RSSIP Stability of MP3 Unravels as Texas Firm Sues Apple, Others
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 26, 2007, 12:45 PM
Just days prior to a tremendous loss by Microsoft in a jury trial over the MP3 format sent warning signs about the uncertain structural integrity of MP3's intellectual property, a previously unknown Texas-based firm filed suit ten days ago in federal court in Marshall, in defense of patents it claims it acquired from one-time MP3 chip powerhouse SigmaTel. The suit charges SigmaTel's former competitors and some former customers, including Apple, Samsung and SanDisk, with infringement.
While the patent in question protects a methodology that's enacted in hardware, not software as in the MP3 format patent case which Microsoft lost, the new company may be rushing to file the proper paperwork before a potential landmark decision by the US Supreme Court - which could come any time - redefines the boundaries of American technological patents.
As IDG News Service reported this morning, Texas MP3 claims to be the assignee of rights for patent 7,065,417 - the same patent whose legitimate owner was determined to be SigmaTel, and whose rights were found to have been infringed upon, in a decision last September 15 by the US International Trade Commission.
Just two years ago, SigmaTel was one of the world's principal providers of MP3 "system-on-a-chip" (SoC) processors, with designs that appeared in the early Apple iPod Shuffle, Dell's DJ Ditty, and other small devices.
In January 2005, SigmaTel sued a Chinese semiconductor production firm, Actions Semiconductor, for mass-producing low-cost knockoffs of SigmaTel designs and flooding the market with them. Actions' designs led to an explosion in the Asian MP3 market, with ridiculously low-priced devices that kept foreign competitors from regaining a foothold. After the US ITC found in favor of SigmaTel, the long-term damage to its business had already been done. Dell exited the MP3 business, then Apple -- in an effort to keep flash memory prices low -- extended its existing SoC contract with Samsung to include the iPod Shuffle.
Actions' battle with SigmaTel continues, having filed complaints last November against SigmaTel in a court in Shenzhen seeking the invalidation of two SigmaTel patents on digital-to-analog signal converter technology. But weary from the battle already, SigmaTel spun off its MP3 chip manufacturing arm to Integrated Device Technology, Inc., and sold its MP3 device patent in July, IDG learned, to someone the company would only describe as "a Dallas-based patent licensing agency."
That's probably Texas MP3 Technologies, though a few details make that fact difficult to pin down. On February 15, Texas MP3 filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the American patent rights for a specific methodology for MP3 player technology, first patented in South Korea in 1997. The patent holders there are the same as for the SigmaTel patents. And to make matters even muddier, in September 2003, a Korean firm named MP3Man.com Inc. was granted US patent rights for what appears to be the same device, credited to the same inventors.
Back in January 2006, SigmaTel announced a rigorous strategy for defending its MP3 device IP rights. It would not seek any legal action toward companies that purchase SigmaTel SoCs from it or one of its distributors, the company announced then. But it would focus is licensing efforts on attempting to seek royalties from companies who purchase SoCs from competitors, presumably including Samsung.
"SigmaTel intends to attempt in all cases to first employ its licensing strategy," said a company presentation, "but will not hesitate to resort to legal action if MP3 player and silicon manufacturers decline to participate in the program."
If Texas MP3 is indeed SigmaTel’s assignee for this patent, then it would appear that it doesn’t have the same strategy toward licensing first. Furthermore, Marshall, Texas has a reputation of its own, as the seat of a federal courthouse where plaintiffs tend to win a disproportionate amount of patent suits tried by jury.
Yet in a case that seems ripe for irony, one possible huge twist could lurk on the horizon: SigmaTel didn’t own rights to the MP3 format, just a patent for a design of a chip that uses that format. SigmaTel was licensed rights to the format by the same Thomson / Fraunhofer group that licensed the format to Microsoft, and whose licensed was declared illegitimate by a Washington state jury last week.
If Alcatel-Lucent has designs on capitalizing on the patent portfolio it acquired from the descendant of Bell Laboratories, Texas MP3 -– if it is the recipient of the SigmaTel patent –- could find itself a defendant as well.
Is it me or does this whole thing remind anyone of the whole GIF fiasco/shakeup?
Score: 0
|Ogg Vorbis
www.vorbis.com
Score: 0
|FLAC
flac.sourceforge.net
Score: 0
|My 2000+ Disk collection in FLAC format?
I dont think so.
Unless you have a $50,00 10Terabyte RAID...lol
Score: 0
|2000 discs, 10 songs per disc, 40MB per song=800,000MB.
That's only 800GB.
I just bought 500GB for $140, so for $280 you can get 1TB and be able to have a 1:1 copy of all of your music that you can do anything with. Convert it, re-burn it, stream it, you name it.
