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.

Comments

This is a nonsense article.

[whileoneagain]

no value whatsoever. lot's like this comment

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[afaik_ianal]

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?

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[Twench]

If you had RTFA, you'd realize that their goal might not be to really get the Xbox360 pulled.

I managed to take the 3 seconds to RTFA. The passage you mention is simply an editorial add-on from this presumably Sony affiliated gamer site. They have no more knowledge of Lucent's intentions than anyone here. Though, no lawsuit is filed with the intention of having a product pulled from the shelves. There is no profit in that. My guess is Lucent wants a big pay day and they hope M$ will simply pay up because it will be cheaper.

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[Half a dent]

The console can't be pulled from the shelves if there are none on the shelves to begin with.

BTW do Lucent have any ties with Sony?

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[niskel]

Umm... MS _did_ lisence DOS to IBM. The GP was being sarcastic.

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

they only want the ones in japan :P

now for the sake of seriousity the xbox360s are showing up in the smallish town that I live in on the east coast of Canada. Surely, if you can't find xbox360's on the store shelves, then try leaving The Sony Store and go into an EB or Wallmart.

Re:This is a nonsense article.

[mausmalone]

From the patent:

a means responsive to the digital video input signal for producing a field frame coding type signal which directs a selected one, but not both, of the frame coding means or the field coding means to code the digital video input signal.

Wait, let me see if I'm reading this right. They're going after people who use MPEG2 because they patented the interlace bit? You've gotta be out of your freaking mind! Can anyone really own a patent to add a single bit to a frame that says 0=progressive, 1=interlaced?

I don't see how this could possibly hold up, being a patent from 1993. There were video codecs before 1993, and surely they all had information stored in each frame that described how to decode the frame. Storing whether or not the frame is interlaced isn't enough of an advance from just generically storing frame information to warant a patent, and it never should've been granted.

Too little too late?

[GreenPlastikMan]

(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...

Re:Too little too late?

[pavera]

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.

Re:Too little too late?

[DrMrLordX]

It's 20 years I do believe.

Re:Too little too late?

[kfg]

isn't MPEG2 a software thing?

MPEG is a codec. If you implement it in software it's a software thing.

If you implement it in hardware, like a DVD player, or 360, well, it's not.

KFG

Re:Too little too late?

[LMariachi]

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.

Re:Too little too late?

[dbIII]

RIM lawsuit aside ...

Let me be the first to suggest a new name for this type of patent abuse solely to screw over other companies - RIMMING.

Re:Too little too late?

[LordOfTheNoobs]

Yes this is great. Huzzah, Die Microsoft.

Surely they are the only ones who have ever created an MPEG-2 compliant video device. Surely such a thing doesn't exist in _every_ Free movie player that exists.

You and many others might not care, but this is far more frightening for free video software ( i.e. mplayer totem etc ) than Microsoft.

This patent runs on linux to the whim of the shareholders of Lucent.

Re:Too little too late?

[Kilz]

Surely they are the only ones who have ever created an MPEG-2 compliant video device. Surely such a thing doesn't exist in _every_ Free movie player that exists. You and many others might not care, but this is far more frightening for free video software ( i.e. mplayer totem etc ) than Microsoft. This patent runs on linux to the whim of the shareholders of Lucent.

You are mixing hardware and software. A device is hardware, a player like mplayer or totem is software. The suit also includes dell and gateway because they are M$'s hardware partners Ecmmercetimes story .

Re:Too little too late?

[SatanicPuppy]

Oh so appropriate, given the scatological (pun intended) meaning of that word. I wish I had mod points.

Re:Too little too late?

[ultranova]

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(?)

How about simply posting a letter to each (known) XBOX owner, stating:

Due to the US Patent Office fucking up again, you cannot legally watch DVD's on your XBOX. Doing so means that you are no better than any other kind of Intellectual Property violator, and won't become any worse by downloading movies from the Internet, for example from Pirate Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/). We ask you to give this letter the value it so obviously deserves.

Sincerely, Microsoft.

