MS fined 1520 MILLION bucks!

[Rainbow Man]

It's another of those darned patent lawsuits of course.

Does anyopne have any information what this really is about? If you have a license then you have a license don't you?

So what's up with this silly lawsuit? And what the hell's up with the crazy amount of omney awarded?

Peace.

 

[Arwin]

Kind of interesting, because most Linux distributions steer clear of including MPEG codecs I think for this reason, and I was wondering just a few weeks ago if this meant Microsoft is actually paying.

 

[Capeta]

That's the wrong youtube video.

 

[Rainbow Man]

That's the wrong youtube video.

Meh, it wasn't supposed to be a youtube video at all... Fixing link. Thanks for letting me know.

Peace.

 

[Colourless]

Microsoft License the MP3 decoder from Fraunhofer but someone else says they own patents covering the technology... it's really screwed up. One would hope that MS can win on appeal otherwise MP3 is in a really really bad state.

 

[Skrying]

Microsoft License the MP3 decoder from Fraunhofer but someone else says they own patents covering the technology... it's really screwed up. One would hope that MS can win on appeal otherwise MP3 is in a really really bad state.

MP3, the patent system, etc, etc. I am getting really tired of seeing *Big name company* sued by *random IP company* for patent infringement for some insane amount of money. Sure, there's the very rare case where it is legit, but that's very rare and these cases certainly are not that.

 

[candle_86]

MP3, the patent system, etc, etc. I am getting really tired of seeing *Big name company* sued by *random IP company* for patent infringement for some insane amount of money. Sure, there's the very rare case where it is legit, but that's very rare and these cases certainly are not that.

agreed, but what are we to do honestly, well I dont listen to music in MP3 format anyway, i prefer OGG.

 

[rusty]

What I don't understand is why this is MS's fault - they paid "Company A" for the license, but "Company B" claims that "A" never had the right to sell the license in the first place.... surely Company A is the one that should be getting sued?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

First rule of law: sue the person with money.
Last rule of law: see first rule.

 

[pcchen]

Actually the whole MP3 issues are quite fishy. At first, everyone think paying MPEG LA is good enough (and for MP3 the Fraunhofer IIS. Then, someone hired a company called Sisvel who claimed to have some patents about MP3, and made headline when they seized Sandisk's MP3 player at IFA show. It also affected many products including DVB-T receivers because DVB uses MPEG audio (not MP3, but Sisvel claims on layer 1 and layer 2 as well). Now Alcatel-Lucent, not exactly a small company, also claimed to have patents on MP3...

 

[V3]

What I don't understand is why this is MS's fault - they paid "Company A" for the license, but "Company B" claims that "A" never had the right to sell the license in the first place.... surely Company A is the one that should be getting sued?

Reading that Ars article it seems that Company B acquired Company A. Beside I wasn't aware a license for these patents are a one off thing, I thought its normally an ongoing fee.

One off $16 mil for MP3 license that's quite a bargain

So I guess Apple ipod is next.

 

[Frank]

This way of making money beats just about any other one. That's all the motive needed.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

To be fair, most companies are legally obliged to protect their patents and the interests of their shareholders. Board members can lose their jobs, be fined or worse. Some are quite litigious, including Microsoft, using the IP laws to further their own aims and fill their bank accounts. It's difficult to have sympathy for one big company that regularly sues others getting a taste of their own medicine from another big company.

 

[pcchen]

The problem, however, is about standardization. The whole point of MPEG LA is that for everyone who want to use MPEG (which is a standard) can avoid patent problems by simply paying MPEG LA. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to use MPEG because there are hundreds of patent holders, and it's very difficult to license the patents from so many holders.

Unfortunately, just like the former JPEG patent case, this procedure is not perfect. MPEG LA can't force every patent holders to join the party. Therefore, if someone who didn't join the MPEG LA, but actually have patents on some MPEG standards, they can lay their claims. That would be a very serious blow to the whole standard.

The JPEG case is a fortunate one because there are known prior art (regardning the JPEG part), so the patent holder's claim on JPEG is not valid. However, not every case has a happy ending like this.

 

[Frank]

Coca Cola never patented it's formula. And if you want real market penetration, an open standard is much peferrable to a patented one. Simply because it costs money to pay for the patents, and we (the consumers) have to pay the bills in the end.

And it's not as if it's that hard to come up with a good standard in the first place. It's only hard (and takes a lot of money) to have the industry choose yours, and cash in on it.

Using an open standard wins hands down for consumers, unless it requires a huge investment up front.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Coca Cola never patented itself?!?!

 

[Frank]

Coca Cola never patented itself?!?!

No. Because that would have required telling everyone exactly what's in it.

 

[Zaphod]

Unfortunately, just like the former JPEG patent case, this procedure is not perfect. MPEG LA can't force every patent holders to join the party. Therefore, if someone who didn't join the MPEG LA, but actually have patents on some MPEG standards, they can lay their claims. That would be a very serious blow to the whole standard.

Not to mention the whole Unisys and LZW patent debackle.

There are additional benefits to the 'licensing authority' setup, though. I believe that by submitting to the LA you accept the decision of a review process to determine whether your patent is 'essential' to the standard or not. Additionally, they state that the terms of the agreements between the licensors and the LA and the LA and the licencees are designed to encourage negotiation and innovation in support of the standard rather than defection and lawsuits. The sated reason for setting up the system in the first place was create a license that would protect companies from being sued for using MPEG-2. Although they make no guarantee for the completeness of their licenses, it would probably be very hard to attack them from 'the outside'.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think a lot of the problem is down to (a) patents that are incorrectly granted due to the limitations of patent office - they just don't have the expertise to deny/understand highly technical patents, and (b) companies that simply take a chance on out-lawyering you in court. They have more money and can ruin opponents.

One solution would be for companies that bring speculative lawsuits to be liable for all costs and compensation if they lose.

For companies that manage to get wide patents, or patents with prior art, they should have to pay costs for when the patent is challenged and denied. That way when big companies make speculative patents, or patents with known prior art, they can be challenged in court as normal, but the challenger will get all costs and compensation for his trouble, and the owner of the dodgy patent is financially punished. Hopefully this will discourage speculative patents in the first place.

 

[Zaphod]

One solution would be for companies that bring speculative lawsuits to be liable for all costs and compensation if they lose.

For companies that manage to get wide patents, or patents with prior art, they should have to pay costs for when the patent is challenged and denied. That way when big companies make speculative patents, or patents with known prior art, they can be challenged in court as normal, but the challenger will get all costs and compensation for his trouble, and the owner of the dodgy patent is financially punished. Hopefully this will discourage speculative patents in the first place.

Trouble is that patents aren't granted to companies. They're applied for by and issued to natural persons who subsequently assigns the rights to them over to the corporate entity (for example as required by an employment contract). It is the original applicant that has to (and i paraphrase) under penalty of perjury (I think i read somewhere that only a single person has ever been prosecuted for lying on a patent application in the US) sign off on the fact that they have included all the prior art they know of and that they have made all reasonable efforts to identify such information. Thus, as far as the company is concerned, a patent, once issued, is presumed valid and enforceable until proven otherwise.

What you're suggesting will require a substantial overhaul to the whole system of how patents are issued (although that might not be such a bad idea at any rate).