“Alcatel-Lucent’s landmark victory against Microsoft Corp. over the right to use the popular MP3 format for digital music potentially paves the way for the gear-maker to seek compensation from a flurry of other companies, analysts said on Friday,” Aude Lagorce reports for MarketWatch.
Lagorce reports, “Microsoft on Thursday was ordered to pay more than $1.5 billion to Alcatel-Lucent after a federal court in California ruled that the software giant infringed two Alcatel-Lucent patents in using the MP3 format for playing digital music on its Windows Media Player device.”
“Although Microsoft has vowed to fight the penalty payment and is likely to appeal the decision, thus delaying the cash payout, the ruling could have significant implications for the music and technology industries,” Lagorce reports. “If the ruling stands, Apple and hundreds of other companies that make products that play MP3 files, including portable players, computers and software, could also face demands to pay royalties to Alcatel.”
Lagorce reports, “In its defense, Microsoft argued that it was authorized to use the MP3 audio technology based on an agreement with the Germany-based Fraunhofer Institute. Microsoft said that it paid the Institute $16 million to legally use the disputed MP3 technology. The Institute was involved, along with the French electronics company Thomson and Bell Labs, in the format’s development… Other companies licensing the technology from Fraunhofer include Apple, Inc., Cisco Systems and Hewlett-Packard Co.”
Lagorce reports, “Analysts warned that these firms could now be at risk of a similar fate. ‘If Lucent does possess an essential MP3 patent, something we are not qualified to judge, the company could potentially go after Apple, whose iPod can play MP3 files,’ Merrill Lynch analysts told clients.”
Full article here.
It’ll take some time for all of this to play out. How Microsoft does with their appeal, what exactly was licensed from the Fraunhofer Institute and under what authority, and many other questions have yet to be answered.
Related article:
Are MP3 patents really in upheaval after Alcatel-Lucent’s verdict over Microsoft? – February 23, 2007
Microsoft ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.52 billion for Windows Media Player patent infringement – February 22, 2007
Ogg Vorbis….Here we come?
What kills me is the MP3 format is about 12 years old I believe.
If this was indeed Alcatel’s property, what took them so long to sue?
It’s not like MP3s were some hidden obscure technology that no-one ever heard of.
A lot of posters in the other article on this look mighty stupid right about now.
It seems that corporations are formed today not so much to create goods and services, but rather to serve as instruments for extortion via torte law.
Disgusting.
Make that some corporations, not all, of course.
Just looked it up.
MP3 is a 15 year old technology.
And people wonder why Apple moved to AAC.
15 years is an Antique in computer time.
Does this mean we have to root for Microsoft?
I feel so…dirty.
In some ways people ought to be rooting for MS. I mean its not like 1.5 billion is going to kill them.
“A lot of posters in the other article on this look mighty stupid right about now.”
Indeed, and MDN as well. People were as usual blinded by their hatred of Microsoft to see the real implications.
Any fool could see that this case would mean almost everyone who licensed MP3 from Fraunhoffer would be next in line for a lawsuit. Makes sense that Alcatel would go after the biggest fish first. The 2nd biggest fish has to be Apple.
Reason #315 Why Software Patents Are a Joke.
Seriously, this is getting crazy. Not that I like M$ or anything, but this is just getting stupid. The patent laws need a serious overhaul.
So there’s a point that should be made. iTunes sells AAC formatted files, not MP3’s. Can they be sued or not? There are a lot of unanswered questions as to what patent Actel supposedly has and how broad it really is. Does it refer to only windows media files PC only or what?
To many questions and not enough answers here.
The next iPod update will just remove .MP3 playing and you’ll have to pay Lucent some fee to re-instate it.
When those “fat cats” in Washington find their sons and daughters complaining about it, then, they’ll jump so hard on “Alcatel-Lucent” that they’ll wonder why they weren’t contributing more money to political parties instead of chasing down this lawsuit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
To each his “own”, all my music is in AAC.
MS doesn’t sell MP3s either. This refers to the ability to play and encode to MP3. MP3 is not WMA.
MS, Apple, Cisco et al all have decent lawyers who obviously thought that they had licenced this technology correctly.
That leads me to believe that the Fraunhofer Institute misrepresented THEIR authority over this patent. If so, the Fraunhofer Institute is going to have their own legal problems as MS and all the others sue them for compensation.
“….People were as usual blinded by their hatred of Microsoft….”
Thats’ okay. We can hate ’em both.
This is just sad. While I am not a Microsoft fan, I think the judgment was BS. More and more everyday we hear of one company sueing the other for patent infrigment. From Blackberrys to SPAM filters to Unix code to iPod click wheels. Frankly the sad part is that businesses have made it part of their business strategy to sue the competition in order to gain an advantage in the market place rather than just make a good product. Or they are just software patent trolls. Frankly, i support the idea that software shouldn’t be patented. All this sueing does nothing but hurt the consumer and stifle innovation.
MacDailyNews Take: OH SHIT!
>It seems that corporations are formed today not so much to create goods and services, but rather to serve as instruments for >extortion via torte law.
Torte law? Well, that would give the defendants their just desserts.
Since Fraunhofer is a German organzation maybe German Apple Torte would be the appropriate one here.
Personally I find it very difficult to feel sorry for companies caught up in patent disputes. Microsoft certainly has the political clout, and Apple and others could have joined in, to have IP law covering software and other patents made into a more sane, reasonable system. Howeover, they have not done so because they figure the current system benefits them. Sure, Microsoft got slammed by this jury, but Microsoft is able to hold this same retarded patents system as a threat directed at linux distributions and others, and Apple has never been shy with threatening or filing an IP suit.