That should do it.

Re:Too little too late?

[kfg]

Wouldn't it be firmware then?

Yes, it would, but firmware is hardware; and there is firmware and then there is firmware.

It is possible to imbed the software on a permanent chip. For mass produced consumer items where the software instructions are never going to be changed (such as the codec in a DVD player) this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It eliminates a manufacturing step, thus saving time and money, but leaves you with the captial expense of setting up to make the chips, so make sure you're really going to need a lot of 'em.

My first IBM compatible PC actually had its OS on such a permanent chip. This confered all sorts of performance benefits on the computer, but. . .was nontheless a huuuuge mistake, because to upgrade the OS you had to actually physically change the chip.

So most firmware for such items is done with an EPROM or an EEPROM. You have to program an E(E)PROM, but you don't have to make the chip, you just buy 'em and zap 'em. Once you zap an EPROM, that's it, it's now a permanent chip, just as if you had manufactured it with the instruction set hard coded. For most consumer items you'd use an EPROM, because they're cheaper per unit and you never expect to change the instruction set. If you expect the instruction set to need changing at some point in the future, however, (like the BIOS chip in your computer) you'd cough up the extra pennies per chip and plop in an EEPROM, because the extra E stands for "erasable."

Of course, even if you use an EEPROM it dosn't mean you've bothered to include a means by which the user can erase and reprogram it. Say in a DVD player. In such a case the chip would have to actually be remove for erasing and reprogramming. Welcome to the $40/hr electronics shop.

So what course did MS take? Well, they're making a mass quantities consumer item that they don't want users mucking around with, so one might deduce the most likely means of embedding the software, or we can simply to the horses mouth at ATI:

"I had a brief but enlightening conversation with Bob Feldstein, Vice President of Engineering at ATI, who helped oversee the Xbox 360 GPU project. He spelled out some of the GPU's details for me, and they're definitely intriguing.

Feldstein said that ATI and Microsoft developed this chip together in the span of two years, and that they worked "from the ground up" to do a console product. He said that Microsoft was a very good partner with some good chip engineers who understood the problems of doing a non-PC system design. Also, because the part was custom created for a game console, it could be designed specifically for delivering a good gaming experience as part of the Xbox 360 system."

Custom designed, hacker resistant, if you want to upgrade buy our next product, console only chip.

Oh well.

I'll point out, however, that in their 2005 annual report MS notes that Lucent is seeking damages for patent infringement on several patents and the case is not Xbox specific but against all computers with Microsoft software preinstalled.

Pretty kettle of fish, no?

The demand for removal of the 360 from the shelves is because it is the only MS product in which the relevant technologies cannot be easily changed.

Way to go for making the Xbox hacker "proof."

KFG

The continuing problem of patents...

[Falcon040]

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.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[gameforge]

I personally like how John Carmack relates software patents to getting mugged... to state loosely what he said, you think of the patent system as being in place to help the poor inventor guy who spends his whole life working on his one little invention, and then some large billion dollar company comes along and steals the idea and gets rich, leaving no credit to him. In that case, patents are great.

But if five companies hire five programmers to set out and do the exact same thing, the first one to make it to the patent office takes the cake and everyone else gets sucked into the legal blackhole (or just goes home with their tail between their legs).

It's definitely time to revisit our patent laws regarding technology; the industry moves too fast - patents like this literally stop innovation and cause consumers to pay out the ass for everything.

I agree that copyrights are a little more reasonable; it should be illegal to clone the next guy's solution; but it should not be illegal to solve the same problem.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[catwh0re]

I agree with most of what you have to say. Despite me not being a fan of Microsoft's business practices. (And seemingly just finding ways around settlements/agreements to continue this behaviour.) I don't believe Microsoft should have their 360 console removes from market and recalled due to a patent infringement. At most MS should have to pay a whopping fine (and license fee) if the patent infringement is proven true. Patents should not be a tool used to disembowel a company, similarly patents should have legitimate consequences and not simply be a game where the person with the biggest financial backing wins. Also with that in mind the idea of patenting something that is trivial (for example the double-click) is simply abuse.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[NMerriam]

Copyright law certainly does encourage creation of works -- what is bad is the ridiculously long periods for which copyrights are now granted. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm an artist/writer, my girlfriend is an artist/writer, we're friends with many, many other creative professionals. Every one of us is able to do what we do precisely because we can pay the bills, sell our work, and have it not be manipulated by others or outright stolen (on any large commercial scale).

