Microsoft Pays $440M to License InterTrust Patents 169
theodp writes "Microsoft is paying $440 million to InterTrust to settle a three-year-old patent infringement lawsuit over DRM technology for protecting music, movies and other digital content against piracy. Under the settlement agreement, customers can use Microsoft products and services without a license from InterTrust. Developers, however, may need a license from InterTrust for other uses, including the combination of Microsoft technology with third-party technology." C.J. adds a link to the New York Times' coverage of the settlement.
$440 million? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:$440 million? (Score:5, Funny)
for $440 million im sure microsoft can develop a DRM system 100000x better then what they have right now
Based on their record thus far, zero times "100000" still doesn't add to much.
Re:$440 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$440 million? (Score:1)
Re:$440 million? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. It gets around the DOJ and EU. (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft pays InterTrust a lot of money, and then InterTrust refuses to license to anyone else (unless Microsoft approves), thus giving Microsoft a monopoly on the protocol, just as if it was Microsoft's own secret/patented protocol.
But if the court tries to say that it violates the DOJ or EU settlement, then Microsoft just responds, "Hey, we're the victim here. It's InterTrust t
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:3rd blow to them in a short period (Score:1)
Re:3rd blow to them in a short period (Score:1)
Seems like an incentive to sue to me. (Score:2)
$440 million to Intertrust
$2 billion to Sun
That's a *lot* of money, even if MS don't think so.
Re:$440 million? (Score:2, Informative)
Third Party? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could MS have crafted a sweeter deal if they tried? (ya know, other than the half billion dollar payout)
Re:Third Party? (Score:3, Insightful)
With all these incredible limitations on coding (Score:1)
Re:With all these incredible limitations on coding (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:With all these incredible limitations on coding (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be almost impossible to sell software in the US, whether it's made domestically or internationally, because it's practically impossible to make software that's legal in the US.
The US will become a software 3rd world country if you don't repeal the software patent law.
Re:With all these incredible limitations on coding (Score:3, Insightful)
In most third world countries a handful of people control virtually all the wealth. There are just a few very powerful companies and tons of little mom and pop grocery stores.
Seems to me we are well on our way.
Re:With all these incredible limitations on coding (Score:3, Interesting)
Software built in India or China will not be legal in the US if they don't adhere to these ridiculous software patents.
That's not a problem.
Software will be made in India, China and elsewhere, and web sites based there will sell their software over the Internet to US customers, despite the infringement of US patents. US home customers are sure to buy and use it, even when businesses daren't.
Ironically, the shareholders will be based in the US for a while longer. Looks like you guys are funding you
0.4 billion. (Score:3, Funny)
Keep chipping away fellas.
Re:0.4 billion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:0.4 billion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is definately making a profit, and a large one at that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong.
Re:0.4 billion. (Score:1)
Re:0.4 billion. (Score:5, Informative)
That shows a net profit of about $26bn, and around $10bn in net earnings for 2003.
Times are probably not as tough as you think.
More Info @ The Register (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Info @ The Register (Score:4, Informative)
Cost benefit analysis? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reaffirmage (Score:2, Funny)
It reaffirms that Microsoft will respect your intellectual property rights when they can't assimilate them by brute force.
NY Times Reg-free link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NY Times Reg-free link (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as how Slashdot is benefitting from NYTimes' work, isn't it a bit unprofessional to mod people up for telling people how to sneak around their registration system? I wouldn't mind but NYT doesn't have a bad reputation for abusing registeree's.
Re:NY Times Reg-free link (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:NY Times Reg-free link (Score:3)
end to DRM? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, I'll be the first(?) to point out the irony in this. These people are so concerned with Intellectual Property, but they are infringing on it themselves. Not that they're "at fault", but that the system is messed up.
Re:end to DRM? (Score:1)
If someone's patented DRM in general (anything's possible it seems), maybe they can go SCO and stop all the other companies from implementing DRM.
Uhh.. no.
Your hypothetical company would have 3 choices:
1) Make a product with their patented DRM system.
