Agreed. It's difficult to think of a tech/CE company that's not on the list. If they pursue everyone it'll take years. My guess is that the next big target will be Apple
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Alcatel-Lucent Awarded $1.5 Billion from Microsoft over MP3 Patents
- Thread starter Teh Don Ditty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They won't run another lawsuit until the M$ case is done and dusted and sets the precident - that could be 5 years from now!
I see every tech company in the world dropping mp3 like a stone right now...$1.5 billion in licensing - that's a long way from $16 million!!
Of course this could go the way of the 'compuserve' gif....
I see every tech company in the world dropping mp3 like a stone right now...$1.5 billion in licensing - that's a long way from $16 million!!
Of course this could go the way of the 'compuserve' gif....
As much as I hate Microsoft, I must say this is a bad thing because it can have implications in the rest of the industry. They only went after MS because its MS, and I think everyone who licensed the MP3 technology from Thompson is gonna be very angry about now. I want MS to win with counter-sueing them. For once, I think MS is actually doing the world some good.
Having said that, if MS does fail in counter-sueing, I think the industry would rather drop MP3 and use a different codec than bay $1.5 billion. I would go for AAC. Its much cheaper, already standardized, fairly common (thanks to the iTunes Music Store) and has a better sound quality.
Having said that, if MS does fail in counter-sueing, I think the industry would rather drop MP3 and use a different codec than bay $1.5 billion. I would go for AAC. Its much cheaper, already standardized, fairly common (thanks to the iTunes Music Store) and has a better sound quality.
Well, the amount of licensing-fees would propably be tied to the sales of the company. So not everyone would be paying 1.5 billion.
That said, maybe this will push more companies in to adopting Ogg Vorbis. Totally, 100% free codec with no licensing-fees.
bad news for microsoft......i bet ballmer's raging mad...haha
As long as he is doing another mankey dance screaming
This is a big, big lawsuit. I agree with others that this will hurt Microsoft and especially their shae prices. This could only be the beginning with a wave of filings coming in to sue all different sorts of companies that are eager to get huge sums of money from big companies.Bad news
Ogg Vorbis - mmmh, maybe but I doubt it...I think the DRM thing will be the clincher and locking that under DRM will be very difficult. Of course that 'fairplay' DRM system that Steve's on the verge of 'binning' will probably just about do nicely when the world adopts AAC as the only tried and tested industry standard with a safe established licensing direction and a DRM option in the open...
It could even cover the cost of these ingenius backdated licensing fees!...
Anyway, when all is said and done it's just a bit of money - nothing too serious.
Let's face is in 2012 when the 'money' is due Apple will probably have bought EMI records made 'The Beatles' exclusive on itunes FOREVER, have 40% world market computer share and be one the verge of buying Sony!!It'll be chump change by then
It could even cover the cost of these ingenius backdated licensing fees!...
Anyway, when all is said and done it's just a bit of money - nothing too serious.
Let's face is in 2012 when the 'money' is due Apple will probably have bought EMI records made 'The Beatles' exclusive on itunes FOREVER, have 40% world market computer share and be one the verge of buying Sony!!It'll be chump change by then
You are taking an arguably valid point of view (software patents are good) and misapplying it in this case.
MS and hundreds of other companies acted in good faith, obtaining licenses from an organization that was recognized throughout the industry as the valid licensor. The issues between Lucent and Fraunhofer et al should have been raised and resolved years ago. By any moral standard, the dispute should be between Lucent and Fraunhofer, not the licensees. Lucent's decision to go after good-faith licensees directly can only be viewed as a money-grubbing legal tactic and, as far as your core point is concerned, actually works against the principle that valid owners of intellectual property rights should be able to exploit their innovations financially. This decision, if upheld, will have a chilling effect on future technology licensing, and hence innovation, as it means licensees will need to be extra-cautious (meaning a lot more money to the lawyers) in licensing technologies, even from seemingly valid rights-holders.
Thanks for that quote Evangelion! I completely agree. The current state of patenting software and UI concepts is ridiculous. The only benefit is for the first big player to come to (usually a very obvious) solution to a problem ends up with the keys to the kingdom.
Yeah. That's pretty much what I'm seeing from various sources and the idea of software being more similar to literature (and copyrights applying thereto) than to patent-able objects/innovations makes basic sense to me.
My buddy threw out the "stifle innovation" argument in our discussion hereand I saw someone use the $ for hard work justification above and just wanted someone to expound on that sside of the argument. I guess I agree with you tentatively but intuitively and was hoping for someone to vehemently argue the other side... anyone?
HA! Orange drink in my MRE!!! Today is a good day.