That said, I don't know many creative professionals who think we need "protection" for decades after we're in the grave. While the original 14-year period of copyright might be ludicrously short for modern use (since oftentimes, especially when producing a series, it will only become commercially successful 10 or 20 years into the project), the idea that what we create will be disallowed as source material for several generations of future creators is equally ludicrous. As Picasso said, Good artists borrow, great artists steal. After a certain period, the works themselves become a part of culture that needs to be commented on through art, and saying that this arbitrary part of common culture should be off-limits is damaging to all.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[syousef]

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. No.

Patents are flawed.
Copyright law is flawed.
Trademark law is flawed.

All 3 are very artificial means of attempting to return value to a creator for his or her work. All 3 counteract themselves and increase the problems they're intended to solve.

We need to ditch the existing systems and find a way to compensate creators and inventors without hindering the public's ability to use their creations. Specifically any form of compensation must allow things that are easily copied to be easily copied legally and without artificial restriciton (ie no DRM).

Before some arrogant fool comes back with a Wikipedia link to Communism like the last time I posted something similar to this, I'm not talking about a political system, and I'm not talking about group ownership of anything. I'm talking about a system of compensation that depends on the use of a product rather than possessing a copy of it. I'm not saying I have all the technical solutions for this.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[stinerman]

I'm for very limited copyright terms, but do understand your concerns.

What I don't understand is why all works need to have copyright protection for the same amount of time. Yes, your series of novels might need more than 14 years protection, but software certainly doesn't. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. Does that need as much protection as a novel, a piece of art, etc.? I'd actually like to know how much business MS does in Windows 1.0 these days. Hell, how much business does MS do in any of their EOL OSes?

Perhaps software should get a 5 year copyright with an option of another 5 if the product is still commerically viable (as most people know, 10 years is an eternity in the world of software development). Maybe novels should get 15 with a similar extension. The nature of artistic works are not the same, so perhaps they shouldn't get the same protection

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[Shihar]

Personally, I liked the original US system of copyright. It was almost perfect. If I recall correctly you could register creative material for a 14 year copyright. The default was that copy write was an opt-in system. In the current system, EVERYTHING is copyright by default. This fucking message is copyright. After the first 14 years was up, you could renew for another 14. The idea was that only stuff that was worth copywriting was copyright, and that it was for a LIMITED amount of time. With copyright laws as they are, they might as well be forever. ...yeah, someone has been reading FreeCulture...

As far as patents, they are an entirely different beast. The biggest issue I have with patents are the mind numbingly low bar they have set to get an idea patented. Further, they also tend to scoop very wide swaths of "ideas" that have little to do with the original idea. The entire idea that you can patent business models and methods is infuriating. Speaking as someone who has been involved in getting things patented, the entire system is completely fucked. Don't get me wrong, I am all for patents. Patents do serve a very useful purpose and do indeed help innovation. I just am not a fan of the way they are set up now.

I really have no problem with blowing a billion dollars to develop a new drug and getting a patent for it for a few years. That encourages innovation. Without that patent, they would be leery about spending so much money on developing novel new drugs. On the other hand, you have dumb shit like how a cereal bar have patents on "mixing different cereals" and filling a bowl 1/3 the way with milk. Patents in such cases are destroying innovation, not helping it.

I think the point people miss is that patents and copyright are NOT there to compensate IP holders or even the creators. They are there to encourage innovation and nothing more. When the law starts throwing wrenches in the cogs of innovation, the system is failing.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[stinerman]

one of the biggest problems currently is the out-of-print but still protected work that will quite literally disintegrate before anyone is legally allowed to make a copy for posterity.