Can you imagine how much smaller the computer industry would have be, and how many years behind internet adoption would have be (if it had every happened) if TCP/IP and the http protocols had been privately-held and enforced patents? And if BSD sockets implementation hadn’t been openly available to anyone that wanted it? Any co-incidence the internet took off around the same time BSD was freed of Bell Labs copyright contraints?
If they had just called AAC “MP4”, then AAC would be the standard now, as sheep
only can function in that type of upgrade path.
Well, I guess I have to say I hope Microsoft kicks their ass on appeal for the sake of the others.
Doesn’t this ruling make MP3 a proprietary format?
There are a pile of apps that support mp3. Flash, Director, QuickTime…tons of web plug-ins and players. Wow…someone was taking a piss on this one.
One would think that patent holders would need to be diligent in protecting their property from the onset. To spring it after everyone adopts it seems kind of dirty. How many would have supported mp3 truly knowing what the terms were? Madness!
I would imagine all of those P2P, MP3 using winnies are shakin’ in their boots right about now.
NOT!
Apple uses their MP3 creation software in a free piece of music playing software that is not attached to the OS. No monetary gain there.
The playback software is licensed. If it is fraudulently licensed, neither Apple or Microsoft is responsible.
Let’s all watch Microsoft fight Apple’s battle for them.
SCO rises from the <strike>asses</strike>ashes.
Georgy Porgy:
And if they had just called AAC MP4, it would have been killed at birth by the RIAA. Do you really think that having been burned by the original Napster that they would have even entertained the idea of a higher quality compressed format? I’d rather have AAC than dream of what night have been with MP4.
Alex, AAC is MP4.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/mpeg4/
If M$ has to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.5B, they should then sue Fraunhofer Institute for fraud for equivalent damages plus penalty, say $3B. But Fraunhofer Institute is owned by Alcatel-Lucent so they would actually be sueing Alcatel-Lucent right back. Fraunhofer Institute has to pay M$ more than M$ had to pay Alcatel-Lucent. In the end I can’t figure what Alcatel-Lucent is thinking, and all this back and forth over stupid stuff is giving me a headache. Put all the lawyers in a room and let them fight it out until no one is left standing, then blow up the room.
doug:
Mp3 has always been a proprietary format. This legal ruling is just the next step in a long line of disputes that have been going on for a decade. It is the same reason that many mainstream Linux distributions have opted to make it really difficult for users to get mp3 playback funcitoning. I remember having to search through various software repositories just to find the codecs and whatnot when I installed Mandrake Linux many years ago (Mandrake was considered pretty good at one time until Ubuntu stole the consumer Linux liimelight–and for good reasons, of course).
Anyhow, for these reasons, it was always somewhat risky to make use of the mp3 format. For years, people have been hyping the Ogg Vorbis format because it was totally free of copyright/patent issues. Unfortunately, few “players” in the music-player industry cared about this.
This could be the reason for Jobs’ open letter about DRM-free music. Maybe it’s a way to show (or a deal) that Jobs is trying to support MP3 format, and therefore the licensing fees that would go to Alcatel-Lucent if MP3 became the standard. He is trying to keep Apple out of court by showing Alcatel-Lucent he backs their format. Being that Steve is so influential in the music industry, his words of support mean a lot to Alcatel-Lucent (more than Gates). If Alcatel-Lucent take Apple to court , I bet he will stop backing DRM free music.
extortion via torte law
And what does this have to do with sweet cakes or tarts (tortes)?
Apple coined the word multimedia in the 80s. I don’t think they have anything to worry about.
OK, lets all go back and re rip our CDs as AAC and everyone just quit using mp3.
Of course, I will need my money back for my two or three cheap mp3 players.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> Then I can get a shuffle and go from there. LOL
N.
So let me understand what you all are saying….. If a number of companies (e.g. Motorola, Samsung, LG, Nokia, etc) use one or more of Apple’s 200 patents incorporated in the iPhone Steve J alluded to w/o properly licensing the IP, then Apple should just roll over… Huh?
I’m sure if this was Apple defending their IPR, the conversation on this board would be a whole lot different!
Every company has the right to defend their IPR….
Of course every company has right to defend their IPR, but today many companies use patents as traps. They wait and wait ’till there are more companies, big ones, using the technology and THEN they start bustin’ charges.
It’s like: wait till there are more deers/mooses in the area, start bustin shots random and see if you hit anything.
There should be a law requiring the patent holder to take the company (that’s infringed the patent) court within 12 months of the product release.
Did we not go through all this kind of fuss a while back with .jpeg files? Seems like that one went away…
I don’t like Microsoft. I really, really dislike them. But this is NOT the way I want to see them fall.
And, yes, let’s stop using MP3. AAC is a viable option. The other is Ogg Vorbis. Unfortunately, the iPod (last time I checked) doesn’t support Ogg Vorbis. Neither does Microsoft.
The advantage of Ogg Vorbis is, you don’t have to pay anything to anyone, and those frivilous lawsuits would be over. What I don’t know is, how would that work with DRM.
Still, your own music could be in Ogg and music from Itunes store could be AAC with DRM, right?
I love how Republicans talk about how “trial Lawyers” is what is driving the cost of doing business….
But no mention of “Corporate Lawyers”.
I mean corporations sue each other ALL THE TIME. Constantly. It’s seriously out of control. And the more successful you are, the more you will get sued.
But if you sue a Corporation because you were wrong…well you’re the reason why Insurance is high and Doctors can pay their bills and why you have to pay 19 buck for a CD of music.