Slashdot Mirror
Lucent Sues Microsoft, Wants All 360s Recalled
robyannetta writes "Lucent has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, demanding that they pull all Xbox 360s from the market. Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated their MPEG2 patents which they claim they patented in 1993." While it's unlikely console will be pulled from shelves, it's one way to generate some publicity.
For those who like to read such things, the patent is right here.
It is long. Very, very long.
You like most other slashdot folks are mixing your metaphors, or IP jargon. Trademarks must be inforced or you lose them, patents not so much. You can selectively enforce patents all you want. The "statute of limitations" on patents is 24 years, or however long patents are good for now... As long as your patent is valid you can sue infringers of that patent.
So instead of reuters or the washington post or, shit, even cnet, we get a nobody gamer site with an article that has no links to anybody credible. Brilliand reporting from slashdot, as usual.
Yep, the linked article is unfortunately pretty light on both detail and factual accuracy. A much better source of information, with a reference to Lucent's patent is available here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30743.
The patent being disputed is available here
Still, the original GamerNode link for this story is an amusing read, with gems such as, "Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated copyright patent laws". Uh.. What is a 'copyright patent law'? Are they trying to say that Lucent has the copyright on the patent laws? Or are they just confused about the difference between these two relatively unrelated concepts?
Not exactly. Google the "laches defense" parent mentioned. Yes, patents can be selectively enforced, but you can't knowingly allow an infringer to continue violating your patent in order to make them a juicier target before bringing action.
If you own a patent-violating xbox and decide to keep using it (because, for example, the replacement from Microsoft can't play DVD's any more) then you are personally responsible for continuing to violate whatever patents apply.
And should you be personally sued for using infringing technology, the following paragraph gives you a fairly clear idea of what help you can expect from Microsoft;
17; exclusion of incidental, consequential and certain other damages. to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, punitive, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or confidential or other information, for business interruption, for personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the software, the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, informaton, software, and related content through the software or otherwise arising out of the use of the software, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this eula, even in the event of the fault, tort (including negligence), misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty of microsoft or any supplier, and even if microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
"MPEG2 and all MPEG related standards are "owned" by MPEG LA, who licenses the technology. It would be one thing if Microsoft deployed a product with MPEG2 playback capabilities without paying the license, but then where is Lucent in all this? Is this some crappy dredge up of a vague compression scheme like Unisys pulled?"
The patent covers one implemntation of encoding/decoding MPEG2 video, not the actual formating of the data in the file like the UNISYS case. The lawsuit is definately real and it looks like Microsoft is going to be handing a wad-o-cash to Lucent for this.
Think what would have happened if Jack Bresenham had patented all of his work...
MPEG-2 is controlled and licensed by MPEG LA (licensing authority). The idea is that everyone who holds the patents got together and agreed they could be used for this technology, and license woudl be paid through this central authority, which would then distribute the money. Has to be done that way or the technology is going nowhere, nobody is going to get hundreds of licenses.
Well I gaurentee that part of that was giving MPEG LA discresion over licensing, that if they grant a license you have to agree it's valid. So not sure what Lucent thinks they have here, but if it's something covered by the MPEG-2 umbrella, they probably don't have much case since MS paid the license for that.
Even if copyright terms for software were made shorter (a good idea BTW) that still wouldn't require the creator to release the source code. It wouldn't even require the creator to unlock the copy protection/DRM. It just means that anyone can legally copy and redistribute (even for profit) the original release. Forcing the creator to cough up the source code for something they're no longer going to make money on would be difficult, assuming the source is even still available (I know I'd be hard pressed to find source code for stuff I wrote only 10 years ago).
But wait, it gets even better. What if an old piece of software (lets say King's Quest I) contains music? If the copyright limits for software and music are different, then the one with the longest term will apply (unless the music can be removed from game). This happens even now. I bought a cheapy DVD of the Beverly Hillbillies (poke fun if you must) and the theme song (best part of the show) was removed and replaced with some generic bluegrass fiddle music. I'm guessing DVD distributor paid for the distribution rights for the show but not the music.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Person/s cannot refuse usage of patent.
I believe this is already the case. Holders of patents are required to license the use of their patent for "a reasonable fee." I don't believe they are allowed to simply refuse to allow other parties to use their technology. It's part of the condition of being allowed to hold the patent.
You are not required to license a patent you hold to anyone. You can keep it all to yourself if you'd like. But you'll probably make more easy money if you license it.