That is one of the major questions that begs to be looked at by Congress. Using a previous example, Windows 1.0 will, if I'm not mistaken, be placed in the public domain in 2080 (1985 + 95). I don't think MS (or whatever derivative corporation exists at the time) will be too big on keeping the source to a 95-year old OS anywhere. Assuming there are no other copies of the source anywhere else, it will not matter if the source lapses into the public domain as no one will be able to get a copy.

Software is especially precarious in this way. I don't need the master recording of a song to be able to distribute and change that song, but if I don't have the source to a program, all I can do is distribute a binary. I think this is a very important and fundamental issue with copyright law that Congress has not fully thought through.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[Ambassador Kosh]

Copyrights and Patents I totally agree with you on.

What is wrong with Trademarks though? I always though of trademarks as something like forcing companies to tell a limited ammount of the truth. Ie Pepsi can't make a drink and call it Coke and make it look like a coke can etc. It means that when I buy a Panasonic device that is what it is. It is not something else that anyone can just put that name on it.

I don't think that people should be able to call their products by the name of some other product and even make them look the same. It makes it far too hard to find what you are looking for if people can do that.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[rdoger6424]

And that's why Sweden is the world leader in... oh, that's right, nothing.

You forgot something...

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[16K Ram Pack]

I seem to recall something about Alexander Graham Bell getting to the Patent Office just hours before someone else. If someone's that close, then it should be non-patent worthy, on the basis of being obvious.

The other thing is that someone, somewhere can invent something having never seen the original patent, and be unable to use it.

The main area that patents should be allowed is in truly revolutionary technology, not evolutionary.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[gameforge]

The main area that patents should be allowed is in truly revolutionary technology, not evolutionary.

Exactly!

Even in this case, the poor inventor will have very hard time to defend itself against a company that can afford a whole lawyer company during 100 years.

This is true. But, people like to think of the lone inventor who's spent his entire life, yada yada yada.

not every 'little invention' is a 'revolutionary invention'...like something that improve lawnmowner blade durability by 5%

I agree with you. In that case, if ten lawnmower companies all hire ten alloy chemists to improve the durability of their blades, then it's just ten people doing their jobs. Neither the chemists nor their employers should have any patents on anything - they took an existing invention (the power lawnmower) and improved it (slightly).

Neither MS nor Lucent invented MPEG, and neither of them invented microchips. MPEG and microchips are both patent-deserving revolutionary inventions; but putting a software algorithm into a chip is basic stuff. If MS used Lucent's exact specification for doing so, perhaps there's a copyright infringement somewhere... that's about it.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should do away with patent law altogether, or mainly apply it to credit's sake i.e. if I come up with a new kind of telephone, I would have to give credit to A.G. Bell for his invention; not pay him a bunch of royalties. He didn't build my phone, he built his own and has every right to market and sell his phone. He also has every right to claim that he's the inventor. But I built my phone, and thus should be making the money for it, while stating something like "Based on technology from Alexander Bell, etc."

There's six billion people on the planet. Two of them are likely to have the same idea; it's absolutely not fair that one of them gets all the money just because he made it to the patent office first, or that he thought of it first, or whatever. People work for money. If I think up a brilliant idea and patent it, I did a little work... but all of the other people who perfect my idea, produce it, market it, support it, etc. are the real workers, and should be compensated as such. Essentially, the lone inventor is at fault for trying to do everything himself and not trying to work with all of the other talented people in an organization that could really make his idea work for society in a beneficial way. It's a radical idea I suppose, but very applicable to software. After all, we as programmers are constantly taught not to reinvent the wheel, when in fact patent law forces us to.

Am I in another universe here, or does that seem reasonable?

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[ansible]

Oh my, how naive you are. (I'm not trying to be mean or snarky.) This is exactly what is supposed to happen, and that is what is written into the law.

However, this is not at all what happens in real life with the USPTO. Through plan or incompetence, almost anything can be patented. Obviousnenss is not a barrier.

