Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Patents Software The Courts News

Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble? 175

Posted by Hemos from the probably-not-but-who-knows dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble? More

Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble?

Comments Filter:
  • When you have as much money as Microsoft a patent license, or even a multi million dollar judgment is pocket change.

    • Re:Speed bump? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cd_serek ( 681446 )
      You have a very interesting point there.

      Microsoft, with so much petty cash on its hands, will most likely settle out of court with the other litigants. And for those who are not willing to settle, Gates & Co will just simply buy them out in the typical Microsoft fashion.
      • .
        ...Gates & Co will just simply buy them out in the typical Microsoft fashion


        Would that be be "buy them out" method as shown in the Simpsons?

    • Re:Speed bump? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by musikit ( 716987 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:25AM (#11802037)
      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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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.

      • Paying fines isn't the issue. The issue is that once your are found to be violating someone elses patent they can ask for, and recieve, injunctive relief up to and including a total ban on your product. It's not likely to happen as that would cost tons of money and a long time, but Sony may use it as leverage in the marketplace to convince people that HD-DVD is not the way to go. Pure FUD but potentially effective FUD nonetheless. Besides PC users should be happy since Blue-Ray gives us more real storage ca

    • Re:Speed bump? But a big one (Score:3, Interesting)

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:03AM (#11802356)

        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.

        • 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

          • Acctualy, you both are right in you own ways. Fining the company is, in essense, the same as making the product(s) more costly to produce. This increas in cost will bring about both higher prices and lower profits and the price elasticity will descide in what proportions. The fact that microsoft can be viewed as a monopoly will have an impact but not enough to negat it.

  • Very tempting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#11801947)
    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.
    • Attorneys can only sue you if you've broken a law. If you don't like the laws then vote for different lawmakers.
    • In most jurisdictions there is no copyright on legal drafting...
    • I believe in the case of Microsoft it's
      Live by the sword, live a good long life!
      Where of course, the sword is litigation
      • 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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chris09876 ( 643289 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:12AM (#11801958)
    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.
    • I agree about formats. Closed formats will die sooner or later (sooner I hope) because people will realise that you can't "own" something that is stored in something that someone else owns - and maybe you wont be able to even use it one day either. New formats are just too easy to create. OK, they may not be the "best" format, but I'd take a directory full of PPMs over a WMV file any day...

    • Re:Major speedbump? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kaihaku ( 663794 )
      True...if you're in a tank you don't really feel speedbumps...or so I'd imagine.

      Even in operating systems the days of their dominance is waning. It's simply not possible with such uncontrolled hardware for them to maintain such dominance over software. Applying old laws to a new system isn't going to work well. Just as attempting to force Media to follow the old rules promoted piracy, sticking stubornly to bickering over patents is going to hurt them more than help.

      Media formats and patents... Meh... Ever

  • Not really (Score:5, Funny)

    by Captain Splendid ( 673276 ) <capsplendidNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:14AM (#11801968) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • It would be wonderful... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If Clippy was animated using WMV technology.

      I can see Clippy on the stand right now...

      [Lawyer] So Clippy, how is it you can animate yourself into interesting and rude shapes?
      [Clippy] I see you are trying to cross-examine me. Would you like me to show you how?

    • Woderful is not the word I would use here

      Woderful is not the word I would use anywhere.

  • Use open standards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by henrygb ( 668225 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:14AM (#11801971)
    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.
    • You would think Microsoft would have learned not to use patented technology by now.


      Given their history, I'd say they've learned a quite oppposite lesson.

    • Re:Use open standards (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:22AM (#11802011) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:31AM (#11802089) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • Those IP vulture companies like going after the little guys first. Many of the sleeper patents they aquire cheaply are from failed companies, and aren't too strong. (If they were strong, why did the company fail? [Simplistic, I know.]) They like to try them out in the minor leagues and build a track record before playing with the big boys.

          Strong patents will tend to come from companies that actually do R&D, and MS certainly pumps enough money into that to have patent cards worth trading.

      • A possible US$15bn is not a paper cut even by M$ standards.
      • Odds are, Microsoft has enough patents in their arsenal to do a deal and get cross-licences

        They also probably have enough cash in their pockets to just buy out the patents causing the fuss. While its amusing to see someone in MS's legal department pulling a oversight boner like this, I doubt it'll slow down the company at all in the long run.

    • Re:Use open standards (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:27AM (#11802051) Homepage

      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.

      • 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...

        That is true, Marshall Phelps [legalmediagroup.com] is the man responsible for "productizing" IBM's patent portfolio to the tune of $2B revenue per year. He now works for Microsoft and heads up their IP division where he is trying to do even more for Billy.

    • Re:Use open standards (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kunwon1 ( 795332 ) <dave.j.moore@gmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:15AM (#11801980) Homepage
    ...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.

    • Re:Watch this space... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )
      How is that "getting exactly what they want"? Paying out massive settlements isn't exactly what most organizations want.

