Microsoft faces lawsuit over Silverlight
Microsoft's latest legal headache is a suit from a little-known company called Gotuit Media, which charges elements of Silverlight infringe on the video metadata company's patented technology.
In a suit filed July 2 in San Francisco Federal Court, Gotuit charges Silverlight infringes on several of its patents and seeks an injunction against the software maker as well as damages and attorney's fees.

Microsoft plans to use Silverlight to allow visitors to NBCOlympics.com to watch multiple events at the same time, as well as view streaming commentary. Gotuit cited these plans as part of its patent infringement suit.
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET News.com )Gotuit may be a relative unknown, but Microsoft is facing an opponent it knows quite well. Gotuit is represented by San Francisco-based lawyer Spencer Hosie, the same Hosie that successfully represented Burst.com in its suit against Microsoft.
Hosie declined to comment on the Gotuit case.
Of note, Gotuit, in its complaint, mentions specifically Microsoft's plans to use Silverlight in conjunction with video metadata as part of its powering of the NBCOlympics.com Web site. Silverlight is Microsoft's rival to Adobe's Flash for Web video, among other uses.
Microsoft spokesman David Bowermaster said the company had yet to be served in the case, "so we're not in a position to comment."
Gotuit has a range of products used by customers like Lifetime television to make it easier to search and navigate through online video.
- Topics:
-
Corporate stuff,
-
Microsoft
- Tags:
-
Microsoft,
-
lawsuits,
-
Burst.com,
-
Gotuit,
-
NBCOlympics.com,
-
Silverlight
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us





for example apply applied for a dual sided touch screen device/phone recently... but is it a far stretch for nintendo to make the next version of its nintendoDS which has dual touch screen into a phone?
Our patent system needs a complete overhaul.
Not a fan of MS. I just keep reading 'patent infringements' cases on the news and I think its getting way out of control.
To be fair, it may be in this case that the patent holder has already implemented their ideas, and wish to capitalize on their work product.
Another example of lawyers bad advice in a get rich quick scheme
I have the same complaint of psystar... although their probably legally correct... with all ofthe commotion around psystar for over a year now... why is apple only now attempting to defent their patent?
all of these companies "I have a patent and I didn't care enough to try and defend it until now?" total BS... I get if some small unknown company doesn't know about some other small unknown company, but not when we're talking about the likes of Apple and MS...
Patent holding companies do this for a living. Buy patents, sit on them until somebody uses it and sue the hell out of them to make money. The price of your PC and software is in large part due to paying off patents...some 20 years old.
The whole point in what's missing in the patent scenario is a "common sense" clause. there should be a common sense clause on composite scenarios of 2 well known entities. And there should be a common sense close on protecting your patents when the whole world knows its coming and you intentionally bury your head (which you didn't really do, you just never spoke up)... its a V2 for god's sake and its MS.
do anyone really believe no one mentioned to Gotuit earlier even "hey it looks like MS is doing something similar". If you're so stupid as to intentional blind yourself, you too stupid to be awarded a patent in my book.