Microsoft WMV In Patent Trouble? 175
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.
Speed bump? (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Speed bump? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Speed bump? (Score:2)
Would that be be "buy them out" method as shown in the Simpsons?
Re:Speed bump? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
A few million in a case like this is chump change.
Re:Why mod that down? (Score:2)
Re:Speed bump? But a big one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speed bump? But a big one (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Fining companies punishes the company, in terms of its sh
Re:Speed bump? But a big one (Score:3, Insightful)
Very tempting (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:2)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:2)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:2)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution (Score:2)
Its a simple tax on lawyers, but its used to pay lawyers, so it could actually pass as law. Its like a driving? segregation disorder in genetics, it ca
Re:The burden of production... (Score:2)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:2)
No, attorneys should only be able to successfully sue if you've broken the law but they can sue you whenever they/their clients want to.
Or to extend it a bit further towards the problem with software patents, is it illegal to distribute a piece of software which uses ideas covered by granted patents? To me the answer is that it is only illegal if the patent is not "obviously" flawed (perhaps you have prior art). The problem is only the rich can afford to play this game, a normal person can't afford the
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:2)
If that were true, then no court case would ever be lost by the person bringing it
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? And who should I vote for? The Republicans that support the ridiculous laws, the Democrats that support the ridiculous laws, or the independents that support the ridiculous laws?
More importantly, how is that going to change anything?
Surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Very tempting (Score:2)
Live by the sword, live a good long life!
Where of course, the sword is litigation
Re:Very tempting (Score:3, Funny)
In which case, the motto of Microsoft's legal team is "Go for the eyes, Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!"
Re:Very tempting (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Very tempting (Score:3, Insightful)
Major speedbump? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Major speedbump? (Score:1)
Re:Major speedbump? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Woderful is not the word I would use here. Nightmare. Catastrophe. SNAFU.
But not wonderful.
It would be wonderful... (Score:2, Funny)
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?
Re:Not really (Score:2)
Woderful is not the word I would use anywhere.
Use open standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Use open standards (Score:1)
Given their history, I'd say they've learned a quite oppposite lesson.
Re:Use open standards (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Use open standards (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Use open standards (Score:2)
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)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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:2)
Re:Use open standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Watch this space... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch this space... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Watch this space... (Score:2)
Easy way out? You mean, they pay the companies what amounts to a licence fee to use the patented tech? That is the way that patents are supposed to work, you know. What would you rather MS did, use this to destroy the patent system, or simply stop developing/distributing/supporting the offending software?
Re:Watch this space... (Score:2)
Assuming they are "guilty", they took a chance on saving money by not licensing and lost. That they only lose as much as they would have paid anyway is no incentive for them not to do the same in the future.
IOW, the way its supposed to work is you get the license in advance, you don't only pay if you get caught (if you get caught).
big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
S/w or h/w patent (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:S/w or h/w patent (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:S/w or h/w patent (Score:2)
-
Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Just imagine! (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
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! (Score:3, Funny)
Intertwined? That's putting it mildly (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Microsoft is unstoppable.
Wrong premise (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Tempest in a Teacup (Score:2)
In Microsoft-dollars that works out to a bit over a half billion.
-
Re:Tempest in a Teacup (Score:2)
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)
Lots of errors in articles (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
The only video codecs for which patent license free decoding is available that I know of are H.263, MPEG-1, and VP3/Theora.
Much as I hate Microsoft... (Score:2)
Easy, just put DRM on the codecs (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a DRM opportunity to me:
Sometimes it's cheaper to just buy a new law. (Score:2)
-
Scary (Score:2)
> 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)
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
ISO (Score:2)
Re:Ban WMV, bring back hanging for the creators. (Score:2, Interesting)
If only terrorists use WMV then who uses Quicktime in this little universe anyway?
Mi no hablo espaniol. (Score:4, Funny)
>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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bad implementation, NOT bad technology (Score:2)
Closed source software could harbor stolen code (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Closed source software could harbor stolen code (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Closed source software could harbor stolen code (Score:2)
Re:Closed source (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:So Patents are OK now? Or are they still bad? (Score:2)
Microsoft are bad and are getting what they deserve, but I wish it wasn't via getting sued for a software patent violation because software patents are bad and shouldn't exist.
Why do I feel like I should add an "m'kay?" on the end?
Re:Lol, just got to laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Lol, just got to laugh (Score:2)
Re:Law = Software (Score:2, Funny)
If law was software, it'd be the most inefficient, resource-wasting, bug-ridden piece of code ever.
I just gave up my.... (Score:2)