News

Microsoft MP3 Ruling Could Spell Trouble for Other Companies

The U.S. District court in San Diego, California, ruled that Microsoft must pay Alcatel-Lucent US$1.52 billion in damages for infringing on MP3 encoding and decoding patents. Should Microsoft lose an anticipated appeal on the ruling, it may mean more than a hit to the software company's bottom line. It could also mark the beginning of lawsuits against other companies that think they have properly licensed MP3 technology.

Computerworld reports that the Alcatel-Lucent lawsuit started in 2003 and originally claimed that Dell and Gateway Computer were infringing on 15 patents with technologies used in the Windows operating system. In an effort to discourage suits against companies that resell its operating system, Microsoft filed a declaratory action stating that it should be targeted with a suit. Alcatel-Lucent bit and sued Microsoft.

The court ruled that Microsoft's Windows operating system does infringe on Alcatel-Lucent patents that relate to MP3 technology. Microsoft contends that it properly licensed the technology for encoding audio files from Fraunhofer. The German company co-developed the technology with Bell Labs, which later became Lucent, and now is Alcatel-Lucent.

In a statement issued by Microsoft representatives, the company stated "We think this verdict is completely unsupported by the law or the facts. Like hundreds of other companies large and small, we believe that we properly licensed MP3 technology from its industry recognized licensor -- Fraunhofer."

Microsoft paid $16 million to Fraunhofer in exchange for a license to use MP3 technology. Other companies have paid licensing fees to Fraunhofer, and like Microsoft, assumed that they were legit to use MP3 technology.

Should the ruling stand, it could open the door for suits against other companies, including Apple, Sony, Creative, and more. Such a move on the part of Alcatel-Lucent could effectively throw a wrench into the digital music industry while licensing issues are sorted out. It may also push companies to consider alternatives to the MP3 format, like the AAC format Apple uses for songs sold through the iTunes Store, to avoid expensive legal costs and new MP3 licensing fees.

Alcatel-Lucent's battle with Microsoft over MP3 licensing isn't over yet. Microsoft is expected to file an appeal, which could drag the legal proceedings on for some time to come. If so, it may be months or years before who can legitimately sell licenses for the MP3 format is finally determined.

5 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 577 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

I am not quite getting this. Did MicroSoft get a license from Fraunhofer/Alcatel-Lucent and then use technology that was not included with the license?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fraunhofer the German company co-developed the technology with Bell Labs, which later became Lucent, and now is Alcatel-Lucent.

My question in court would be why did they not come forward 15 years sooner? Mp3's have been around that long. Why do the courts these days allow such non-sense. Waiting 15 years and suddenly decide they have rights to something even though these other companies legally paid for the licensing already! So I think Fraunhofer should be to blame for not including Actal in the licensing deal to begin with. They were assentially licensing MP3's with only half the rights to do so. So I think Microsoft should counter sue Fraunhofer for not exposing the fact that they were not the sole licensee of this technology.

Quote this post ↓

jfbiii said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 108 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Patents are broken technology. Governments hand them out like candy. Microsoft (and other companies) should pull an O.J. This ruling makes Alcatel-Lucent the new SCO.

Quote this post ↓

rpaege said:

member since 16 Dec 2005 with 70 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

This will overturned on appeal, like just about every other claim based on a the broken patent system. What a complete waste of time and money.

Quote this post ↓

Dirt Road said:

member since 24 Oct 2002 with 1226 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

15 years? If Microslobber drags this out for two more years, the patents expire and it ceases to become a problem. Lawyers aren't cheap, but compared to a $1.5 bBbBbillion price tag… two years of legal fees are a bargain!

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.