Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble?

thpr writes "According to rethink, Microsoft may be violating patents in their Windows Media software. Apparently, the VC1 standard (from The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers), which has been pushed by Microsoft, depends on patents owned by other companies - more than likely, those that have patents used in the previous MPEG standards. According to the sources in the story, both Sony and Philips may take the case to court, rather than continuing negotiation. As they point out in a later update, Sony might be pleased to have a say in the competing HD-DVD format. Is this a 'major speed bump to Microsoft's dominance of digital media markets'?" Well, the answer, IMHO, is probably not - this is a negotiation issue. But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.

Very tempting

[bigtallmofo (695287)]

It's very tempting to declare the old addage, "Live by the sword, die by the sword", but I'm not sure if that's the right attitude. Following that to its logical conclusion, it seems the only people that will be able to make money in the future are attorneys. Try to do anything else and you'll be sued.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Anonymous Custard (587661)]

Attorneys can only sue you if you've broken a law. If you don't like the laws then vote for different lawmakers.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[phoenix.bam! (642635)]

You can be sued at any time for anything costing you money in legal fees. You will(should) only lose if you did break a law but even if you win you still need to pay to defend yourself.

Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[m50d (797211)]

That's not what we need to do, you can still get sued. What we need to do is make it easy for innocent people to get acquitted without losing huge amounts of money.

Re:Very tempting

[shaka999 (335100)]

The problem is knowing if something has been invented. I'm a circuit designer and the older I get the more convinced I am that you can't design a modern circuit without violating a patent. There are so many crap patents that you just can't.

So, what does this lead to? As an engineer I'm told to stay away from anything related to the patent office. If I knowingly violate a patent its much much worse so we aren't allowed to even look. This attitude is necessary but throws the whole idea of a patent on its head.

In exchange for disclosing a new idea to the public you are supposed to get 20 years to use the idea without fear of competition. The problem is the public can no longer afford to look at the patents for fear of litigation. So, the idea of patents furthering the state of various industries is BS.

Re:Very tempting

[KarmaMB84 (743001)]

Schools like to teach engineering and programming from copyright and likely patent encumbered textbooks so anyone that ever reads them are producing derivative works and likely patent infringing works.

Re:Very tempting

[idontgno (624372)]

I believe in the case of Microsoft it's Live by the sword, live a good long life!

In which case, the motto of Microsoft's legal team is "Go for the eyes, Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!"

Major speedbump?

[chris09876 (643289)]

Like the poster, I don't think this is a major speedbump. ...but I also don't think that we're headed for a world where media formats are dominated by MS. They'll be a player in the industry for sure, but it's unlikely they'll have the same kind of dominance they've enjoyed in the operating system market.

Not really

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.

Woderful is not the word I would use here. Nightmare. Catastrophe. SNAFU.

But not wonderful.

Use open standards

[henrygb (668225)]

You would think Microsoft would have learned not to use patented technology by now. It has a viral effect - build on existing patents and you are still caught in the trap.

Re:Use open standards

[AndroidCat (229562)]

Odds are, Microsoft has enough patents in their arsenal to do a deal and get cross-licences. This isn't dying by the sword, this is more like a paper-cut even if they have to pay cash.

Of course, the little guy who isn't a member of the nuclear MAD patent club is screwed, but what else is new?

Re:Use open standards

[gowen (141411)]

This isn't dying by the sword, this is more like a paper-cut even if they have to pay cash.

While that may well be true in this case, it's not always going to be true.

With the rise of dedicated Intellectual Property companies, dedicated to acquiring and licensing patents, cross-licensing will become less and less important. A hypothetical dedicated IP company has no need to cross-licence other's patents, because they don't actually create anything. So *everyone*, even MS ends up paying the IP firm.

And MS may well be stiffed hardest, because if I've got a solid case for pursuing royalties from someone, I'm going after the guy with the most cash lying around.

Re:Use open standards

[cyberformer (257332)]

The obvious strategy is to go after the small guys, establish precedent, then go after the big guys.

But some patent outfits do go after the big guys straightaway. They know it will get them publicity, and perhaps investment: Just follow SCO's strategy of PR/FUD, but combine it with actually having a case.

Re:Use open standards

[Scarblac (122480)]

The problem is that it's almost impossible to avoid them - there are extremely software broad patents covering mostly everything. Open standards aren't a cure, just that a standard is open doesn't mean anything, you can still be sued.

