Alcatel-Lucent Awarded $1.5 Billion from Microsoft over MP3 Patents

Teh Don Ditty · Feb 22, 2007, 04:39 PM

Reuters - MSFT infringed on audio patents held by Alcatel-Lucent.

BoyBach · Feb 22, 2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

A U.S. federal jury found that Microsoft Corp. infringed audio patents held by Alcatel-Lucent and should pay $1.52 billion in damages, Microsoft said on Thursday.

Microsoft said it plans to first ask the trial judge to knock down the ruling and will appeal if necessary. It said the verdict is unsupported by the law or the facts.

Alcatel-Lucent had accused the world's biggest software maker of infringing patents related to standards used for playing computer music, or MP3, files.

"We made strong arguments supporting our view and we are pleased with the court's decision," said Alcatel-Lucent spokeswoman Joan Campion, declining to discuss details of the decision.

Ouch! That's going to hurt no matter how rich a company you are.

mattscott306 · Feb 22, 2007, 04:57 PM

Hehehe, sorry, that makes me laugh. Good times.

Rodimus Prime · Feb 22, 2007, 05:00 PM

I have a feeling that apple will be next. M$ just happens to be the first one hit because they are the largest. You do not want M$ to lose because then apple will be paying out the rear as well for the same thing. (a long with a very long list of other companies.

butaro · Feb 22, 2007, 06:31 PM

Too bad, Microsoft was/is working closely with the Alcatel side for VoP services. That might hurt that relationship.

MacRumors · Feb 22, 2007, 08:02 PM

CNet reports that Microsoft has been hit with a $1.5 billion patent verdict over MP3 audio technology used in Windows since 2003.

Microsoft reportedly licensed the technology from Fraunhofer, a company that helped develop MP3 compression alongside Lucent's Bell Labs. The decision is of particular interest to other technology companies who have licensed MP3 technology from Fraunhofer (now Thomson). This includes hundreds of companies including Apple.

Quote:

"Therefore, today's outcome is disappointing for us and for the hundreds of other companies who have licensed MP3 technology," Burt said. "We are concerned that this decision opens the door for Alcatel-Lucent to pursue action against hundreds of other companies who purchased the rights to use MP3 technology from Fraunhofer, the industry-recognized rightful licensor."

PC World notes that this is the first of six patent lawsuits currently underway by Lucent. The remaining lawsuits directed at Microsoft cover speech pattern technology, user interface patents, Xbox 360 technology, and video technologies.

Microsoft, of course, has stated they "will seek relief from the trial court, and if necessary, appeal".

carve · Feb 22, 2007, 08:09 PM

Wow, that's a LOT of money.

dsnort · Feb 22, 2007, 08:13 PM

Could this explain the price of Vista?

wavelayer · 08:16 PM

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

EagerDragon · Feb 22, 2007, 08:18 PM

HaHa, Woot

justflie · Feb 22, 2007, 08:18 PM

I sure hope Apple isn't next on the list...

Makosuke · Feb 22, 2007, 08:25 PM

As much as I want to see Microsoft punished in any way possible (even if they didn't do anything wrong, they've gotten away with enough historically to deserve it), I don't think this is a good think. Software patents can end up causing absolutely stupid lawsuits and do little but slow development of good (and often free) technologies.

If you don't want to license your API, that's one thing. But preventing somebody from using a method of doing things because you thought of it first is seriously counterproductive. And if you ARE going to allow software patents, they should be very short-lived, like drug patents, so you don't have asinine things like unlicensed GIF compressors being illegal for 20 years.

zblaxberg · Feb 22, 2007, 08:25 PM

no way apple is next

Lynxpoint · Feb 22, 2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makosuke

I don't think this is a good think. Software patents can end up causing absolutely stupid lawsuits and do little but slow development of good (and often free) technologies.