      Of course what you are really saying is "exactly what Sony and Philips want", which is enough money that they're happy to offer a patent license.

  • big deal? (Score:5, Informative)

    by alphan ( 774661 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:20AM (#11801997) Homepage
    Patent issues never stopped them before [slashdot.org].

    • Re:big deal? (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by S3D ( 745318 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:21AM (#11802008)
    Well, now Microsoft have something to think about in reagrd it's pushing for EU software patent law....

  • S/w or h/w patent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:21AM (#11802010)
    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 (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In Europe, where software patents aren't yet valid, how does this apply?
      It just means that US users can't mail each other European pr0n clips without a license.
    • 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?

      Neither, I think. Video Codecs fall under something else. Probably algorithms. Easiest way to find out is to look up what the MPEG & Dirac (owned by BBC) standards fall under. I'll say this though. When SMPTE starts looking at a new standard. This kind of thing happens all the time. It's part of the process. So "nothing new, nothing to see

    • Re:S/w or h/w patent (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by YU Nicks NE Way ( 129084 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:36AM (#11802653)
      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.
      • I know Britain is all gung-ho on software patents, and I don't know much about France, but I could have sworn Germany was the one coming out with the big rulings that patents were for harnessing the controllable forces of nature. Have the German rulings been flip-flopping?

        -

    • Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cat_Byte ( 621676 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:24AM (#11802022) Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:27AM (#11802053) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Darren Winsper ( 136155 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:28AM (#11802067)
    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! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:29AM (#11802071) Journal
    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.

  • Intertwined? That's putting it mildly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:35AM (#11802123)
    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.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l4m3z0r ( 799504 ) <kevin AT uberstyle DOT net> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:42AM (#11802177)
    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. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:47AM (#11802216)
    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:00AM (#11802329) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Microsoft do not have any form of dominance in the digital media market hence this thing can't affect it...

    It's not because you use Windows that you employ MS technologies, Windows Media Player plays all sort of stuff even some not invented or owned by MS. Windows media isn't really popular you know, a few porn site, some crappy news site profiting from a deal with MS and the library of the people too simple minded to change settings in WMP, so they end up with Windows Media Audio and ask you to come to th

  • Tempest in a Teacup (Score:5, Interesting)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:25AM (#11803186)
    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.

    • they'll settle for peanuts

      In Microsoft-dollars that works out to a bit over a half billion.

      -
    • If Microsoft tried to do that then that would give Sony and Phillips an easy few billion dollar anti-trust suit. They aren't allowed to use Windows to muscle in on the video media market. That is just not allowed.

      But probably you're still right, this is a tempest in a teacup. I'd be willing to bet that it'll just "go away".

  • If you can't beat 'em... (Score:3, Funny)

    by squirrelist ( 412181 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:48AM (#11803435)
    Sounds like Microsoft may inadvertantly be in the market to purchase Sony and/or Philips.

  • Lots of errors in articles (Score:5, Informative)

    by benwaggoner ( 513209 ) <ben,waggoner&microsoft,com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:51AM (#11803458) Homepage
    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.
  • ...I hate patents on so-called "intellectual property" even worse. It's one thing to have a copyright on a particular piece of software, but a patent on what is little more than a file format is ridiculous. It's like having a patent on a metrical form. I'd like to see someone file a patent on iambic pentameter, then sue every poet or songwriter who tries to use it in their work.

  • Easy, just put DRM on the codecs (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewg ( 158266 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @12:07PM (#11803603)

    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.
  • I know Microsoft isn't going to do this, but with these sorts of cases running into the tens and hundreds of millions wouldn't it just be CHEAPER for some company being sued to simply BUY millions of dollars in advertizing and BUY half of congress and simply pass a law eliminating software patents? *Poof* A half billion dollar software patent lawsuit evaporates.

    -
  • From the post:
    > But this is a wonderful example
    > of how intertwined legal & software
    > issues can become.

    I think this would be more appropriately worded:
    > But this is a frightening example
    > of how intertwined legal & software
    > issues can become.

  • Codec standardized as decoding (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @03:43PM (#11806268) Journal
    VC-1, like MPEG-2, is standardized as how to parse and decode the data stream. The encoding is not actually standardized or defined. Infact, compression gets better every year, even for old-school codecs like MPEG-2, because of new encoding technology.

    I suspect that there may be fewer patent problems with the standardization of VC-1 than there are with the implementation of VC-1 (or any kind of WMV). Things like efficient algorithms for determining motion estimation vectors is where you would find the serious patents, these are encoding issues.

    (BTW, I am at the SMPTE meeting in Pasadena right now, but I probably won't be attending much of S22. Nor would I talk about it if I did ;)
  • MPEG is an ISO standard, so isn't Sony required to liscense its patents in a "fair and reasonable" way? Or is that only to creators of MPEG-related devices/software - not other systems the patent still applies to?

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Close