Posted by Scott Laird
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:38:53 GMT
With all of the Five Years Since the Bubble Burst reminiscence articles today, I almost missed the other headline with “Burst” in the title–apparently Microsoft settled their long-running patent suit with Burst.com. Burst alleged that Microsoft stole their streaming-video technology, thinking that they could force Burst out of business for less money then it’d take to license the patent. Cringely has some details on the suit from years ago.
This was one of the two big patent suits that Microsoft has been involved in recently. The other suit was basically a submarine patent from Eolas, claiming that they owned the concept of embedding things into browsers. From where I sit, the Eolas case is a textbook example of why we need patent reform. The Burst case was different, though–it really looked like Microsoft sat down with Burst years ago, saw what they had, and then decided that the cheapest way to get their hands on Burst’s technology was to stall until Burst ran out of cash without actually ever paying them a dime. There were allegations that Microsoft had “lost” most of the email from their executives who had dealt with Burst. In general, published reports made Microsoft look about as slimy as they appeared at the height of their big Justice Department case.
I assume that the terms of the Burst settlement will be sealed, but since they’re both public companies, most of the financial details will show up in SEC reports sooner or later.
Posted in Business | Tags burst, eolas, microsoft, patents | no comments
Posted by Scott Laird
Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:07:41 GMT
The Register is reporting that a couple Chinese DVD manufacturers are suing the DVD patent holding group over their patent licensing fees, claiming that the way they’re managed is a violation of antitrust law. The original article in CHINAdaily says that Chinese manufacturers are being charged $20 per player for patent fees, which is up to 20-30% of their production costs. The suit claims that this is unfair, because US DVD manufacturers are only charged 2-3%.
I have *no* idea what to make of this. On one hand, I’ve seen $17 DVD players before, and you can’t tell me that it actually cost $60-80 to produce. Even if the really cheap players are unlicensed (it’s not uncommon for cheap DVD players to simply ignore paying for things like patents and CSS fees), the numbers still don’t make sense, because they suggest that DVD players cost over $40 to produce. Since I can go to Target and pick up several different models of $40 DVD player any day of the week now, you can’t tell me that every sub-$40 DVD player is a loss-leader to get people into the store.
Similarly, the 2-3% number doesn’t work for me. I mean, who builds consumer electronics hardware in the US these days? I’m not a big follower of the CE market, but I’d assume that the only US-based hardware manufacturers are niche players, probably either really high-end stuff (like the $30,000 DVD jukebox that the DVD industry is currently suing) or embedded hardware for places where local management and extreme quality control is more important then cost, like the aviation industry. In either case, an average selling price of $600 would turn a $20 licensing fee into 3%.
So, I’m not really sure how the Chinese manufacturers can claim discrimination.
On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of intellectual property licensing groups, and I’m even less a fan of DRM groups, like the DVD Copy Control Association. Since this lawsuit has the ability to make major changes in the way that these two businesses work. On the other hand, pretty much every industry association out there works in the same manner, and I’m rather fond of things like DDR SDRAM and standardized flash memory cards–it’d be a shame to invalidate all of them at the same time.
On yet another hand, if the DVD patent group loses some of their DVD patent licensing rights, it’ll probably just make the patent holders move on the next-generation optical disk standard (either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) even faster. Assuming that they can find a way to structure the licensing rights in a manner that won’t have the same problems as the DVD patents, they’d have an enormous incentive to push HD video disks onto the market as fast as possible. It’d also drive a bit of a wedge in between the CE hardware manufacturers and the content people (like Disney), because the CE people would want HD to completely supplant DVD as quickly as possible, and this wouldn’t play well with the content side’s perpetual fear of high-quality digital releases of their works.
Posted in Business | Tags china, dvd, lawsuit, patents | no comments
Posted by Scott Laird
Tue, 04 May 2004 19:30:57 GMT
This is kind of weird:
Microsoft, amid an IP spree that has won the company patent protection for everything from XML dialects to video game storage methods, received a patent on Tuesday for a new variety of apple tree.
U.S. Plant Patent 14,757, granted to Robert Burchinal of East Wenatchee, Wash., and assigned to Microsoft, covers a new type of tree discovered in the early 1990s in the Wenatchee area, a major commercial apple-growing region. Dubbed the “Burchinal Red Delicious,” the tree is notable for producing fruit that achieves a deep red color significantly earlier than other varieties. It is sold commercially as the “Adams Apple.” (CNET News.com)
It’s unclear; has Microsoft decided that it’s not enough for it to compete with every other company in the computer industry, and decided to move on to agriculture, or did the US Patent Office screw up? My money’s on a patent office screwup.
Posted in Mac stuff | Tags broken, microsoft, patents | no comments