If you don't want to license your API, that's one thing. But preventing somebody from using a method of doing things because you thought of it first is seriously counterproductive. And if you ARE going to allow software patents, they should be very short-lived, like drug patents, so you don't have asinine things like unlicensed GIF compressors being illegal for 20 years.

I agree completely.

twoodcc · Feb 22, 2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justflie

I sure hope Apple isn't next on the list...

i hope not also! but i don't think they are....i like to think positive

bad news for microsoft......i bet ballmer's raging mad...haha

Cassie · Feb 22, 2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zblaxberg

no way apple is next

No, I think it'll happen. Like a poster said above, Microsoft was just first.

polyesterlester · Feb 22, 2007, 08:47 PM

Do we know that Apple hasn't licensed the technology from Alcatel-Lucent?

SiliconAddict · Feb 22, 2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattscott306

Hehehe, sorry, that makes me laugh. Good times.

You are a very petty person.

Rocketman · Feb 22, 2007, 08:56 PM

I have been following this because Lucent was "partners" with the licensing firm. Therefore one would think one partner "speaks for the other" under "partnership and joint-venture" law.

This is distressing because the various licensees acted in "good faith" (yes including Apple) and are still "liable". This could be a defect in the law, a jury gone wild, most likely bad jury instructions or worse, a case of double dipping of fees supported by law.

In any case this clearly implies liability to Apple too.

The award was relatively small considering the scope of the claims, but at what point do contracts and fees matter at all? It has not yet been detected.

Was there even an offset considered and was it the fees paid, or the distributed percentage of the rights licensed for?

MANY aspects for appeal here.

Rocketman

EagerDragon · Feb 22, 2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zblaxberg

no way apple is next

Depends who they licensed from.

eddyg · Feb 22, 2007, 09:02 PM

Just goes to show how far Lucent has fallen. Rather than try
to make money on their actual products, which have been failing horribly.
They are trawling their large patent pool and trying to make money off the back of other companies success.

I'd be quite embarrassed to be working for Lucent right now... they are
scum in my eyes.

Cheers, Ed.

macguysoft · Feb 22, 2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoodcc

i hope not also! but i don't think they are....i like to think positive

Do you suppose that if that happens, then MS will complain about being the only company that got sued? LOL. I'd like to think positive but that sadly won't help change the outcome of things. If they do, we'll have to see if Apple made the same mistake. They are usually careful but no one is perfect.

psychofreak · Feb 22, 2007, 09:07 PM

Just thinking...that 0.02 billion rounded off for the thread title is an awful lot of money...

running · Feb 22, 2007, 09:08 PM

How can anybody rate this as positive? Because Microsoft is evil evil evil company and deserves it? Definitely not.. I don't like these "sue them all" actions

it can turn against Apple as well...

psychofreak · Feb 22, 2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running

How can anybody rate this as positive? Because Microsoft is evil evil evil company and deserves it? Definitely not.. I don't like these "sue them all" actions

it can turn against Apple as well...

I agree...but microsoft-bashing is fun...

Feb 22, 2007, 04:39 PM	#1
Teh Don Ditty macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Long Island, NY	Microsoft hit with $1.52 billion patent suit damages Reuters - MSFT infringed on audio patents held by Alcatel-Lucent. __________________ Disgusting.

Feb 22, 2007, 04:57 PM	#3
mattscott306 macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jan 2007	Hehehe, sorry, that makes me laugh. Good times. __________________ I'm sleepy.

Feb 22, 2007, 08:09 PM	#7
carve macrumors 6502a Join Date: Feb 2006	Wow. Wow, that's a LOT of money.

Feb 22, 2007, 08:15 PM	#9
wavelayer macrumors member Join Date: May 2005	Ouch! That's gotta hurt. Last edited by WildCowboy : Feb 22, 2007 at 08:16 PM. Reason: size

Feb 22, 2007, 08:18 PM	#10
EagerDragon macrumors 68010 Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: MA, USA	HaHa, Woot __________________ Security is a state of mind, Nothing can ever be fully secured and be functional. Therefore iBricks are fully secured.