As far as I understand, Microsoft was never very active on the patent front, as has never sued anyone on patent grounds (except perhaps as retaliation). However, in recent years they've been very aggressive in getting them.

That last paragraph could make it sound like they're only getting them because they have to defend themselves, but Microsoft is one of the companies pushing extremely hard for software patents in Europe. So it's more a case of them finally noticing an opportunity, and wanting to join the party... there's a lot of open standards implemented by open source that could suffer in the future.

Re:Use open standards

[g0_p (613849)]

Actually, from what I understand, opening up its design is what has caused this problem in the first case. M$ decided that it wanted to get into the media streaming business in a big way. They want everyone to use WMV. So they go after customers. Many of the customers wanted it to be at least an industry standard before they go for it. So MS tries to standardize it. They enter standardization forums and bully their way through the forums trying to force everyone to accept WMV as a standard. The current play

Watch this space...

[kunwon1 (795332)]

...For an announcement in the next few weeks announcing Microsoft settling out of court for a massive, yet undisclosed sum of money, and getting exactly what they want. As usual.

big deal?

[alphan (774661)]

Patent issues never stopped them before [slashdot.org].

Re:big deal?

[alphan (774661)]

Patent issues never stopped them before.

update oh well, it's a duplicate. Nothing else interesting happening today :)

the original slashdot post [slashdot.org]

MS and EU software patent law

[S3D (745318)]

Well, now Microsoft have something to think about in reagrd it's pushing for EU software patent law....

S/w or h/w patent

[by Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, where software patents aren't yet valid, how does this apply?

Do only h/w versions of the codec infringe, or do s/w versions infringe as well?

Re:S/w or h/w patent

[leuk_he (194174)]

They are not valid, but some pantents are asigned. Most patents use the workarround by describing the software as an thng that is accompagnied by some hardware (that is the decompression chip).

I have not yet figured out how they are able to produce sell here 50 Euro (retail) dvd players that cost 10-20 dollar in licenses [thebaj.com]

Re:S/w or h/w patent

[YU Nicks NE Way (129084)]

In Europe, where software patents aren't yet valid, how does this apply?

Do you mean in all of Europe, or in those parts where the courts haven't decided yet? One of those things that FFII hasn't told you is that software patents are already valid in most of the largest countries in Europe, since Germany, Britain and France already have equivalents of State Street. The problem with software patents (from a corporate point of view) isn't whether they do or do not exist, but that they're inconsistent in a putatively free market. Pricing decisions can't be made fairly in a free market unless the regulations are evenly applied. Most of the corporations behind the proposed Europatent code don't particularly like software patents; instead, they want a method for estimating risk so that they can price that risk into their products.

Hardware

[overshoot (39700)]

Keep in mind that both Philips and Sony produce video processing chips that don't depend on software. Their patents would be hardware patents, but almost certainly drawn broadly enough that a software emulation of the hardware wouldn't escape infringement.

That is, by the way, the back door that got the US into the software patent business: lawyers just drew up claims for Rube Goldberg hardware that did the same thing without reference to software, then claimed the software by the Doctrine of Equivalences

From TFA

[Cat_Byte (621676)]

For instance, its wording on motion estimation in patent number 5,692,063 could be used to describe the techniques in H.264 just as easily. This refers to the technique whereby a processor can predict which pixels will be covered in the next few frames by an object that is moving.

Hmm...this technique is usually used by anyone in motion video or you will get screen flicker if you redraw the entire screen every frame.

Also, if these other companies are using WMV, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have their codec distributed with the huge marketshare of Windows users? I'm not sure if they were planning on selling a codec and what the market is to actually buy one. If I download something and it doesn't work with my standard codecs, I delete it.

Like Bill cares

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

If this doesn't go his way he'll either buy the company and "absorb it" or he'll just carry on and go "meh, I make more then that in a day".

Maybe we need a system where fines are set by how much money you earn per second. Average person earns $0 a second, so fines would be set to a lowest level (AKA all current levels, not RIAA current levels) and go from there.

I'm not surprised

[Darren Winsper (136155)]

A friend of mine used to work at Dolby, and there were rumours there that a number of people thought Microsoft were infringing on several patents with WMV. This was a good couple of years ago, too.

Just imagine!

