Microsoft ordered to pay $1.52 billion for patent infringement

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Microsoft ordered to pay $1.52 billion for patent infringement.

Microsoft has been ordered to pay $1.52 billion in damages to Alcatel-Lucent SA for violating two patents involved in its use of MP3 conversion software. Until now, companies such as Microsoft,…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13039-Microsoft-ordered-to-pay-1_52-billion-for-patent-infringement.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13039-Microsoft-ordered-to-pay-1_52-billion-for-patent-infringement.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Lots of companies have infriged on this already, as far as I know.


#3

Screw lossy and ossless like FLAC or APE. :X


#4

ogg would be a good transition to lossless. This whole affair may be somewhat moot for the end consumer. Any appellate court that looks at this will see the enormous impact it could potentially have and stay any injuctions demanding the cessation of patent infringement. Bottom line is that either Lucent-Alcatel will negotiate licensing fees that aren’t big enough for the licensee to go to court over (or big enough to seriously impact the consumer), or the cases will be tied up for 2-4 years until there’s a good chance mp3 is no longer as dominant a format. Companies may take a hit on their balance sheet in the future, but ipod prices and the like wont be affected unless the digital media world just sits on its ass for the next 3 years and doesn’t move away from mp3.


#5

this means that the price of M$ products will raise by 100% LOL :stuck_out_tongue:


#6

This means nothing. The end of mp3? Never, seriously think about that for a second.


#7

I seriously don’t get this. How can different entities own the rights to MP3? I thought Fraunhofer owned the whole lot? I’ve never heard of Alcatel and MP3 in the same sentence before this case. I think some more background information is needed here.


#8

I thought Fraunhofer owned the whole lot? So did I. So did Microsoft, and so did a lot of other companies. That was the problem. Everybody licensed from Fraunhofer. Nobody knew Alcatel-Lucent had anything to do with mp3. Then WHAM! SURPRISE!


#9

Software patents are a stupid idea.


#10

“Software patents are a stupid idea.” Not true, without software patent companies will stop development and innovation will come to a halt. They will not even bother creatinh new technology if they don’t have the IP protected.


#11

Ah, ah! Innovation will stop! Indeed… Just look at Linux and all the other non-patent encumbered projects and you’ll see that patents are not needed for innovation and great products to flourish. By the way, patents exist in the US. Many other countries around the world (the whole EU, for example) don’t have software patents. Do you think the software industry there doesn’t exist, eh? Get real.


#12

Poor example. Linux distros can be made proprietary with the addition of non open source code. Open source development continues because there is a financial incentive to develop alternatives to commercial software. The value of openoffice is equal to the retail cost of MS Office minus productivity declines. Take away the opportunity cost savings of not having to buy a $500 software package, and open source is inherently worthless. Non-commercial projects are at the mercy of having enough interested and passionate people working on them in their spare time. A much better analogy is third party game enhancement. Check out the KOTOR II restoration project, or the various Wing Commander in Windows mods. With absolutely no financial incentive, timelines are stretched out to forever, and quality levels become hit and miss.