Feb 22, 2007, 05:00 PM	#4
Rodimus Prime macrumors 68030 Join Date: Oct 2006	I have a feeling that apple will be next. M$ just happens to be the first one hit because they are the largest. You do not want M$ to lose because then apple will be paying out the rear as well for the same thing. (a long with a very long list of other companies.

Feb 22, 2007, 06:31 PM	#5
butaro macrumors regular Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada	Too bad, Microsoft was/is working closely with the Alcatel side for VoP services. That might hurt that relationship.

Feb 22, 2007, 08:13 PM	#8
dsnort macrumors 68000 Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In persona non grata	Could this explain the price of Vista?

Feb 22, 2007, 08:18 PM	#11
justflie macrumors 6502a Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Red Sox Nation	I sure hope Apple isn't next on the list... __________________ 2 x 2.66 GHz 2009 Mac Pro, 6 GB RAM, GTX 285 ; 32GB iPhone 3GS

Feb 22, 2007, 08:25 PM	#12
Makosuke macrumors 68040 Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The Cool Part of CA, USA	As much as I want to see Microsoft punished in any way possible (even if they didn't do anything wrong, they've gotten away with enough historically to deserve it), I don't think this is a good think. Software patents can end up causing absolutely stupid lawsuits and do little but slow development of good (and often free) technologies. If you don't want to license your API, that's one thing. But preventing somebody from using a method of doing things because you thought of it first is seriously counterproductive. And if you ARE going to allow software patents, they should be very short-lived, like drug patents, so you don't have asinine things like unlicensed GIF compressors being illegal for 20 years.

Feb 22, 2007, 08:25 PM	#13
zblaxberg macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2007	no way apple is next __________________ White(converted to black) 2.16Ghz Macbook, 3GB RAM, 200GB HD; iPod Touch 32GB

Feb 22, 2007, 08:47 PM	#17
polyesterlester macrumors 6502 Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Soldotna, Alaska	Do we know that Apple hasn't licensed the technology from Alcatel-Lucent? __________________ A Spoonful of Lester The sad, ongoing memoir of a young man learning to laugh at the fact that he's slowly dying. A blog.

Feb 22, 2007, 08:56 PM	#19
Rocketman macrumors 68020 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Claremont, CA	I have been following this because Lucent was "partners" with the licensing firm. Therefore one would think one partner "speaks for the other" under "partnership and joint-venture" law. This is distressing because the various licensees acted in "good faith" (yes including Apple) and are still "liable". This could be a defect in the law, a jury gone wild, most likely bad jury instructions or worse, a case of double dipping of fees supported by law. In any case this clearly implies liability to Apple too. The award was relatively small considering the scope of the claims, but at what point do contracts and fees matter at all? It has not yet been detected. Was there even an offset considered and was it the fees paid, or the distributed percentage of the rights licensed for? MANY aspects for appeal here. Rocketman

Feb 22, 2007, 09:02 PM	#21
eddyg macrumors 6502 Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Christchurch, NZ	How Lucent has fallen Just goes to show how far Lucent has fallen. Rather than try to make money on their actual products, which have been failing horribly. They are trawling their large patent pool and trying to make money off the back of other companies success. I'd be quite embarrassed to be working for Lucent right now... they are scum in my eyes. Cheers, Ed.

Feb 22, 2007, 09:07 PM	#23
psychofreak Retired Join Date: May 2006 Location: London	Just thinking...that 0.02 billion rounded off for the thread title is an awful lot of money...

Feb 22, 2007, 09:08 PM	#24
running macrumors member Join Date: Jan 2006	How can anybody rate this as positive? Because Microsoft is *evil evil evil* company and deserves it? Definitely not.. I don't like these "sue them all" actions it can turn against Apple as well...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode