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?
I wonder if Microsoft would pull a 360 here.
Could god make a chair so heavy that he himself could not throw it across the room and smite lesser companies?
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.
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
For those who like to read such things, the patent is right here.
It is long. Very, very long.
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
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
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
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
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?
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...
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.
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?
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
It's called honesty.
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.
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.
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.