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.
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?
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.
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
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-
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,
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.