Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble?

thpr writes "According to rethink, Microsoft may be violating patents in their Windows Media software. Apparently, the VC1 standard (from The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers), which has been pushed by Microsoft, depends on patents owned by other companies - more than likely, those that have patents used in the previous MPEG standards. According to the sources in the story, both Sony and Philips may take the case to court, rather than continuing negotiation. As they point out in a later update, Sony might be pleased to have a say in the competing HD-DVD format. Is this a 'major speed bump to Microsoft's dominance of digital media markets'?" Well, the answer, IMHO, is probably not - this is a negotiation issue. But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.

Comments

Very tempting

[bigtallmofo]

It's very tempting to declare the old addage, "Live by the sword, die by the sword", but I'm not sure if that's the right attitude. Following that to its logical conclusion, it seems the only people that will be able to make money in the future are attorneys. Try to do anything else and you'll be sued.

Re:Very tempting

[KarmaMB84]

Schools like to teach engineering and programming from copyright and likely patent encumbered textbooks so anyone that ever reads them are producing derivative works and likely patent infringing works.

Use open standards

[henrygb]

You would think Microsoft would have learned not to use patented technology by now. It has a viral effect - build on existing patents and you are still caught in the trap.

Re:Use open standards

[AndroidCat]

Odds are, Microsoft has enough patents in their arsenal to do a deal and get cross-licences. This isn't dying by the sword, this is more like a paper-cut even if they have to pay cash.

Of course, the little guy who isn't a member of the nuclear MAD patent club is screwed, but what else is new?

Re:Use open standards

[Scarblac]

The problem is that it's almost impossible to avoid them - there are extremely software broad patents covering mostly everything. Open standards aren't a cure, just that a standard is open doesn't mean anything, you can still be sued.

As far as I understand, Microsoft was never very active on the patent front, as has never sued anyone on patent grounds (except perhaps as retaliation). However, in recent years they've been very aggressive in getting them.

That last paragraph could make it sound like they're only getting them because they have to defend themselves, but Microsoft is one of the companies pushing extremely hard for software patents in Europe. So it's more a case of them finally noticing an opportunity, and wanting to join the party... there's a lot of open standards implemented by open source that could suffer in the future.

Re:Use open standards

[gowen]

This isn't dying by the sword, this is more like a paper-cut even if they have to pay cash.

While that may well be true in this case, it's not always going to be true.

With the rise of dedicated Intellectual Property companies, dedicated to acquiring and licensing patents, cross-licensing will become less and less important. A hypothetical dedicated IP company has no need to cross-licence other's patents, because they don't actually create anything. So *everyone*, even MS ends up paying the IP firm.

And MS may well be stiffed hardest, because if I've got a solid case for pursuing royalties from someone, I'm going after the guy with the most cash lying around.

Re:Use open standards

[AndroidCat]

Those IP vulture companies like going after the little guys first. Many of the sleeper patents they aquire cheaply are from failed companies, and aren't too strong. (If they were strong, why did the company fail? [Simplistic, I know.]) They like to try them out in the minor leagues and build a track record before playing with the big boys.

Strong patents will tend to come from companies that actually do R&D, and MS certainly pumps enough money into that to have patent cards worth trading.

Watch this space...

[kunwon1]

...For an announcement in the next few weeks announcing Microsoft settling out of court for a massive, yet undisclosed sum of money, and getting exactly what they want. As usual.

Re:Speed bump?

[musikit]

not against sony.

i believe sony is bigger then MS. why would sony want to license stuff from MS when producing a movie to DVD or online (if we ever get online on demand movies).

so MS can't buy Sony out, and Sony can just lidigate the WMV format away for their own HD-DVD format.

Like Bill cares

[Turn-X Alphonse]

If this doesn't go his way he'll either buy the company and "absorb it" or he'll just carry on and go "meh, I make more then that in a day".

Maybe we need a system where fines are set by how much money you earn per second. Average person earns $0 a second, so fines would be set to a lowest level (AKA all current levels, not RIAA current levels) and go from there.

Closed source software could harbor stolen code

[Anonymous Coward]

With general closed source software like Windows, and many others, we just don't know what is being stolen, recompiled, and hidden away.
For all we know, many closed source software companies could be hiding much stolen and modified stolen code, and what's worse is that they can easily get away with it.

Re:Closed source software could harbor stolen code

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it's stolen, the original owner will notice that it's missing, won't he ?

Intertwined? That's putting it mildly

[Badgerman]

Legal and software issues intertwined? That's putting it mildly. It's more a cat's cradle or some bizarre Gordinian knot.