[Jugalator (259273)]

Imagine there's no patents,
It's easy if you try,
No lawyers around us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
developing in joy...

Imagine there's no lawsuits,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to fight or pay for,
No worries too,
Imagine all the people
hacking code in peace...

Imagine no copyrights,
I wonder if you can,
Nothing to support greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of geeks,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

The RIAA has been notified

[nganju (821034)]

You're getting slapped with a suit for copyright infringement. Did you think you could just use that song however you wanted? What kind of world do you imagine we're in?

Re:Just imagine!

[rifftide (679288)]

I'm not surprised at this new discovery... people keep underestimating George Martin's contribution to the success of the Beatles.

Intertwined? That's putting it mildly

[Badgerman (19207)]

Legal and software issues intertwined? That's putting it mildly. It's more a cat's cradle or some bizarre Gordinian knot.

The legal issues, the patent insanity, are just making it harder and harder to make progress. At what point is it just not worth DOING something becasue of all the legal hassles involved.

Today it's media formats. What more could go wrong and what could grind to a halt?

yeah well..

[l4m3z0r (799504)]

Well, the answer, IMHO, is probably not - this is a negotiation issue. But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.

s/software/*

legal issues intertwine all facets of our lives. software is no exception and it hardly could be considered to be intertwined more than anything else.

The only thing this is an example of is the legal nature between corporations. Software is just the details that don't really matter much. The could be talking about the production of blorps and gizmo gadgets for all they care. As long as it makes them money and as long as the legal system is used to the fullest extent possible to garuntee them the biggest cut. They don't really think of it as applying law to software as they really don't care if its software or a physical product. Makes no difference to them or the legal system.

Patents are like opinions.

[big-giant-head (148077)]

In the corporate world everyone seems to have one (at least). Thats the problem with this kinda of generic ip. In hard science you can patent things like a machining process for maufacturing xyz, or a chemical compound, or chemical process.....

In the software world it's not that cut and dried. Hopefully someone will figure out that saying I'm patenting 'a video format that can be played on digital devices' is not going to cut it, and does not give the patent holder the rights to all video formats ever created.

Or not and europe and china will leave us and our lawyers in the dust.

So?

[bill_mcgonigle (4333)]

Microsoft will continue to use the patents to gain market penetration and after a 4-year court battle make a settlement for what will amount to 4 days worth of profits.

Microsoft is unstoppable.

Tempest in a Teacup

[overshoot (39700)]

Since I'm pretty sure that both Sony and Philips have MS Windows licenses, MS gets a free pass on this. Their standard contract terms include a "patent non-assertion" clause which in effect gives MS a 100% unilateral cross-license to any patents which the (non-MS) party might have or ever hope to have.

Sony made a particular point about this shortly after the DOJ scuttlement, when MS told them that the Court required uniform license terms and that meant no more exemptions from the non-assert clause.

At this point, the issue is likely to be boiling down to what (if anything) MS is willing to pay to keep Sony and Philips (and any others) from suing MS' users. Since neither company wants the bad PR from anything like that, they'll settle for peanuts.

If you can't beat 'em...

[squirrelist (412181)]

Sounds like Microsoft may inadvertantly be in the market to purchase Sony and/or Philips.

Lots of errors in articles

[benwaggoner (513209)]

Whomever wrote the original article is pretty fuzzy on a lot of details.

Just to clear things up a bit:

VC-9 was based on Windows Media Video 9, which is the commercial release version of the WMV codec, plus the Advanced Profile extensions. It was later renamed VC-1. No difference between the two.

H.264 and VC-1 do have significant technical differences (I go worried when he described his research on this point as "Another source told us recently that they had had the codec explained to them, and confirmed that it did "pretty much" the same as H.264." Well, pretty much in the same way that MPEG-1 and RealVideo do pretty much the same thing. They're both codecs, but have significant differences with real-world differences. For example, VC-1 uses larger blocks than H.264, which helps with some content and hurts with others. H.264 supports multiple reference frames, which can improve compression, but slows encode and decode.

Lastly, these issues aren't that unusual - I doubt it would even be possible to build a competitive codec without stepping on a whole lot of patents. Microsoft has IP in H.264, after all. It's still not possible to build a patent free MPEG-2 decoder.

Re:Lots of errors in articles

[benwaggoner (513209)]

Nope.

