Lucent Sues Microsoft, Wants All 360s Recalled 475
robyannetta writes "Lucent has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, demanding that they pull all Xbox 360s from the market. Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated their MPEG2 patents which they claim they patented in 1993." While it's unlikely console will be pulled from shelves, it's one way to generate some publicity.
The Patent (Score:5, Informative)
For those who like to read such things, the patent is right here [uspto.gov].
It is long. Very, very long.
Re:Too little too late? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
What a reliable source... (Score:5, Informative)
Who holds the patent(s)? (Score:3, Informative)
Approximately 640 patents world wide make up the "essential" intellectual property surrounding MPEG-2. These are held by over 20 corporations and one university:
* Alcatel
* Canon Inc.
* Columbia University
* France Télécom (CNET)
* Fujitsu
* General Electric Capital Corporation
* General Instrument Corp. (now the broadband division of Motorola)
* GE Technology Development, Inc.
* Hitachi, Ltd.
* KDDI Corporation (KDDI)
* Lucent Technologies
* LG Electronics Inc.
* Matsushita
* Mitsubishi
* Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT)
* Philips
* Robert Bosch GmbH
* Samsung
* Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
* Scientific Atlanta
* Sharp
* Sony
* Thomson Licensing S.A.
* Toshiba
* Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).
-- from the Wikipedia
Re:This is a nonsense article. (Score:5, Informative)
The patent being disputed is available here [uspto.gov]
Still, the original GamerNode link for this story is an amusing read, with gems such as, "Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated copyright patent laws". Uh.. What is a 'copyright patent law'? Are they trying to say that Lucent has the copyright on the patent laws? Or are they just confused about the difference between these two relatively unrelated concepts?
Portfolio of 14,000 patents (Score:2, Informative)
Might As Well Recall Them (Score:1, Informative)
They already have on class action suit in the works with the 360. And the massive number, and variety, of hardware defects with the system are certainly going to lead to more suits down the road.
With how bad the 360 is doing in Japan and Europe, and selling at half the rate of the first Xbox in the US, Microsoft might best just forget about the 360 and the console market and focus completely on Vista gaming. They tried to distance themselves from the PC market with the first Xbox but after that failed in the market they have been increasingly turning to Vista and PC game developers as the base of support in the games market.
As anyone who has a 360 or spends time around people who have 360s, the hardware defect/crashing problems do not seem to be getting any better. It is not uncommon for people to be on their second or third 360.
There has to be a point where the defects, low sales, patent lawsuit, class action lawsuits all lead Microsoft to say f-it and turn their attention completely to Vista where they don't have to deal with any of this mess.
Re:Too little too late? (Score:2, Informative)
MPEG is a codec. If you implement it in software it's a software thing.
If you implement it in hardware, like a DVD player, or 360, well, it's not.
KFG
More info (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too little too late? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not at all comfortable with the implications .. (Score:5, Informative)
And should you be personally sued for using infringing technology, the following paragraph gives you a fairly clear idea of what help you can expect from Microsoft;
17; exclusion of incidental, consequential and certain other damages. to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, punitive, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or confidential or other information, for business interruption, for personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the software, the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, informaton, software, and related content through the software or otherwise arising out of the use of the software, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this eula, even in the event of the fault, tort (including negligence), misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty of microsoft or any supplier, and even if microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
Re:All 360s? (Score:5, Informative)
The patent [uspto.gov] covers one implemntation of encoding/decoding MPEG2 video, not the actual formating of the data in the file like the UNISYS case. The lawsuit [gamesindustry.biz] is definately real and it looks like Microsoft is going to be handing a wad-o-cash to Lucent for this.
Think what would have happened if Jack Bresenham [wikipedia.org] had patented all of his work...
Re:Sony's reaction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All 360s? (Score:2, Informative)
http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsA
Not necessiarly (Score:5, Informative)
Well I gaurentee that part of that was giving MPEG LA discresion over licensing, that if they grant a license you have to agree it's valid. So not sure what Lucent thinks they have here, but if it's something covered by the MPEG-2 umbrella, they probably don't have much case since MS paid the license for that.
Re:The continuing problem of patents... (Score:4, Informative)
As far as patents, they are an entirely different beast. The biggest issue I have with patents are the mind numbingly low bar they have set to get an idea patented. Further, they also tend to scoop very wide swaths of "ideas" that have little to do with the original idea. The entire idea that you can patent business models and methods is infuriating. Speaking as someone who has been involved in getting things patented, the entire system is completely fucked. Don't get me wrong, I am all for patents. Patents do serve a very useful purpose and do indeed help innovation. I just am not a fan of the way they are set up now.
I really have no problem with blowing a billion dollars to develop a new drug and getting a patent for it for a few years. That encourages innovation. Without that patent, they would be leery about spending so much money on developing novel new drugs. On the other hand, you have dumb shit like how a cereal bar have patents on "mixing different cereals" and filling a bowl 1/3 the way with milk. Patents in such cases are destroying innovation, not helping it.
I think the point people miss is that patents and copyright are NOT there to compensate IP holders or even the creators. They are there to encourage innovation and nothing more. When the law starts throwing wrenches in the cogs of innovation, the system is failing.