Just look at all the patents where someone took an existing business process, and put it on the web. Yah, new patent! Ka-ching!

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[WinDoze]

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.

Re:The continuing problem of patents...

[Gonarat]

The guy didn't patent this to be a dickhole, he patented the "circular transportation device" to show how broken the current patent system is. This patent would never hold up in court if it was actually enforced (thousands of years of prior use), but the point is that his patent should have been denied (and laughed out of the patent office) but it wasn't!

Now the broken system is starting to bite everyone in the ass, even those (such as Microsoft) who might have been for the current system. Unfortunately, until the big boys are made to suffer, nothing is going to change. Perhaps we are seeing this start to happen (this suit, Eloas, RIM, etc.)

Just because it is MS

[dcapel]

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.

Re:Just because it is MS

[OmegaBlac]

Just because it is MS does not change the fact that this is a patent-system absurdity, another reason why it should be overhauled.

Yet Microsoft continues to apply for frivolous patents and Ballmer hints at launching patent suits again competing OS that just happen to have their source code open for all to see. Gee, I wonder how many patent violations Windows has in its closed up proprietary self. We can only speculate unfortunately...

Re:Just because it is MS

[schroet]

Did you just call Lucent, a global company with a $14-billion market-cap, small?

Re:Just because it is MS

[jambarama]

Not to plug my blog, but I recently wrote about patent abuse. The problem isn't so much unethical companies, the problem is that the incentives to patent are all wrong.

Microsoft is remarkably clean of patent/copyright abuse. Most other companies have less than perfect records. Even companies we see as victimized (ex - Apple sued by creative over 'heirarchal displays' and the Apple record label) have sued others (ex - apple again suing over trade secrets and tried to get gag orders for blogs).

Yeah the Mac fans will bury this comment (just like criticizing Linux is dangerous on /.) but the patent system does need some reforming.

Sorry for the pun

[cflannagan]

I wonder if Microsoft would pull a 360 here.

Re:Sorry for the pun

[Funkmaster_G]

If they pulled a 360, they would be facing in the same direction as they started.

Re:Sorry for the pun

[Anonymous Coward]

If they pulled a 360, they would be facing in the same direction as they started.

But they'd be dizzier.

The question, of course is...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Could god make a chair so heavy that he himself could not throw it across the room and smite lesser companies?

Re:The question, of course is...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Does it matter of there's a box-like object in Ararat which looks like the Biblical Ark?

Why, actually, yes!

I gather there would be quite a few parties interested in a big ol' box of god that can shoot frikkin laser beams out of it.

//oh wait, wrong ark...

Not at all comfortable with the implications ..

[Entropy]

Wow. Suppose this were to happen with other electronics ..

I mean, how exactly are they supposed to really enforce such a thing? Would owning an XBOX 360 then be illegal? If that becomes precedent, that frankly scares the shit out of me. Ten years down the line, having some of my electronics retroactively made illegal to possess?

I'm no MS fanboy by the stretch of anyone's imagination - frankly I loathe them.

But given the wider implications here, I hope they get a partial victory out of this - such that people who allready have this equipment can keep it.

Re:Not at all comfortable with the implications ..

[dtdns]

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.

Re:Not at all comfortable with the implications ..

[zcat_NZ]

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.

The Patent

[Mike deVice]

For those who like to read such things, the patent is right here.

It is long. Very, very long.

Re:The Patent

[servoled]

Seeing as how the article mentions a decoder, I'd assume this is the claim they're talking about:

13. An apparatus for decoding a compressed digital video signal, comprising:

a means for receiving a compressed digital video bit stream; and

a means responsive to a motion compensation type signal for selectively and adaptively performing motion compensated decoding of frames of the compressed video bit stream.

Claims that include "means for" fall under the provisions of 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph which states:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

So, if you want to figure out what this is actually claiming, you have to read the entire specification to determine what the claimed "means" actually correspond to. However, I'm guessing the vast majority out there will condemn the claim, patent and lawsuit without bothering to take the time to find out what the actual issue is.