Facts rock.
Score: 0
|Sure,
If you plan on never expanding your collection...
I see what your getting at but it is just not practical to have a 1TB music collection..
Where are you going to back it up to?
Score: 0
|uhh..
Isn't the digital version the backup? I mean, you still have the discs, aye?
Tell me you didn't throw them all away. :p
My main point there is that storage is getting cheaper on an almost weekly basis. If one were so inclined, a FLAC backup of their entire music collection would not be quite as absurd as your first post seemed to imply. ;)
Score: 0
|It is about rogue patenting and Microsoft should support the fight for an ethical patent system. Esp. patents have no use in communication tehcnology. SME's learned their lesson and build up strong advocacy groups but Microsoft is still under control of the patent sleaze. Litigation or development, that is the question.
Score: 0
|It's not central to the story, however I REALLY get tired of hearing this:
"...a Chinese semiconductor production firm, Actions Semiconductor, for mass-producing low-cost knockoffs of SigmaTel designs".
China is too many times a cancer in the modern marketplace. But then, why should they change. They get to play in the world sandbox, but not follow any of its rules.
Score: 0
|Since when is it against the rules to produce competing parts cheaper than your competitors?
Score: 0
|Since the beginning of these things we call PATENTS. Duh
Score: 0
|And there lies the problem. Duh?
If it can be done cheaper, to the benefit of the consumer, elsewhere, why, FFS, should we continue to let some other corp overcharge us a premium because it was "made in the US" for it?
Dunno about you, but 90% of the crap I see selling with "made in the US" is more expensive and less reliable than the one made in Chi-kor-wan.
Score: 0
|Its called intellectual property, and I doubt you would be singing the "I dont care about copies" tune if you patented something and it was immediately ripped off and sold for a lower price putting you out of business.
I also support my country, not the commies...
Score: 0
|Perhaps I over-reacted a bit. The "China is a cancer" bit raised my ire. And yes, I know that wasn't you.
You haven't been reading the copyright threads if you think me the least bit commie.
Just like copyright, patents need to be fixed (though that's where the similarities end). It is *far* too easy to patent something that really shouldn't be patented. I don't know exactly what goes into this chip, but I highly doubt it's something no-one else could have come up with.
Let me put it this way: MP3 on Chip was a new idea, sure. Only because it hadn't been done before. *Not* because it's a revolutionary process, not because it's an advanced technology. If any other company had, at the time, thought it beneficial t0o do it, they could have easily done so. The tech and knowledge is already there.
The *only* thing Sigma had going for it was that they did it first. Anyone could have, the tech and knowledge is commonplace. It didn't take any great effort, it didn't take any special research. It doesn't deserve a protected monopoly, or even a temporary stay of competition. If someone can do it cheaper, it should be allowed.
Score: 0
|Jumping on the bandwagon of oppurtunists. Companies are trying to support that bottom line and the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Amazing.
Score: 0
|Most all of this lunacy stems from lackluster oversight of IP review and validation by USPTO during a period of 10-12 years. Since 2004, the PTO has been focused on cleaning house and revamping the claims review process. NetworkComputing.com has a pretty good podcast interview with one of the asst USPTO directors that makes the future promising as it relates to slowing down all this stupidity tying up the courts.
Still, though, one problem remains: international incompatability of IP regulations. Until we tackle that, international IP litigation is going to continue on this same path.
http://www.networkcomput...JVN?articleID=197001295
Score: 0
|***YAWN***
This is old news... Very old news. It going to get thrown out it unless the judge is a complete moron.
Score: 0
|most judges are MORON's.
but back to the point. this company has "prove" they own the mp3 standard. It's not open! If you a company that steal's things like this you need to pay for it in court!
I woudl think apple has made more money from mp3's then any company known yet! so they should be careful!!
Score: 0
|Eh? Apple makes money selling hardware. itunes doesn't make them much profit.
Score: 0
|You serious? How much spaces cost? Even if they make a nickel a song, they make a killing.
Score: 0
|Apple doesn't make any (direct) money off of mp3's because they don't sell mp3's. Their software and hardware allows the playing and creation of mp3's. Granted, without having mp3 support, they would probably not have had the success that they do.
Score: 0
|If the owners of MP3 now insist on squeezing the life (money) they can out of MP3 - people will be forced to find other alternatives.
While most 'players' support MP3 as standard (and some other formats) - I'm sure a firmware upgrade would allow support for another free / open alternative.
Score: 0
|Is there some law that disallows a rights-holder from sitting, unknown, on a patent as it becomes a world-wide standard? I wonder how long these companies have waited for their investment to 'mature'....?
Score: 0
|