2) License the DRM to others (as an IP-only company)
3) both 1 & 2 (as countless companies currently do)
One company patenting DRM won't wipe it off the planet, these companies patent products for a reason: money.
Re:end to DRM? (Score:1)
Three year old infringement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Three year old infringement? (Score:3, Insightful)
even pissing off the RIAA usually doesn't bring the sheriff to your door unless you've been shareing 20,000 or so mp3s with your closest friends on Kazaa.
New head of Legal Dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look for them to make more settlements.
It's not just the spelling now (Score:1)
Now I need to change my sig.
BBC coverage [registration-free] (Score:3, Redundant)
Check out the BBC's article: Microsoft settles patents case [bbc.co.uk]
Hm. (Score:1)
Re:Hm. (Score:1)
Follow-up (Score:1)
Homer: "Quiet Marge! I'm trying to work. And now to write another delicious memo. Mmmmmmmmm...memo."
In Soviet Russia... (Score:1, Troll)
Wait.. why wasnt that as funny as I thought?
A very simple solution. (Score:1)
GPL = no fuss, no muss, no $$$
Gotta love it!
Re:A very simple solution. (Score:2)
If this is true, how to you explain the mind-numbingly obscure, theocratic, (I was tempted say, Talmudic), arguments that erupt on Slashdot whenever there is some alleged violation of the GPL in all it's purity.
Re:A very simple solution. (Score:1)
Re:A very simple solution. (Score:1)
"No $$$" coming out one side of its mouth, "You really CAN make money off of open source" coming out the other.
Gotta love it.
plop, plop, plop... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsofts business plan: (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Release DRM Software
3. Wait for DMCA to get struck down as a show of good faith
4. Sue unsuspecting F/OSS developers writing a WMP DRM bypasser for xmms for "patent infringement"
5. ???
6. Profit!
hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is soooo just like SCO trying to make money on linux. I hope they lose!
Re:hmm.. (Score:2)
You fools! five is right out!
Re:hmm.. (Score:3, Funny)
>quote: You fools! five is right out!
As it was originally 2 with the karma bonus, it was only modded +3. 3 was indeed the number of their modding. The number of their modding was 3. Their modding did not extend to +4 (extra funny), neither did it languish to +2 (a total of +4). A modding of +5 was right out impossible, as the karma is good.
Then shall I reacheth out with m
Anyone else read... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anyone else read... (Score:2)
sorry I read PeneTrode
Okay, dumb question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay, dumb question (Score:4, Insightful)
This leads to reason two. They say they want to follow the IBM path of making monye off IP. This means that they have to clean up thier IP portfolio. The money is largely irrelevent as it is almost free and there is probably no better investment. The license fess they collect will be pure profit.
As an aside, it is a very shrewd tactical move. Intertrust now has another company paying it royalties. It has a basis to demand payment from any software that uses the technology. This means that MS, with sony and Philips, has cornered the market on this particular DRM. In the end it mean a new oligarchy of music distribution. Goodbye fair use on *nix systems, goodbye iTunes.
Re:Okay, dumb question (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinda reminds me of the game Railroad Tycoon (one of my favorates). You start out and grow your railroad, trying to box the other companie
Re:Okay, dumb question (Score:2)
I don't think you realize how much cash they have. I seem to remember that a couple quarters a
Microsoft using monopoly power again!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean:
- States sue Microsoft for abusing monopoly powers; Microsoft pays lawsuit with Microsoft products that indoctrinate kids (future buyers) into Microsoft products.
- Microsoft sues Lindows for it's impossible common word trademark of windows in US courts. Microsoft loses. Microsoft sues Lindows in other world courts; Lindows is forced to change name. Microsoft loses, yet wins. Lindows runs out of lawsuit money.
- States sue Microsoft over alleged undocumented Windows routines that allow MS software to run better on Windows than other software. Source code is released later on that shows MS lied in court. Nothing happens to MS!
How is this new lawsuit good for anything but Microsoft? It's like Microsoft basically paid $440million to ensure that 3rd party software has a disadvantage - something Microsoft has already been sued for! This, once again, screws consumers by causing 3rd party manufacturers to pay more for licensing and allows MS to eat another market.