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
public domain != open source (Score:5, Informative)
Even if copyright terms for software were made shorter (a good idea BTW) that still wouldn't require the creator to release the source code. It wouldn't even require the creator to unlock the copy protection/DRM. It just means that anyone can legally copy and redistribute (even for profit) the original release. Forcing the creator to cough up the source code for something they're no longer going to make money on would be difficult, assuming the source is even still available (I know I'd be hard pressed to find source code for stuff I wrote only 10 years ago).
But wait, it gets even better. What if an old piece of software (lets say King's Quest I) contains music? If the copyright limits for software and music are different, then the one with the longest term will apply (unless the music can be removed from game). This happens even now. I bought a cheapy DVD of the Beverly Hillbillies (poke fun if you must) and the theme song (best part of the show) was removed and replaced with some generic bluegrass fiddle music. I'm guessing DVD distributor paid for the distribution rights for the show but not the music.
Re:Too little too late? (Score:1, Informative)
That's prosecution laches, or what is most commonly called a "submarine patent".
For a more general case of a patent claim being barred for long-term failure to enforce the patent, see Wanlass v. General Electric. (also Wanlass v. Fedders where the claim was allowed due to slightly different circumstances)
Re:The continuing problem of patents... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this is already the case. Holders of patents are required to license the use of their patent for "a reasonable fee." I don't believe they are allowed to simply refuse to allow other parties to use their technology. It's part of the condition of being allowed to hold the patent.
You are not required to license a patent you hold to anyone. You can keep it all to yourself if you'd like. But you'll probably make more easy money if you license it.
Re:This is a nonsense article. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it would, but firmware is hardware; and there is firmware and then there is firmware.
It is possible to imbed the software on a permanent chip. For mass produced consumer items where the software instructions are never going to be changed (such as the codec in a DVD player) this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It eliminates a manufacturing step, thus saving time and money, but leaves you with the captial expense of setting up to make the chips, so make sure you're really going to need a lot of 'em.
My first IBM compatible PC actually had its OS on such a permanent chip. This confered all sorts of performance benefits on the computer, but. .
So most firmware for such items is done with an EPROM or an EEPROM. You have to program an E(E)PROM, but you don't have to make the chip, you just buy 'em and zap 'em. Once you zap an EPROM, that's it, it's now a permanent chip, just as if you had manufactured it with the instruction set hard coded. For most consumer items you'd use an EPROM, because they're cheaper per unit and you never expect to change the instruction set. If you expect the instruction set to need changing at some point in the future, however, (like the BIOS chip in your computer) you'd cough up the extra pennies per chip and plop in an EEPROM, because the extra E stands for "erasable."
Of course, even if you use an EEPROM it dosn't mean you've bothered to include a means by which the user can erase and reprogram it. Say in a DVD player. In such a case the chip would have to actually be remove for erasing and reprogramming. Welcome to the $40/hr electronics shop.
So what course did MS take? Well, they're making a mass quantities consumer item that they don't want users mucking around with, so one might deduce the most likely means of embedding the software, or we can simply to the horses mouth at ATI:
"I had a brief but enlightening conversation with Bob Feldstein, Vice President of Engineering at ATI, who helped oversee the Xbox 360 GPU project. He spelled out some of the GPU's details for me, and they're definitely intriguing.
Feldstein said that ATI and Microsoft developed this chip together in the span of two years, and that they worked "from the ground up" to do a console product. He said that Microsoft was a very good partner with some good chip engineers who understood the problems of doing a non-PC system design. Also, because the part was custom created for a game console, it could be designed specifically for delivering a good gaming experience as part of the Xbox 360 system."
Custom designed, hacker resistant, if you want to upgrade buy our next product, console only chip.
Oh well.
I'll point out, however, that in their 2005 annual report MS notes that Lucent is seeking damages for patent infringement on several patents and the case is not Xbox specific but against all computers with Microsoft software preinstalled.
Pretty kettle of fish, no?
The demand for removal of the 360 from the shelves is because it is the only MS product in which the relevant technologies cannot be easily changed.
Way to go for making the Xbox hacker "proof."
KFG
Re:M.A.D. Software Patents (Score:3, Informative)
"Property Management" firms ... don't make or do anything but leech off anyone successful
On this, I'd have to disagree. I'll admit that they don't produce the product for the end user, but in reality, the inventor almost never does. What "Property Management" firms do is create a market for ideas, particularly for smaller inventors. If I, as an individual or small R&D firm, come up with an idea, I have to find somebody to buy the rights to it in order to profit from it, or manufacture it myself. If the latter is impractical--as it frequently is, given the complexity of many modern inventions--then I'm left with only the former. To do that, I have to know who to contact at all of the companies that might be interested, convince them of the value of my product, and convince them to manufacture it--while at the same time not giving away so much information that they're able to create the thing themselves. Even if I have the contacts--a big if--making the sales pitches is a huge time investment, and I'd probably rather be doing more research.
Enter the IP firm. Essentially, they're a marketing organization and a venture capital firm rolled into one. I can sell them my ideas, my patent rights, and walk away, my job complete. I get compensated, and I don't have to deal with the mess. Furthermore, if somebody does misappropriate the idea, I don't have to worry about it: A) I've already made my money, and B) the patent is held by somebody who's likely to have far greater legal resources than I do. While you may not like that, it at least evens up the odds when dealing with the big corporation that is likely the one who is abusing the patent.
So yes, as a consumer, it's easy to think that IP holding firms are harmful, but in reality, they do provide a useful service. As a general rule, if they didn't, they wouln't exist.