Bait and switch indeed, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist. To me, the patent game is just part of the strategy room of big (tech.) business. It is the place where the largest companies flex their muscles and use business and political clout to negatively influence the ecosystem and ultimately penalize the consumer.
In this case big business, and I'd argue Microsoft wins regardless. If they pay the unreasonable and discriminatory damages they set precedent and leave Lucent to follow suit with software, and consumer electronics manufacturers worlwide. Think about:
1. The hundreds of millions or billions of devices that have added mp3 playback to leverage our (the consumers) interest in open, interoperable digital audio.
- Does Pioneer stop adding mp3 compatibility to car stereos?
- What happens to the iPod?
- Certainly we pay more, a lot more if M$ was paying $16M to Thomson.
- This damages bill is 100x and could push pricing out of reach for use.
2. Who looses if the record labels can't make content available in mp3, sans DRM.
- I noticed EMI was asking too much for the right to distribute their songs in mp3 for Microsoft and Apple to pay. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/26/164210.shtml
- What happens here if Microsoft pays the damages? Forget about mp3 for a while
3. Who looses if the mobile phone industry starts arguing about which audio compression technology to use.
Consumers. Everyone in the business of closed networks (Lucent, ATT etc.) wins. Oh...wait, doesn't Microsoft own a big stake in ATT...come on....
Ultimately, by manifesting this decision, big business has once again conspired to ensure consumers lose. We'll pay more than ever for the ability to play and create digital audio that moves freely from one device to another. Either that or we'll have to use something other than mp3, and try to get it penetrated from PC, to Consumer Electronics.
A new solution would have to be something other than open source, because manufactures will look for legal protection from whoever they license this crap from. If they use open source, or proprietary technology they're nearly guaranteed to use essential patents, and this equates to screaming, "me next, I want to pay a billion." No doubt, Dolby will offer us AAC, or Dolby Digital. Microsoft will offer wma(I hope they get nailed with antitrust here too). Either way we're stuck with supporting the monopoly, increasing fees, and increasing lock-in of big business because "our" court system supports unreasonable and discriminatory patent claims made for the benefit of big biz!
Time for a revolution in patent law and time to change our government. One day, someone will figure out how to free the media from this crap and everything will change.
Slashdot Mirror
Bait and switch indeed, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist. To me, the patent game is just part of the strategy room of big (tech.) business. It is the place where the largest companies flex their muscles and use business and political clout to negatively influence the ecosystem and ultimately penalize the consumer. In this case big business, and I'd argue Microsoft wins regardless. If they pay the unreasonable and discriminatory damages they set precedent and leave Lucent to follow suit with software, and consumer electronics manufacturers worlwide. Think about: 1. The hundreds of millions or billions of devices that have added mp3 playback to leverage our (the consumers) interest in open, interoperable digital audio. - Does Pioneer stop adding mp3 compatibility to car stereos? - What happens to the iPod? - Certainly we pay more, a lot more if M$ was paying $16M to Thomson. - This damages bill is 100x and could push pricing out of reach for use. 2. Who looses if the record labels can't make content available in mp3, sans DRM. - I noticed EMI was asking too much for the right to distribute their songs in mp3 for Microsoft and Apple to pay. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/26/164210.shtml - What happens here if Microsoft pays the damages? Forget about mp3 for a while 3. Who looses if the mobile phone industry starts arguing about which audio compression technology to use. Consumers. Everyone in the business of closed networks (Lucent, ATT etc.) wins. Oh...wait, doesn't Microsoft own a big stake in ATT...come on.... Ultimately, by manifesting this decision, big business has once again conspired to ensure consumers lose. We'll pay more than ever for the ability to play and create digital audio that moves freely from one device to another. Either that or we'll have to use something other than mp3, and try to get it penetrated from PC, to Consumer Electronics. A new solution would have to be something other than open source, because manufactures will look for legal protection from whoever they license this crap from. If they use open source, or proprietary technology they're nearly guaranteed to use essential patents, and this equates to screaming, "me next, I want to pay a billion." No doubt, Dolby will offer us AAC, or Dolby Digital. Microsoft will offer wma(I hope they get nailed with antitrust here too). Either way we're stuck with supporting the monopoly, increasing fees, and increasing lock-in of big business because "our" court system supports unreasonable and discriminatory patent claims made for the benefit of big biz! Time for a revolution in patent law and time to change our government. One day, someone will figure out how to free the media from this crap and everything will change.