Is MS at fault or the graphic chip maker?

[t0qer]

See above. So which is it? Nvidia makes thier graphics chip right? So wouldn't the blame chain trickle down to them?

PS, typin live at my karaoke show right now. Follow the link in my sig, say hi, if you like streamin video of drunk girls singin.

Publicity stunt?

[nickgrieve]

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...

All 360s?

[JoeShmoe]

So that's like, what, ten or twelve tops? It's still on preorder everywhere I've visited.

In all seriousness...how can this even be possible as a lawsuit. I think someone didn't refresh their browser and saw a joke news story from April 1st.

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?

If so, why Microsoft? There's about a billion DVD players out in the market right now that would be infringing on this patent. Maybe the patent is only related to MPEG2 and networks? Whoops...a billion PCs out there that would be targets. Isn't Lucent in the middle of being bought by some French company? Does it make any sense to begin some protracted NTP vs Blackberry type war in the middle of that?
ite
The whole article amounts to two lines on some website I've never heard of so...I'm calling it a belated April Fool's...the April Fool being CowboyNeal.

-JoeShmoe
.

Re:All 360s?

[gabebear]

"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...

Re:All 360s?

[akuma(x86)]

Reuters is a very reputable news source and they are reporting the same thing.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsAr ticle.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060405 :MTFH84939_2006-04-05_22-17-54_N05357049&symbol=MS FT.O&rpc=44

Re:All 360s?

[Skuto]

In all seriousness...how can this even be possible as a lawsuit. I think someone didn't refresh their browser and saw a joke news story from April 1st.

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?

*Nowhere* does the MPEG LA guarantee that if you license from them that you will get _all_ patents related to the standard. In fact, you can be sure there are big disclaimers in their contracts that it's not necessarily true. The MPEG LA can't avoid more than anyone else the risk of submarine patents.

AT&T pulled a similar one a while ago with the MPEG4 video standard.

The Typo

[neoshroom]

The lawsuit, which was previously filed by Lucent against Microsoft, was ruled in favor of Microsoft, not on legal grounds, but because of a typographical error in Lucent's patent papers.

The typographical error in question was the use of an unusual symbol by Lucent in place of the more standard 's' in the word 'Microsoft.'

The judge ruled that since there is no true legal entity called 'Micro$oft' to be the defendant the case must necessarily be dismissed.

__

Write My Essay

What a reliable source...

[MustardMan]

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.

Who holds the patent(s)?

[thesuperbigfrog]

I don't think that Lucent is holding all the cards here. There are many other groups that could have a say in this lawsuit:

Approximately 640 patents world wide make up the "essential" intellectual property surrounding MPEG-2. These are held by over 20 corporations and one university:

* Alcatel
* Canon Inc.
* Columbia University
* France Télécom (CNET)
* Fujitsu
* General Electric Capital Corporation
* General Instrument Corp. (now the broadband division of Motorola)
* GE Technology Development, Inc.
* Hitachi, Ltd.
* KDDI Corporation (KDDI)
* Lucent Technologies
* LG Electronics Inc.
* Matsushita
* Mitsubishi
* Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT)
* Philips
* Robert Bosch GmbH
* Samsung
* Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
* Scientific Atlanta
* Sharp
* Sony
* Thomson Licensing S.A.
* Toshiba
* Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).

-- from the Wikipedia

Sony's reaction

[this great guy]

Lucent (to MS): Microsoft, you violated our MPEG2 patent. We demand you recall all 360s. Now.
Microsoft: What !? We are afraid it's not going to be possible.
Lucent (angrily): Do it now ! Or we will sue you !
Sony (pointing his finger toward MS): LOLLLL Huhuhuhu Huhu !
Lucent (to Sony): You too !
Sony: Bastards...

Re:Sony's reaction

[Big Nothing]

Yep, definately a Nelson voice.

Portfolio of 14,000 patents

[UR30]

In related news from 2004: "Lucent Technologies names Jan M.K. Jaferian as Intellectual Property Business President ... protecting, enhancing and generating value from Lucent's Intellectual Property assets, which includes Lucent's extensive portfolio of nearly 14,000 active patents worldwide."