MS is really clever at screwing us all in the ass as efficiently as possible.
Re:Microsoft using monopoly power again!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a settlement. Microsoft settled with InterTrust, by agreeing to license their technology. This license means that they can use the technology in their products. Third parties have a disadvantage in that they ALSO (surprise) need a license to use that same technology. It's logical, and it's normal business practise.
A small company doesn't need to spend more than (or in fact anywhere near) US$ 440.000.000 for a license. It's cheaper. Microsoft just struck a deal. Microsoft wins and InterTrust wins.
Now go sulk somewhere else
Re:Microsoft using monopoly power again!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
What small company? Seriously, what small company is going to try and break into the market and attempt to create DRM media? What other company besides some of the large guys (MS, Apple, Real, etc.) have any chance against a company that controls so much? Do you see the point? It does not make a difference if a small company would only have to pay less, but that there is no small company that can compete against a company as large and powerful as Micr
Re:Microsoft using monopoly power again!!! (Score:2)
That was a funny gaming reference, and not even off topic.
Microsoft: spending those billions (Score:5, Funny)
Andd after all that, they'll still have billions and billions lying around to cross-subsidize their money-losing ventures. Those money-losing ventures, of course, include almost everything Microsoft does except Windows and Office.
Microsoft's new slogan should be "Innovating financial solutions to legal problems."
And... (Score:2)
And with their funding of SCO, don't forget to add "Innovating legal solutions to financial problems.".
It's a most impressive set-up, and even if Darl & co get caught by their lies, you can swear Microsoft won't be touched by the affair. They're playing their hand very well, unfortunately.
Kjella
I read this on google news 7 hours ago (Score:1)
Just a tiny drop in the bucket. (Score:2, Informative)
Astonishing amounts of money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Astonishing amounts of money (Score:1)
Big companies should be fined more for illegal activities than small companies, hence, percentage fines are in order.
this doesn't make sense (Score:3, Funny)
customers can use Microsoft products and services without a license from InterTrust.
Wait, is this saying that Microsoft hasn't indemnified its customers against these sorts of claims? Stupifying. Anyone alerted Didiot? She might want to write an article.
This is bad (Score:2, Funny)
"I have nurtured you and made you strong. Attack my enemies forthwith and destroy all rivals to my power!"
Shouldn't mix this cough medicine with caffeine...
Microsoft never pays per license royalties . . . (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Microsoft never pays per license royalties . . (Score:5, Interesting)
The last company who licensed technology to Microsoft on a royalty basis ended up getting nothing from Microsoft because they gave it away for 'free' so there was no royalty to pay.
You may have heard of them: The company is SpyGlass... the software they wrote is what you know now as Microsoft Internet Explorer.
The directors behind SpyGlass tried to sue Microsoft - but ran out of money. So they have quit the PC Software business alltogether.
So, IMO, InterTrust is smart to negotiate a lump sum payment... Obviously, they couldn't trust Microsoft to honor their side of a royalty-based agreement.
BTW, there are other situations where Microsoft licensed technologies on a royalty basis and then gave them away 'free' to avoid having to pay any royalties.
Re:Microsoft never pays per license royalties . . (Score:2)
If I were Spyglass, I'd probably have asked for $0.01 or 1% of the revenue from each unit sold/released/downloaded/acquired, whichever is higher.
It's pretty troublesome (Score:5, Interesting)
As other posters have noted, this settlement gives Intertrust a leg up on the competition (which they probably will sue now).
It would be an interesting exercise to see if there are any publications that discuss "trusted computing" prior to the Intertrust patents.
Also, Intel announced a mobile cpu [yahoo.com] that has a DRM coprocessor in the same package. Intel could head this direction with all their chips.
Given all the evils of DRM, I would rather see a chip from Intel with DRM succeed, rather than using Microsoft palladium, Phoenix DRM bios, or other software component. Having it in hardware makes it a level playing field for every developer, commercial or open source. I am not saying any of it is good, only what the lesser of evils would be.
Preferably their would be an open source competitive solution.
58 Billion! (Score:3, Informative)
1/2 Billion to Intertrust.
