Slashdot Mirror
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.
Like the poster, I don't think this is a major speedbump. ...but I also don't think that we're headed for a world where media formats are dominated by MS. They'll be a player in the industry for sure, but it's unlikely they'll have the same kind of dominance they've enjoyed in the operating system market.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
In Europe, where software patents aren't yet valid, how does this apply?
Do only h/w versions of the codec infringe, or do s/w versions infringe as well?
How is that "getting exactly what they want"? Paying out massive settlements isn't exactly what most organizations want.
Of course what you are really saying is "exactly what Sony and Philips want", which is enough money that they're happy to offer a patent license.
Hmm...this technique is usually used by anyone in motion video or you will get screen flicker if you redraw the entire screen every frame.
Also, if these other companies are using WMV, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have their codec distributed with the huge marketshare of Windows users? I'm not sure if they were planning on selling a codec and what the market is to actually buy one. If I download something and it doesn't work with my standard codecs, I delete it.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
I thought I'd seen every kind of tortured connection Slashdot had to offer. "Only terrorists use WMV" is a new one on me . . . .
If only terrorists use WMV then who uses Quicktime in this little universe anyway?
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
You have a very interesting point there.
Microsoft, with so much petty cash on its hands, will most likely settle out of court with the other litigants. And for those who are not willing to settle, Gates & Co will just simply buy them out in the typical Microsoft fashion.
A few million in a case like this is chump change.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The article actually suggest that if it went to court, the final figure would be more like $5 BILLION. Not such pocket change, even for MSFT
In the corporate world everyone seems to have one (at least). Thats the problem with this kinda of generic ip. In hard science you can patent things like a machining process for maufacturing xyz, or a chemical compound, or chemical process.....
In the software world it's not that cut and dried. Hopefully someone will figure out that saying I'm patenting 'a video format that can be played on digital devices' is not going to cut it, and does not give the patent holder the rights to all video formats ever created.
Or not and europe and china will leave us and our lawyers in the dust.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
The problem is knowing if something has been invented. I'm a circuit designer and the older I get the more convinced I am that you can't design a modern circuit without violating a patent. There are so many crap patents that you just can't.
So, what does this lead to? As an engineer I'm told to stay away from anything related to the patent office. If I knowingly violate a patent its much much worse so we aren't allowed to even look. This attitude is necessary but throws the whole idea of a patent on its head.
In exchange for disclosing a new idea to the public you are supposed to get 20 years to use the idea without fear of competition. The problem is the public can no longer afford to look at the patents for fear of litigation. So, the idea of patents furthering the state of various industries is BS.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
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...
That is true, Marshall Phelps is the man responsible for "productizing" IBM's patent portfolio to the tune of $2B revenue per year. He now works for Microsoft and heads up their IP division where he is trying to do even more for Billy.
Sony made a particular point about this shortly after the DOJ scuttlement, when MS told them that the Court required uniform license terms and that meant no more exemptions from the non-assert clause.
At this point, the issue is likely to be boiling down to what (if anything) MS is willing to pay to keep Sony and Philips (and any others) from suing MS' users. Since neither company wants the bad PR from anything like that, they'll settle for peanuts.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
That is, by the way, the back door that got the US into the software patent business: lawyers just drew up claims for Rube Goldberg hardware that did the same thing without reference to software, then claimed the software by the Doctrine of Equivalences.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This is Sony trying to stick it to Microsoft, who is their PS3 competitor. Sony is still pissed that Microsoft decided to enter the console market and push their DirectNext platform after they first offered it to Sony for the PS2, and Sony turned them down. Microsoft sells the X-Box at a loss because they're trying to push that software platform. They even offered it to Nintendo, who also turned them down. So, they decided to make their own console.
This is also why you saw Sony's head guy at MacWorld '05. Sony wants to get rid of Microsoft and will help out with doing that so far as it benefits them.
Actually, from what I understand, opening up its design is what has caused this problem in the first case. M$ decided that it wanted to get into the media streaming business in a big way. They want everyone to use WMV. So they go after customers. Many of the customers wanted it to be at least an industry standard before they go for it. So MS tries to standardize it. They enter standardization forums and bully their way through the forums trying to force everyone to accept WMV as a standard. The current players in the standards field have been playing since the days of MPEG-1 (Sony, Thomson, Philips etc..), so they are really pissed off by Microsofts bullish attitude. Microsoft finally submits its WMV/VC-1 designs for preusal. Since all MS stuff was a proprietary closed standard before, nobody knew what was in it. Now that it has been opened up, all the major companies are saying "Wait-a-minute. Isnt that the motion-estimation algorithm? Looks like you owe us a lot of money Mister." And so what started out to be a simple issue of opening up WMV for standardisation ends up being a pain for Microsoft. Of course this is probably a gross simplification of the issue, but thats what it roughly looks like.
Heres a link to a very informative article on the whole issue. M'soft coup starts media codec fight