Why big companies still like patents

[cyberjessy]

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.

More info

[Kangburra]

The full document can be got here in PDF format.

Re:I hope Lucent wins and the 360 is scrapped.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ever saw the need for a mod option entitled "Retarted", that was it. Thanks man, I seriously hope you're not in a place in this world to be making major decisions with that fuzzy logic of yours.

M.A.D. Software Patents

[Phat_Tony]

I thought that, among huge companies, the current insane state of the patent system functioned the way the superpowers did in the cold war- under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. Since they all have thousands of patents covering every inane and obvious aspect of doing anything from writing software to building jets to flipping a hamburger to taking a piss, I thought they couldn't afford to start suing one another, because any suit would be met with a dozen counter-suits, and both companies would be assuring the annihilation of their profits into a bloody cataclysm of endless legal fees.

I understand how little extortion, er, "Property Management" firms can sue the likes of RIM, because they don't make or do anything but leech off anyone successful, so you can't threaten them with anything. Or a company on its last legs can make a crazy last-ditch effort to sue themselves into profitability, like SCO. But what's Lucent really doing here? Isn't Microsoft going to turn around and use it's double-click patent to try to make Lucent stop selling everything they make that involves a GUI at any point? Among thousands of other similar suits they could doubtlessly file covering every aspect of everything Lucent does.

Basically, what's Lucent thinking, and why doesn't MAD work here?

Re:M.A.D. Software Patents

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

"Property Management" firms ... don't make or do anything but leech off anyone successful

On this, I'd have to disagree. I'll admit that they don't produce the product for the end user, but in reality, the inventor almost never does. What "Property Management" firms do is create a market for ideas, particularly for smaller inventors. If I, as an individual or small R&D firm, come up with an idea, I have to find somebody to buy the rights to it in order to profit from it, or manufacture it myself. If the latter is impractical--as it frequently is, given the complexity of many modern inventions--then I'm left with only the former. To do that, I have to know who to contact at all of the companies that might be interested, convince them of the value of my product, and convince them to manufacture it--while at the same time not giving away so much information that they're able to create the thing themselves. Even if I have the contacts--a big if--making the sales pitches is a huge time investment, and I'd probably rather be doing more research.

Enter the IP firm. Essentially, they're a marketing organization and a venture capital firm rolled into one. I can sell them my ideas, my patent rights, and walk away, my job complete. I get compensated, and I don't have to deal with the mess. Furthermore, if somebody does misappropriate the idea, I don't have to worry about it: A) I've already made my money, and B) the patent is held by somebody who's likely to have far greater legal resources than I do. While you may not like that, it at least evens up the odds when dealing with the big corporation that is likely the one who is abusing the patent.

So yes, as a consumer, it's easy to think that IP holding firms are harmful, but in reality, they do provide a useful service. As a general rule, if they didn't, they wouln't exist.

A typo?!?

[onlynameicanget]

"The lawsuit, which was previously filed by Lucent against Microsoft, was ruled in favor of Microsoft, not on legal grounds, but because of a typographical error in Lucent's patent papers."

Wow. You'd think if you were going to try and win a case against one of the biggest companies on the planet, you'd at least spellcheck your papers. In Microsoft Word.

Heyyy...wait a sec...

OK, this is dumb

[JPriest]

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?

Re:Yes, this does exist...

[jnadke]

It's called honesty.

Not necessiarly

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Doesn't seem like the Microsoft we all know...

[OwlWhacker]

Wasn't Microsoft claiming that it would protect all users of its software from intellectual property threats? Wasn't Microsoft suggesting that Linux/Open Source software was unable to provide indemnification in this way, and using this in its fight to bring down Linux/Open Soruce?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/policy.mspx

So why isn't Microsoft offering the same protection for Xbox users? Is it because it doesn't have enough power behind it to fight back against these issues in the console market?

Re:Doesn't seem like the Microsoft we all know...

