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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.