Only another 50.4 odd Billion to go!
(MS has 52.8 Billion in the bank: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/technology/techin
You mean $50.3 Billion... (Score:2)
52.8 - 2.0 - 0.5 = 50.3
Just a little heads up, there, math whiz. =P Have a nice day!
Re:58 Billion! (Score:3, Informative)
microsoft and evil (Score:1, Funny)
Microsoft is evil.
Correct usage:
Microsoft is Evil.
Explanation:
On Slashdot, it is insufficient to merely describe Microsoft as being evil (as in the adjective). The lowercase implies a generic description which can be ascribed to anything. Rather, you must use the proper noun Evil in reference to specific property possessed by the Dark one himself.
Irony (Score:3, Funny)
This is how it goes (Score:2)
- "Damn", said the antitrust judge.
Patents are evil (Score:2)
Re:PAtents. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PAtents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PAtents. (Score:2)
Re:PAtents. (Score:1)
Re:PAtents. (Score:1)
Copyrights too (Score:1)
Re:PAtents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Except in New Zealand where registration ony costs a few hundred bucks and the patent office prefers to let the courts decide what is a valid patent, or not. Makes us a lovely target for people wanting to lauch their patent portfolio. Good, eh?
Re:PAtents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Kindof reminds me of the lightbulb. According to Scientific American, Edison's notebook includes a cutout article about Swan's use of a carbon filament. On the next page, "It works!"
http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/SWAN_BIO.html
Anyhow, Swan managed to maintain his patents in England, but Edison essentiall
Re:PAtents. (Score:2)
Re:PAtents. (Score:2, Informative)
Hahaha, you are kidding, right? Go read at the WIPO site [wipo.int] as well as the New Zealand Min. of Econ. Development [med.govt.nz] and educate yourself on difference between the right to exclude others from making/using/selling the invention nationally and internationally.
I am so disgusted with you that I even went to this link [med.govt.nz] to pull a quote for you:
"A patent will only protect your invention within New Zealand. To obtain overseas patent protection, two options are available:
* Filing applications with intellectual prope
Re:PAtents. (Score:2)
You may also not be aware of this application [nzoss.org.nz] causing a bit of a world wide stir.
If you had browsed the MED site a bit further you would have found this statement:
"IPONZ, when deciding whether or not to grant a patent, must give applicants the benefit of the doubt, and can only refuse to grant a patent if it is "practically certain" that a court would find the patent invalid. As a result p
Re:PAtents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Folks like Dean Kamen (inventor of the Segway, along with a host of other things) wouldn't exist without patents. They enable and encourage individuals and smaller companies to be inventive, because they will be able to capitalize on their idea. Patents allow people to be professional inventors, much like copyrights allow people to be professional authors or musicians.
So, I'd argue against your premise that they 'do nothing but slow down an industry and promote laziness'. A patent-less industry would immediately boil down to the biggest manufacturers. Soviet Russia is an example of a such an industry...technological development lagged very much behind the west.
Your laser story accurate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents - Only good if you can actualize it (Score:2, Informative)
Patents should be used as a competitive advantage. They are not evil. They are vital to the growth of small technology companies, as they are protections and competitive advantages t
Re:PAtents. (Score:1, Troll)
There are three real issues with software patents that could be fixed.
First, the interaction between patent law and antitrust law needs to be adjusted. If you have a dominant market position, you should't be able to use a patent to prevent interoperability with your de-facto standards. This is an antitrust issue because it's only a big problem when someone has market dominance. Interoperability with Microsoft Word is important. Interoperability with AbiWord is not.
This is not
Re:PAtents. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PAtents. (Score:1)
Re:PAtents. (Score:3, Informative)
It was stolen via the anti-slash.org database [anti-slash.org]
Mod parent down.
Re:PAtents. (Score:2)
What exactly is a slashdot monkey? Someone who plays the system to get +5 posts. Well moderations is meant to produce a certain behavior. Those attempting to get moderation would, under a perfect system, only be able to do so by being interesting, insightful, etc. If their is a way to abuse the system, attack the ststem not the trolls.