When you're big and powerful like Microsoft, you're bound to stir up some dust every once in a while with such things like patents and copyrights. Just take networking guru Lucent for example. They've recently set their sights on the software giant claiming that Microsoft has violated a patent they hold called "Adaptive Coding and Decoding of Frames and Fields of Video."
So what does that even mean? Basically, they've got their underwear in a wad because the Xbox 360 shipped with MPEG2 technology. Lucent believes this violates their patent. Again, Microsoft is no stranger to this kind of behavior. In the past, Lucent tried to pull a similar move on a different issue, but the judge said it was an invalid case because of (you guessed it) a typo.
Think this is going to screw up the 360 or invoke altercations? Probably not. Chances are we're going to see a settlement out of court. The Xbox 360 is counting on such technologies and so Microsoft will probably want to resolve this problem with Lucent as soon, and easily, as possible without making too much of a ruckus. Only time will tell.
[Thanks, djphatjive; Via Xbox-Scene]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-04-2006 @ 6:15PM
My vote: Microsoft NOT Guilty
4-04-2006 @ 6:25PM
My Vote: Not guilty like Kobe, MJ and OJ
4-04-2006 @ 6:36PM
Of course not guilty... This patents... Soon we can't go to restroom without patent. Delirium of course, but helps thinking
4-04-2006 @ 6:41PM
anyone remember a month ago with the stupid blueberry patent infringment...i mean blackberry...its the same thing here
4-04-2006 @ 6:43PM
saying that ms is infringing copyright for using MPEG2 is like saying that burger king is infringing on mcdonalds because they stole the hamburger
4-04-2006 @ 7:40PM
Lucent has a history sueing to make money. MS will most likely win or settle it out of courts like what they did with emerson. I always though MS owned MPEG or atleast popularized it.
4-04-2006 @ 8:49PM
I think some of you are a bit confused over copyright violation and patent infringement. The MPEG-2 format is made up of over 600 patents that handle the way audio and video is encoded and decoded. Lucent owns some of those patents, and if Microsoft did not properly license the technology then they are, in fact, at fault.
As the poster Adams Briscoe points out, companies as big as MS and Lucent go through this all the time. Most likely this will be settled out of court and MS will pay Lucent the appropriate licensing fees.
Copyright violation has absolutely nothing to do with this. Think, read, understand before you speak. I know we're all fanboys here, but this will never have any effect on any of us. And let's be honest, this isn't the first time MS has been accused of doing things, err, improperly. They can handle it.
4-04-2006 @ 8:51PM
I always thought the MPEG Group owned the rights to MPEG tech? weird!
4-05-2006 @ 2:50PM
djphatjive, and from that site, if you bother to read:
"5.1 Organisations wishing to license technology included in MPEG specifications can find contact information relating to organisations which have made a Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration.
5.2 Various MPEG standards have benefited from the existence of patent pools where organisations wishing to license technology included in such standards can negotiate a single license covering all the essential patents identified by those organizations which administer the patent pools."
i.e. the Motion Pictures Expert Group maintains, approves and oversees the standards; but the individual organizations who created the various technologies used in the standards own the patents to those technologies.
4-05-2006 @ 5:20PM
all that legal stuff still doesnt make the intent of the suit decent. its still a load of bullshit
4-05-2006 @ 6:32PM
I never said I read it. I said, I always thought they owned it.
Besides, you would think being microsoft, they already have the rights to use it anyway, being that they have rights to use it in everything else they make.