Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Alcatel-Lucent Awarded $1.5 Billion from Microsoft over MP3 Patents
- Thread starter Teh Don Ditty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a feeling that apple will be next. M$ 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.
Alcatel-Lucent Awarded $1.5 Billion from Microsoft over MP3 Patents
![]()
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.