Oh man. That brings back memories of when I was in the Marines. It was the little things that totally made my day.
this sucks because now Microsoft will buy Lucent. (and shut it down)
...and then use this court precedent to milk every other "invalid" licensee in the world, since they bought the rights along with Lucent.
at least that's what they'd do if they wanted to make their money back...
...and then use this court precedent to milk every other "invalid" licensee in the world, since they bought the rights along with Lucent.
at least that's what they'd do if they wanted to make their money back...
Good point. I hadn't considered it that way but as with all good points, now that you've pointed it out it makes perfect sense.
And nice (innovative) take on the possible chilling effect that will most likely result from this crap. Now I will steal - err, incorporate - said take in my next discussion with my idiot sgt. who likes to argue just about every philosophical/legal/political point with me...
you'd be surprised how boring waiting around to get shot at can really be.
Money-grubbing corporations. Is this not a redundancy?
The really disturbing part of this decision (if I understand it correctly) is that the claim was not for the MP3 format so much as the underlying compression technologies that make all digitally-compressed audio possible. If this the case, then conceivably no format, including M4P/AAC is safe, as it was also developed by, and licensed from, Fraunhofer. If this is the case, and the decision on the patent stands, then no question, Apple is next in line to get slammed, if only because Apple has made more money on digital music than anybody else.
I find myself in the unusual and uncomfortable position of rooting for Microsoft. They must get this decision overturned.
Hopefully m4a format is different from MP3? If so, all my music is m4a not MP3 so maybe that's one iPod less for Apple to worry about
Seriously though, what about all the money paid to Fraunhofer/Thomson over the years? I hope if this case has merit then at least that money should be garnished before going after MS & Apple etc.
p.s.They sold that many Zunes?
Yes about 120 zunes sold, (mainly to Microsoft Management).
I do not think they will be looking at use, they will be looking at what the device, computer, software is capable to do and if that capability infringe on their pattent.
I think many of the companies in the "death list" have known about the filling against Microsoft for a while (probably at least 2 years). It baffles me that either they have not settle or taken both parties to court. You would think that 100+ businesses would be able to muster enough money to get this iron out in court.
Anyone knows whose name appears on those patents? We have 2 parties stating that they own the patent, sounds like it is not enforsable until a determination of patent ownership can be made.
Can they go after the patent office? Seems they been screwing up a lot lately?
If 100+ companies go after those two (suposed patent owners), this would be resolved in no time.
If "Microsoft accuses Lucent of deceiving the U.S. Patent & Trademark office by having one of the patents reissued and backdated to 1988, removing it from the scope of the 1989 deal with Fraunhofer." is correct, does that means that only the year 1988 is not covered in the Fraunhofer license? If that is the case, usage of MP3 in any form prior to 1989 would be the issue. Since iPod came out in 2001, iPods would be covered. Not sure about Apple use of MP3 between 1988 and 1989 (I was using peeeceee's back then).
Probably not the whole story, there are likely to be more twistes and turns to muddle the matter.
I can see apple helping m$ on this battle because they know if M$ loses apple will being paying easily as much if not more and because M$ lost the case it set the standard for all the others so that means there will not even be a real battle just apple and other giving Lucent money.
I could also see M$ just keeping Lucent trap in legal battles until they bankrupt them and remove the problem completely. Maybe M$ can argue that since Lucent never tried to protect t there patents until now they do not have any legal leg to stand on.
I do hope M$ wins because if M$ loses it is going to be just bad for everyone.
I could also see M$ just keeping Lucent trap in legal battles until they bankrupt them and remove the problem completely. Maybe M$ can argue that since Lucent never tried to protect t there patents until now they do not have any legal leg to stand on.
I do hope M$ wins because if M$ loses it is going to be just bad for everyone.
See list of Alcatel License companies, Apple is there.
http://mp3licensing.com/licensees/
Sounds like Apple is fine.
Microsoft is also on that list.
Ouch! That's going to hurt no matter how rich a company you are.
Not really. It's about 6 weeks of profit for Microsoft. It works out to about 15 cents per share for one quarter. Of course, MS could just dip into the 26 billion it has tucked away.
1.5 billion sounds like a lot. But it's peanuts to Microsoft.
1.5 billion makes headlines. But for it to really hurt Microsoft, it would need to be 50 billion. Even then, Microsoft would recover in one year.
Could this explain the price of Vista?
LOL!!!
...and the fact that nobody wants to buy a Zune...
...people don't want to get sued by Alcatel!
Maybe Apple use AAC file format but every other music software (usually) accept MP3s (Logic, Reason, CuBase). Plus, even if AAC is a better quality (!), it's not a standard (yet).