The legal issues, the patent insanity, are just making it harder and harder to make progress. At what point is it just not worth DOING something becasue of all the legal hassles involved.

Today it's media formats. What more could go wrong and what could grind to a halt?

Re:Ban WMV, bring back hanging for the creators.

[0123456]

But who in their right mind would use a video format that 'phones home' every time you watch 'Anal Love Dog HD: Director's cut'?

WMV-HD kind of sucks anyway: there are some horrid compression artifacts in the roller-coaster shots in one of the sample WMV-HD files.

yeah well..

[l4m3z0r]

Well, the answer, IMHO, is probably not - this is a negotiation issue. But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.

s/software/*

legal issues intertwine all facets of our lives. software is no exception and it hardly could be considered to be intertwined more than anything else.

The only thing this is an example of is the legal nature between corporations. Software is just the details that don't really matter much. The could be talking about the production of blorps and gizmo gadgets for all they care. As long as it makes them money and as long as the legal system is used to the fullest extent possible to garuntee them the biggest cut. They don't really think of it as applying law to software as they really don't care if its software or a physical product. Makes no difference to them or the legal system.

Re:Closed source

[Mattcelt]

This isn't so much an example of the evils of closed source software - which, IMHO, we lived with very comfortably for many years. This smacks more of the law of unintended consequences, and highlights the amazing complexity and the chaotic progression of software patents.

There will come a time, if the tide is not stemmed, when it will not be possible to write software, closed-source or otherwise, without infringing on someone's patent. We're only a few years into most of the patents' 17 (20?) year lifespan; the skies do look forbidding indeed.

Re:Lol, just got to laugh

[TripMaster Monkey]

Lol, why does M$ never learn, they keep trying to get market shares by using sneaky tricks.

Well, since they've got something around 98% of the market share, I'd say their 'sneaky little tricks' are paying off.

Sometimes it works but on the other hand sometimes it dont and then they get sued.

Exactly. and when it doesn't work, they simply settle for what seems to us mere mortals to be exorbitant sums of money, but to them is merely pocket change. I'm not sure you realize just how deep M$'s pockets really are.

Well just wish they could crash and burn once and for all.

No, you don't. You don't want to be under something that big if it's about to 'crash and burn'...and face it...we're all under it.

So?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Microsoft will continue to use the patents to gain market penetration and after a 4-year court battle make a settlement for what will amount to 4 days worth of profits.

Microsoft is unstoppable.

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[mattspammail]

And who do you think will foot the bill over the next 2 to 3 years?

If you don't know how to answer this correctly, riddle me this: How did Microsoft make most of its money? If there's a price to pay, we're going to pay it. Directly or indirectly, we'll (those who use Microsoft products, which is the majority of computer users, like it or not) have to pay it.

This reminds me of professional sports. Teams don't pay players. We do. Same goes for advertising, etc. We always pay.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Anonymous Custard]

Attorneys can only sue you if you've broken a law. If you don't like the laws then vote for different lawmakers.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[phoenix.bam!]

You can be sued at any time for anything costing you money in legal fees. You will(should) only lose if you did break a law but even if you win you still need to pay to defend yourself.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[m50d]

That's not what we need to do, you can still get sued. What we need to do is make it easy for innocent people to get acquitted without losing huge amounts of money.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[arkanes]

Are you just being annoying, or are you actually serious? You need to have a signifigant amount of up-front money. That's a very real and very important barrier to entry. It's not free in any sense of the word, especially since you might lose.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[evilviper]

If you don't like the laws then vote for different lawmakers.

Oh? And who should I vote for? The Republicans that support the ridiculous laws, the Democrats that support the ridiculous laws, or the independents that support the ridiculous laws?

More importantly, how is that going to change anything?

Re:Speed bump?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can buy Sony and Phillips, just not all of either.
Buying is cheap. http://finance.yahoo.com/ Buying alot isn't.

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[m50d]

I'm fed up of seeing this nonsense argument getting modded up. It's not us who are going to pay it, directly or otherwise. If MS gets fined, it is their shareholders who will lose money. No-one else. Just think about it for a minute. MS is already charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their prices are optimised - if they charge more, there'll be enough fewer people buying their product that it isn't worth it. So just how would we pay?

Fining companies punishes the company, in terms of its shareholders who are its owners. If they are fined enough they go bankrupt. It's nonsense to claim fining them is pointless.

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[suffe]

Acctualy, you both are right in you own ways. Fining the company is, in essense, the same as making the product(s) more costly to produce. This increas in cost will bring about both higher prices and lower profits and the price elasticity will descide in what proportions. The fact that microsoft can be viewed as a monopoly will have an impact but not enough to negat it.