Microsoft wins reversal of MP3 patent decision

Microsoft has won a reversal of a $1.5 billion jury verdict against it for infringing on a patent for MP3 technology held by Alcatel-Lucent.

Judge Rudi Brewster of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California tossed out the damages after finding that a jury improperly ruled that Microsoft infringed on one of two patents at issue for MP3 sound technology. The new ruling holds that one of the patents in the case was not actually owned outright by Lucent, and since Microsoft had a license to that particular patent through its co-owner, it's off the hook.

There were two patents at issue in the case over the technology used in MP3 files. One of those patents, the judge ruled Friday, was actually co-owned by AT&T, Lucent's former parent company, and a German company called Fraunhofer, with which Microsoft had a licensing agreement to use the patented technology. This is the opposite of what a jury concluded in February, but Judge Brewster ruled that some of the technology in the patent was developed after Fraunhofer and AT&T signed a joint-development agreement in 1989.

That would give Fraunhofer co-ownership rights to the patent (known as the '080 patent), and the right to license it to Microsoft. Furthermore, it doesn't allow Lucent-Alcatel to sue Microsoft for infringement because Fraunhofer wasn't included in the original suit, the judge ruled.

So, bottom line: Microsoft won't have to pay Lucent-Alcatel $1.5 billion--at least not yet--there could be more appeals in this case. That's a drop in the bucket to Microsoft, but Lucent-Alcatel, which is losing money, probably could have used the cash.

Microsoft was pleased with the ruling, as you might expect. "Today's ruling by the judge reversing the jury's $1.52 billion verdict against Microsoft is a victory for consumers of digital music and a triumph for common sense in the patent system. For the hundreds of companies large and small that rely on MP3 technology, the Court's ruling clarifies that these companies have properly licensed the technology embodied in the '080 patent from its co-owner and industry recognized MP3 licensor--Fraunhofer," the company said in a statement.

Lucent, not so much. "The reversal of the judge's own pre-trial and post-trial rulings is shocking and disturbing,'' Alcatel-Lucent spokeswoman Mary Ward told Bloomberg. "The jury unanimously agreed with us. We believe their decision should stand."

[protagonistic]

RE: Microsoft wins reversal of MP3 patent decision

Earth to Alcatel-Lucent... How about if you go out and develop
something people actually care about. MP3 as a format sucks
anyway.

[Seaspray0]

There are no equals to what MP3 has done

"MP3 as a format sucks anyway."

When it was developed, it revolutionized sound compression. Today it's used by just about everyone and almost every device that plays media will support it. Perhaps that's because no other format was near as good for many, many years. By today's standards it's not the best, but it was the best for over 10 years and is anything but "sucks" even by todays standards. If there was a hall of fame, the MP3 format would be at the top. You should change your nic. "Protagonistic" is nowhere near suitable for ranting dissrespectful garbage.

[cary1]

It's a universal format

MP3 is the the only format that I can safely plan on a Windows PC, a Mac, Linux, iPod, my car's CD player, my cell phone or even something like this: http://www.amazon.com/MP3%252fWMA-Car-Modulator-Port%252fAudio-Input/dp/B0009N4OIC/ref=sr_1_4/104-8029816-0128752?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1186488839&sr=8-4

So if you look at codecs for compatibility, AAC and WMA suck compared to MP3

[DavidWorkman]

Who's really to blame?

It seems that Fraunhofer is not taking their fair share of the blame in this fiasco, for licensing something they didn't fully own in the first place. Look at it this way - if I buy a car from someone, and I get a receipt and a pink slip, but when I go to register the car I find out that the guy that sold it to me didn't own it. If anyone should be sued, it's Fraunhoffer - they screwed Microsoft in the first place with an OUTRAGEOUS license fee. If AT&T wants to sue someone, they should have started with Fraunhofer.

[Quemann]

Nobody is to blame

The judge belatedly ruled that Fraunhofer had the right to license the MP3 technology to Microsoft.
The judge did the right thing to reverse his previous ruling since he has learned that AT&T and Fraunhofer are co-owners of the technology and each co-owner can license the technology individually.

Licencing any technology cannot be likened to selling a vehicle co-owned because co-ownership of vehicles and that of intellectual property rights may have different aspects, both legally and technically.

[IPLawyer]

Earth to Protagonist -- > I think the market has spoken and MP3 is a lot more popular (and successful) than you'll ever be.
DWorkman -- Nice try. Fraunhofer isn't the bad guy here. Patents aren't like cars -- two people can own them and use them at the same time without running into a phsyical issue. So the law (correctly) allows two owners to act freely with the intellectual property.
Two joint owners of a patent have equal right to license the patents. If Lucent had wanted to make sure that FhG couldn't grant a license they could have said so when ownership was being negotiated.
Rock on Fraunhofer.