I'm an infoanarchist, which means I'm opposed to copyrights, patents, and so forth.
I anticipate (and I've already seen) a "wtf have you created, and don't you want to be compensated?" argument. I'll handle that first, since it'll be the first argument used against me.
1. I'm a novelist, so I am engaged in a field where I live by the sweat of my TextEdit and create things that are easily "stolen." It's tough enough for me to make a living writing without book piracy, which is admittedly far more complex than music or software piracy or patent infringement.
2. It's an invalid argument that gets you nowhere. Just because I've created a substantial work and don't mind distributing it freely doesn't necessitate my belief in the freedom of all works. For instance, Apple develops open-source software, but they also distribute commercial software.
3. Even if I'm not Stephen King or Lucent (which I'm not), it doesn't mean I am not entitled to have an opinion. Many people do things for free -- work tech support on MacRumors, volunteer at soup kitchens, or perform sexual favors for fratboys. Things that can be distributed digitally are generally easier to duplicate than things requiring real labor, but the concept is the same.
4. Not everyone is a capitalist. I am, but I believe in a social market economy like the one we have, rather than a laissez-faire economy like the one I deeply fear. I also prioritize concepts of justice, ethics, and need above the concept of property rights.
So with that in mind, I'll actually answer your questions. Keep in mind that what I'm saying is not a "this is right" position but rather a "this is what I believe" position. I'm not speaking for anyone else but myself.
Very few people will argue with the concept of justice you just expressed. A creator deserves control over the fruits of his labor. It's a basic concept of capitalism and socialism, although the two schools begin to argue shortly thereafter. My goal is to increase the level of justice in the world, so I would be acting immorally according to my own compass if I did not justly reward software developers, programmers, musicians, novelists, and so forth.
My argument against patents, copyrights, and DRM is that they restrict the flow of beneficial things. I believe that a beautiful work of art should be available to all. Software that enables efficient and effective gene therapy in the United States should be available to researchers in China. Malaria vaccines developed in the US should be freely exchanged with Kenya, Nigeria, Columbia, and so forth. In short, I disagree with the concept of intellectual property because it interferes with the "marketplace of ideas" and sustains the existence of human/animal/deific unhappiness.
The natural shortcoming of this is that creators cannot exercise complete control over the fruits of their labor. What I suggest is that we rely upon morality and ethics rather than upon uneffective and inevitably-circumvented technologies. People violate copyright every day. People break DRM every day. As for software patents, they restrict the free market, making it difficult for fair and efficient competition between suppliers and thus hurting all consumers.
As you said: If someone cannot create a patented technology and benefit from it, why create? Again, I see it as a matter of ethics and value. If Dell came out tomorrow with Dellfruits, little Mac clones that cost half as much, include an OS X-skinned Vista, and so forth, I'd still buy Macs because I would perceive them as being ripoffs of Apple. Remember -- I'm not arguing that everything should be free. You should absolutely reward innovation and punish theft. What I'm arguing against is the legal restriction of information. Paying for quality is one of the central concepts of capitalism, and all Americans would be driving plastic Ford Pintos and eating dirt if we didn't already behave by that natural law.
The GNU/Linux/BSD communities (and Wikipedia, and countless other systems) have been thriving based on a gift economy for quite a while now. Again, I'm not saying Richard Stallman's life means that all artists should paint for free; I'm just saying that innovation, quality, and value are generally rewarded whether or not the flow of information is artificially restricted.
I write knowing that my chances of being J.K. Rowling's less-attractive, hairier, and-penis-wielding competitor are very low. Almost impossible. If money was my goal, I would have been a lawyer, drug dealer, politician, or professional accident victim.
If money was the only incentive for innovation and advance, almost no art of any kind would exist. Most science would not exist, since that too was not financially valuable for a long time ("the earth is round; pay me $5."). Greek philosophy was developed primarily by people who refused to accept money. In terms of military technology, the Phoenicians or whoever would probably rule the world right now if they'd patented the war chariot.
Like I've said, I've turned up a few hits on these internets re: this and my budddy here next to me is fairly opinionated as well, but what say you?
Oh well... time for chow. surprise me when I get back.
In my opinion, most restrictions on the flow of information exist because people are afraid of competition... but whether you're a Libertarian or an Anarchist (like me) or even a Syndicalist or some other brand of socialist, you're almost sure to believe that competition is A Good Thing. So I ask myself which is more important: the lost lives of Africans dying because they lack malaria vaccines, or the right of Whatever Pharmaceuticals not to have competition for 23 years?
I say make information free; let all people compete on as equal a playing field as possible, and let's have as many vendors as possible competing. That's the ultimate free market. Let quality, not artificial scarcity, determine profit.