patent law at all, I should blame the patent holders. I'm beginning to think that the majority of patents now introduced are more about hoping someone else stumbles onto "your idea" and winning a lawsuit. I think the day I realized this is when someone can't remember who claimed a patent on hyperlinks.

You're only beginning to realize this? Welcome to planet earth.

/yah, last one was a joke, or is it....

 

[StefanS]

You're only beginning to realize this? Welcome to planet earth.

/yah, last one was a joke, or is it....

Yeah, that's why software patents are a really bad idea

 

[NavNucST3]

Umm, I think my realization was before, the dual shock issue.

Before that the only thing I cared about from the Patent office was about some German dude that used to work there , although for some strange reason, he could never grasp the concept of QFT or for that matter anything Quantum related.

 

[jandar]

Lucent Technologies R&D was spun off of the Old Bell Labs.

Those are some smart guys, not just a patent move. They were using this kind of tech to make IP Video Phones almost a decade ago.

 

[standing ovation]

I think the useful life of a patent ought to be in dog years -- to keep pace with technology.

If a patent holder's right to exclusivity is not limited, it won't be long before everybody will have a legitimate stake in somebody else's revenues.

After all, most products and services are an assemblage of old ideas ...

 

[NavNucST3]

Lucent Technologies R&D was spun off of the Old Bell Labs.

Those are some smart guys, not just a patent move. They were using this kind of tech to make IP Video Phones almost a decade ago.

And what kind of tech are you referring to, that only Microsoft is using, and using in such a manner that infringes upon Lucents patent?

 

[skaboss]

Acually I hope MS loses this one, teach them from always stealing someone elses tech instead of making there own...

 

[NavNucST3]

Acually I hope MS loses this one, teach them from always stealing someone elses tech instead of making there own...

Yes because every other companies ideas are not derived from something or someone else... got it.

Last time I checked the larger players in most markets buy their tech instead of inventing it, Adobe bought Macromedia, Apple bought Emagic, Sony bought Sonic Foundry. But yes, only Microsoft has these tactics.

 

[skaboss]

Well I guess thats fine and alot better than stealing it! especially when MS could have just did it themselves from scratch like Sony... Just like MS steal's from Unix.... why create something yourself when you could just "borrow" something better huh?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well I guess thats fine and alot better than stealing it! especially when MS could have just did it themselves from scratch like Sony... Just like MS steal's from Unix.... why create something yourself when you could just "borrow" something better huh?

There's alot of merit there when you're designing software. Why reinvent the wheel? Why do all teh planning, all the thinking, all the prioritizing that's already been done?

It's much easier, and cheaper, to take a succesful product, copy it's features, and add some additional functionality. Sorry but that's the reality of alot of software companies, not just MS.

It would actually be stupid NOT to do this, as you can save a ton of hard work by looking at the products other people have already created, it is also vital in identifiying areas where you can improve. If you start with a clean slate, and never analyze competing products, you risk doing something that's already been done better, and waste all the hard work and effort of your development team.

I can promise you Sony's programmers are not starting from 'scratch' they are looking at, and copying existing systems, maybe adding in some improvements along the way, that's just the way she goes....