Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pays $440M to License InterTrust Patents
theodp writes "Microsoft is paying $440 million to InterTrust to settle a three-year-old patent infringement lawsuit over DRM technology for protecting music, movies and other digital content against piracy. Under the settlement agreement, customers can use Microsoft products and services without a license from InterTrust. Developers, however, may need a license from InterTrust for other uses, including the combination of Microsoft technology with third-party technology." C.J. adds a link to the New York Times' coverage of the settlement.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/12/ms_settles _intertrust/
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
I have bought stocks in Intertrust a couple of years ago for around $20 (during the dot=com-bbom), then got squeezed out by Sony and Philipps, for $4. Though it's a good feeling seeing that the investment was right in general it's sad that Sony and Philipps could squeeze me out...
$440 000 000? Tiny. M$ got a contract for $470 000 000 for the U.S. military. Even if there was 5 or 6 of these big suits annually that had a half billion fine M$ would still turn a profit.
Moo!
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/extendfund.asp?symbol=MS FT&selected=MSFT&page=full
That shows a net profit of about $26bn, and around $10bn in net earnings for 2003.
Times are probably not as tough as you think.
2 Billion to Sun.
v estor/lamonica/)
1/2 Billion to Intertrust.
Only another 50.4 odd Billion to go!
(MS has 52.8 Billion in the bank: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/technology/techin
I have a very small mind and must live with it.
-- E. Dijkstra
Patents are not for some little guy to sit on and block everyone out of the market. That's stupid. They're for the little guy to block EVERYONE ELSE out of the market. Patents do NOT GUARANTEE you the ability to be IN the market. That's what you need before you spend the copius amount of money that is needed for a solid patent.
Patents should be used as a competitive advantage. They are not evil. They are vital to the growth of small technology companies, as they are protections and competitive advantages to avoid getting trampled by some of the tech-mammoths out there. Startups usually have the ability to create whatever they have patented, and it allows them time to get on their feet and make some money on the idea before they get trampled.
Another note:
Does anyone else see the trend of Microsoft paying out huge settlements right now? Either their lawyers got too expensive, or they're trying to clean up their image, and get out of the legal spotlight. I'm suspicious, but money flow is good for the economy, even if it is probably going to an anti-linux warchest fund.
Hahaha, you are kidding, right? Go read at the WIPO site as well as the New Zealand Min. of Econ. Development and educate yourself on difference between the right to exclude others from making/using/selling the invention nationally and internationally.
I am so disgusted with you that I even went to this link to pull a quote for you:
"A patent will only protect your invention within New Zealand. To obtain overseas patent protection, two options are available:
* Filing applications with intellectual property offices in overseas countries of interest; or
* Filing an International Application under the Patent Co-Operation Treaty (PCT). "
Now stop talking about how cheap is it to obtain internationally applicable patent protection through the New Zealand system and instead fuck off, pardon my French.
The parent post is stolen, except for the first paragraph, word-for-word from this post by Animats (122034).
It was stolen via the anti-slash.org database
Mod parent down.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?