RSSAnalyst: Microsoft Loss in MP3 Case Sets Dangerous Precedent
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 23, 2007, 12:26 PM
(continued from previous page)
Last night, Carmi Levy wrote a detailed response for BetaNews about the verdict. In it, Levy shares his belief that Microsoft may have only begun to fight:
It would be a mistake to believe that this judgment is the end of the road for either party. Microsoft will no doubt continue to fight this in the courts of law and public opinion until its last legal option has been exhausted. Microsoft never backs down from a good fight, and this fight only begins with MP3s. Microsoft is in fact fighting off four other legal challenges in the San Diego court, and will be facing the music on these outstanding issues over next few months. The remaining claims include: Microsoft's incorporation of speech coding technology in Windows, user interface patents, Xbox-related technology, and video coding in a range of other Microsoft products.
The sheer size of this first judgment compels Microsoft to fight back, as it could set a dangerous and similarly expensive precedent for the remaining four claims. Microsoft can't afford to accept this ruling as is. It has asked the judge to set aside the ruling and, failing that, has indicated it will appeal. By turning the legal wheels quickly, Microsoft sends a defiant message before the next case, on speech coding technology, is heard in March or April.
This is a pivotal time for Microsoft. It is transitioning its core operating system and productivity suite franchises to Vista and Office 2007, respectively. It faces a significant market challenge to its enterprise Office hegemony from Google, which has just launched Google Apps Premier Edition, and it's also in court against AT&T. Although the two settled a patent infringement suit over speech decoding technology within the U.S. jurisdiction, AT&T subsequently took the case global, claiming the technology embedded in Windows outside of the U.S. represented a misuse of AT&T's intellectual property. The two companies headed to the U.S. Supreme Court this week to have the case heard there.
High stakes legal challenges on both American and global fronts, and a relentless challenge for the very future of the desktop that Microsoft has for so long dominated. These are pivotal times for Microsoft, and its only option is to come out swinging in the wake of this first Alcatel-Lucent judgment.
Let's all go back to punch cards. Let's see them sniff those out and bust people.
Score: 0
|As much as I don't like Microsoft, I agree with Babylon2x on this. Alcatel should have gone after Fraunhofer/Thomson for not properly distributing funds to them. I wish I knew more details about the case and the patent to have a better understanding of this case. From what I can tell Alcatel neglected to have proper agreements in place with the other companies concerning the MP3 patent thus they didn't receive their fair share of the profit. Alcatel should have just gone after Fraunhofer/Thomson, because I can only imagine has to how this could bring down the marketability of MP3s. Does this mean that Alcatel will now go after Apple, Nullsoft, Xine, MPlayer, DVD player manufacturers, car stereo manufacturers with MP3 capabilities (including automaker OEM units). Perhaps this would make OSS formats (such as Ogg Vorbis or Flac).
Score: 0
|Frauenhofer is not to blame here. In fact the format is covered both by Frauenhofer mp3 patents and the new more trivial container patent.
Microsoft should urgently seek Us patent reform.
Score: 0
|First, this is a Californian jury. Second, Microsoft will surely appeal. In the days of suing over burning yourself on hot coffee, anything is possible.
Score: 0
|Aside from the political subject, as drbillbailey said, we could always switch to Ogg Vorbis... WHICH IS ALSO FAR BETTER SOUNDING THAN THE MP3 FORMAT.
Score: 0
|We could always switch to Ogg Vorbis.
Score: 0
|Wasn't there some 'grey area' regarding Ogg in that not be completely open-sourced and freely licensable? If so, it's in the same position as MP3 and isn't a very good alternative.
My vote for FLAC. Although many people still prefer heavily compressed audio. :P
Score: 0
|I think "many people" just prefer compression ratios that are worth while. FLAC files are so large, you might as well use the CD audio format.
Score: 0
|Ogg
Score: 0
|I think that is very sad. On the other hand it was Microsoft which paid lobbyists who fought against software developer interests in Europe. Microsoft now learns it the hard way. Time for them to support patent reform and to change their mind.
Software patents are useless.
Score: 0
|Yet another reason why juries should not be deciding patent infringement cases.
Score: 0
|An easier idea is to make formats only a 2 year patent...
Score: 0
|these patents are non-existing but of course everyone is free to let them lapse.
Patent examination takes 31 month in the US. Patents -- 20 years internationally, according to TRIPs. And the patent covers an object that has no value in software development, every single software patent is an insult of our creative developers. Either you side with the developers or with the lawyers.
Developers build our software, lawyers are corporate parasites.
Score: 0
|Personally, I am also concerned by lawsuits like this. To my knowledge it is Fraunhofer/Thomson who licenses MP3 technology - the lawsuit should be brought against them, not any other. It is ridiculous. This is another victory for company greed, and another nail in the coffin for any hope of common sense.
Score: 0
|I was trying to get into several paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo in order to come to that same conclusion, but who really cares to read my 7 paragraph comments anyways?
Agreed 100%. They should appeal, but guess which district they're in? Heh, those fools wouldn't even consider accepting an appeal over this--only if Microsoft won would they have quickley taken it and reversed it.
Score: 0
|(deleted comment)
Score: 0
|Just say no to patented formats.
Score: 0
|Just say no to licensing. Build your own solutions and don't use anyone elses. That's the clear message here.
Score: 0
|+1
This would be the most simple answer. There is genuinely no reason for patented formats being used when others are available which are equally as good, and better. It just needs a few of the major forces to make a stand and get the codecs/compatibility for the formats out in the open, meaning the less savvy engage in the uptake.
Score: 0
|I think Mikkisoft has lot of patents too , sure they can put them free for everyone who needs them. Mikkisoft did wrong , it's like robbery , don't cry about that.
Score: 0
|I don't remember there is a single case where MS sue someone else for using their patents.
Oh wait, I get it, another MS hater.
Score: 0
|"Just say no to licensing. Build your own solutions and don't use anyone elses."
In theory that sounds so easy but wait till the next greedy company says I own the patent to compressing music into a smaller file size therefore regardless of the codec you still owe me money.
Of course every company using incompatible codecs etc leads to a very fragmented market. Imagine every mp3 manufacturer used their own codec and only sold music thru their own store. Like iPod/iTunes but there are 50 different companies and none of them work together.
This is a very bad outcome for consumers and business alike.
Score: 0
|Time to start remembering - it was only a few days ago:
http://www.app.com/apps/...BUSINESS/702210368/1003
Score: 0
|Seeing as the target of that suit is the intiator of this suit against MS, this looks more like leveraging and indirect fighting back. Is there a case where MS is not just counter-suing?
Score: 0
|