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.
(I am not a lawyer...yet)
Didn't Lucent just get merged/sucked up by another company (Alcatel?)
In any case, generally speaking, RIM lawsuit aside, it is highly unusual for cases like this actually to go to trial. But even if Lucent were to win, isn't MPEG2 a software thing? Asking for a recall seems frivolous considering you can just do as software...um...downgrade(?)
In any case, where was Lucent's patent on MPEG2 when all this technology became popular in all kinds of other goodies? This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Micro$oft has roughly 40 billion Dollars in actual Cash, could it? If you don't enforce your patents and wait for a big fish you risk losing your ability to enforce the patent for lack of policing, also there may be laches defense for failure to file the lawsuit sooner, though that seems less likely as final specs weren't out so long ago that Lucent would have had reasonable timeframe to do any due diligence. Anyone know what the statute of limitations, or laches defense timeframe is on a patent claim?
*shrug*
Lucent to get some weird Vista perk in 3...2...1...
It shows the continuing problems of patents. Although patents were initially intended to stop techniques being kept secret or lost from the public or King in England, then extended with the intentions to assist the small inventor to protect itself from larger predators, it has done neither of these.
Patents are mainly used by the large companies to keep out competition. Competition being the only great thing that produces innovation and efficiency in a competitive capitalist economy that has served the world so well.
While patents continue to be a hindrance on new entrants to the market, Copyright and Design law, in additiona to Trademark law continues to help protecting innovation and innovative products while maintaining a
competitive capitalist economy, where continued competitiveness in a fair market is the most important factor contributing to a nation's lead in the world.
Just because it is MS does not change the fact that this is a patent-system absurdity, another reason why it should be overhauled. People are surprised when huge companies with an enormous portfolio of patents want reform; this is the reason the companies want it: they can't do the Mutually Assured Destruction scheme against small companies like they can eachother. One small company with a stupid patent can hold a company hostage.
I hate MS as much as the next slashdotter, but this evil is so bad we do not even wish it upon them. Abuse is abuse.
If you really want to follow the slashdot paradigm, then mod me down for my pro-ish MS remarks.
DYWYPI?
Publicity stunt of not, I am sure MS would be just as vicious if another company used their IP without paying royalties.
Live by the sword...
Ten years down the line, having some of my electronics retroactively made illegal to possess?
The RIAA and MPAA are pretty much already working on that with analog audio/video devices, and anything digital that doesn't conform to their DRM standards.
If you had RTFA, you'd realize that their goal might not be to really get the Xbox360 pulled.
What would make the most sense (from a business perspective) is to force a settlement that involves a cash payout and licensing.
Licensing is like mana from heaven for companies. It represents a long term income stream that can only add to the value of the company and the value of their patent.
I can't imagine that Lucent wants an honest (and drawn out) court case.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Its come to a stage where the biggies are using patents just to create an entry barrier for smaller companies and individuals. There can be no other reason why Microsoft would still want patents in place, considering that they have gotten hit over and over again, and again by patents which atleast violate the principle of common sense. Surely, MS (and most other companies which refuse to come out against patents) would have some game plan there.
I hope you Americans will use your vote to fix the broken patent system. I live in India, but if I want to build something I have to worry whether some jerk has patented the most obvious part of it, thanks to USPTO. I cant even imagine how they would judge the merits of a technical patent. Fuck.
Life is just a conviction.
First, it was dumb of MS if they used MPEG2 with licensing it first. Second, how much can a license to play back MPEG2 possibly cost per console? Should Lucent not just request the necessary fees instead?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
The trade mark system (I'm British, so "trade mark" is two words) is pretty broken in many respects, precisely because it has moved beyond the common-sense "guarantee of origin" for which trade marks were originally intended.
Two key problems with the trade mark system:
1. Excessive breadth of coverage: people obtain trade mark registrations covering a wide range of goods and services, which locks other people out of using a similar name even where there's no real risk of confusion. As with spurious patents, an excessively wide trade mark can be challenged, but (also as with spurious patents) that's an expensive and time-consuming process.
2. Excessive breadth of enforceability: sure, we don't want any Pepsi selling something called "Coca Cola" (parent's example given of "Coke" actually begs the question - I'm not sure Coca Cola would risk enforcing that against Pepsi because of the risk of revocation as a "generic" name). But trade mark infringement increasingly covers more nebulous concepts of "brand dilution" and so on. So for example, the infamous 90s cases involving websites like "AOLsucks.com", and the UK case in which Arsenal Football Club prevented a guy from selling unofficial Arsenal scarves from his front garden - using trade marks to force fans to pay for the overpriced official merchandise.
So trade marks, like patents, add risk and expense to start-ups and smaller businesses (who may find it hard to choose a compelling name that has not already been registered, however spuriously), can be exploited for anti-competitive ends, and can be used to stifle free expression. And it all comes down to the same issue: an originally-sensible means of protecting legitimate interests, that gradually gets pushed further and further by the lobbying of vested interests until it ends up threatening the very interests it was originally intended to protect.
How do other engineers deal with these patent problems at the design phase? When you first sit down with your notebook and pencil and start laying out a design, are you conscious at all that some portion of your design is patented? Do you do a system layout then have a patent guy check it? I'm really curious. I'm an EE and I never check this stuff out when im doing a design... I just build it and off it goes.
---------
No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.
I'm glad they are taking Microsoft to court. Because in all likelihood, Microsoft is going to hire the best lawyers there are, and kick the crapola out of Lucent. And then we'll have one more strike against companies generating these bogusly broad patents on technology.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.