[zcat_NZ]

Microsoft was claiming it will indemnify _some_ of it's most valuable corporate customers.

Home and small businesses users were never included, and anyone who wanted this protection had to be prepared to immediately upgrade/downgrade to whatever non-infringing alternative Microsoft offers, which may include the removal of functionality your business has come to rely on.

All very reassuring, as long as you don't read the fine print!

Interview

[Jungleland]

I guess I had better not mention playing my 360 as a hobby when I go for my interview at Lucent :-)

Trademarks are broken, too

[john-da-luthrun]

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.

Re:Trademarks are broken, too

[ajs]

Absolutely disagree with the football example.

There needs to be equal protection. Just because you're a giant corporation and I'm one person, you should get no special treatment, be it positive or negative. You don't get to stomp on my rights, and I don't get to stomp on yours (yes, we gave corporations rights in the US in the late 1800s, and in the rest of the world in the mid-20th century... get over it, it's not going to change).

Trademarks on backwards "R"s need to be stopped, but overall trademark works fine.

Copyright works pretty well, but really needs to be limited. My theory on this one would be to make copyright 20 years with an automatic (but explicit, so that it could be looked up) extension for any work which continued to be published for up to 100 years. This means Steamboat Willie gets 100 years of protection, but folk music published in the 1980s and then never re-published would be coming into the public domain now.

Patents are a bear. I agree that the core idea makes sense. A physical widget like a new kind of wiper blade needs to be protectable, but I don't like:

• the way patent ownership is handled
  
• the difficulty in knowning if something is covered
  
• the shift of burden from the applicant to the courts in terms of defending a patent
  
• the variable duration of patents because of international agreements
  
• coverage of business models, math and algorithms, etc.

Much of this could be fixed by making patents associate only with an individual, with no transferability and placing a public peer-review process into the end of the approval timeline.

Re:Trademarks are broken, too

[ansible]

... 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.

Forcing fans? No. They chose to purchase overpriced merchandise. If it ever becomes required to purchase a football t-shirt to work in a bakery, or go down to the pub and lift a pint, let me know. Then we can make a case for economic coercion.

Selling overpriced t-shirts is pure capitalism. And unless there is something else wrong (like an unusually high tendancy to catch fire compaired to other shirts) nothing should be done about the situation.

Re:Trademarks are broken, too

[Ethidium]

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.

I think this is just a mis-statement of the law, at least as it exists in the US. Now, I am not a lawyer nor a trademark law expert, but my understanding is that trademarks are limited in scope by geography and type of business. So for instance, the United Parcel Service has a trademark on the color brown, but only in the context of being a worldwide delivery service. If you wanted to use brown trucks for your plumbing service, you go right ahead. Likewise, Sew Fast, Sew Easy probably (hopefully!) loses any trademark claims that they actually file against ad hoc knitting groups, because their trademark is on a shop in NYC and an online presence for a knitting store.

Frivolous litigation is not a problem unique to the so-called "intellectual property" rights. You see it in tort, contract, real estate, and every other area of the law. No amount of IP reform will eliminate the problem of frivolous and oppresive litigation.

public domain != open source

[Comboman]

Software is especially precarious in this way. I don't need the master recording of a song to be able to distribute and change that song, but if I don't have the source to a program, all I can do is distribute a binary. I think this is a very important and fundamental issue with copyright law that Congress has not fully thought through.

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.

Duke Nukem Forever

[saboola]

Using this argument, Duke Nukem Forever would need three five-year extensions, and its not even out yet ;P

Re:I definately agree

[DrSkwid]

> Unless things have changed MASSIVELY at Lucent within the past 3-4 years

Does this count ? :

On April 2, 2006, Alcatel and Lucent announced that they entered into a definitive merger agreement to create the first truly global communications solutions provider with the broadest wireless, wireline and services portfolio in the industry.

http://www.lucent.com/news_events/merg.html

Engineers, how do you deal with this?

[carn1fex]

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.

Weee- the string of copyright this suits continues

[mmalove]

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.