The only video codecs for which patent license free decoding is available that I know of are H.263, MPEG-1, and VP3/Theora.

Easy, just put DRM on the codecs

[ewg (158266)]

Sounds like a DRM opportunity to me:

We're sorry,

Microsoft Corporation does not have permission to execute the Windows Media Video codec at this time. Please try again later.

Re:Speed bump?

[musikit (716987)]

not against sony.

i believe sony is bigger then MS. why would sony want to license stuff from MS when producing a movie to DVD or online (if we ever get online on demand movies).

so MS can't buy Sony out, and Sony can just lidigate the WMV format away for their own HD-DVD format.

Why mod that down?

[HangingChad (677530)]

It's true. MSFT benefits from the patent system in its present form. They can afford to pay millions in these types of cases which gives them the ability to build walls around certain market segments. And with their massive patent portfolio they can set themselves up as the giant toll booth on the road to new business models.

A few million in a case like this is chump change.

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[by Anonymous Coward]

The article actually suggest that if it went to court, the final figure would be more like $5 BILLION. Not such pocket change, even for MSFT

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[mattspammail (828219)]

And who do you think will foot the bill over the next 2 to 3 years?

If you don't know how to answer this correctly, riddle me this: How did Microsoft make most of its money? If there's a price to pay, we're going to pay it. Directly or indirectly, we'll (those who use Microsoft products, which is the majority of computer users, like it or not) have to pay it.

This reminds me of professional sports. Teams don't pay players. We do. Same goes for advertising, etc. We always pay.

Re:Speed bump? But a big one

[m50d (797211)]

I'm fed up of seeing this nonsense argument getting modded up. It's not us who are going to pay it, directly or otherwise. If MS gets fined, it is their shareholders who will lose money. No-one else. Just think about it for a minute. MS is already charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their prices are optimised - if they charge more, there'll be enough fewer people buying their product that it isn't worth it. So just how would we pay?

Fining companies punishes the company, in terms of its sh

Mi no hablo espaniol.

[by Anonymous Coward]

>If only terrorists use WMV then who uses Quicktime in this little universe anyway?

Oh that's easy... gay terrorists.

Re:Ban WMV, bring back hanging for the creators.

[0123456 (636235)]

But who in their right mind would use a video format that 'phones home' every time you watch 'Anal Love Dog HD: Director's cut'?

WMV-HD kind of sucks anyway: there are some horrid compression artifacts in the roller-coaster shots in one of the sample WMV-HD files.

Closed source software could harbor stolen code

[by Anonymous Coward]

With general closed source software like Windows, and many others, we just don't know what is being stolen, recompiled, and hidden away.
For all we know, many closed source software companies could be hiding much stolen and modified stolen code, and what's worse is that they can easily get away with it.

Re:Closed source software could harbor stolen code

[dual_boot_brain (854259)]

Not if it was replaced with an exact replica...

Re:Closed source

[Mattcelt (454751)]

This isn't so much an example of the evils of closed source software - which, IMHO, we lived with very comfortably for many years. This smacks more of the law of unintended consequences, and highlights the amazing complexity and the chaotic progression of software patents.

There will come a time, if the tide is not stemmed, when it will not be possible to write software, closed-source or otherwise, without infringing on someone's patent. We're only a few years into most of the patents' 17 (20?) year lifespan; the skies do look forbidding indeed.

What this really is

[bonch (38532)]

This is Sony trying to stick it to Microsoft, who is their PS3 competitor. Sony is still pissed that Microsoft decided to enter the console market and push their DirectNext platform after they first offered it to Sony for the PS2, and Sony turned them down. Microsoft sells the X-Box at a loss because they're trying to push that software platform. They even offered it to Nintendo, who also turned them down. So, they decided to make their own console.

This is also why you saw Sony's head guy at MacWorld '05. Sony wants to get rid of Microsoft and will help out with doing that so far as it benefits them.

Re:Lol, just got to laugh

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

Lol, why does M$ never learn, they keep trying to get market shares by using sneaky tricks.

Well, since they've got something around 98% of the market share, I'd say their 'sneaky little tricks' are paying off.

Sometimes it works but on the other hand sometimes it dont and then they get sued.

Exactly. and when it doesn't work, they simply settle for what seems to us mere mortals to be exorbitant sums of money, but to them is merely pocket change. I'm not sure you realize just how deep M$'s pocket