Patent Holders Sue Microsoft, Claiming They Were Misled... Six Years Ago

from the took-their-time,-didn't-they? dept

Tue, Jun 5th 2007 4:25am — Mike Masnick

Microsoft certainly has a reputation for copying (er... embracing and extending) the technology of other companies, but this latest lawsuit seems a bit suspicious. Engadget points us to the news that three patents holders are suing Microsoft for supposedly misleading them over its intentions in licensing their patent. They claim that Microsoft claimed it wanted to license their patent, related to digital video recorder technology, for strictly defensive purposes. The group agreed to license Microsoft the patent in 2001 with no royalty revenues attached... and a week later Microsoft announced its UltimateTV DVR offering. There are a few things that simply don't add up here. If the deal happened in 2001 and Microsoft announced its product a week later, why did they wait until now to sue? More importantly, if part of the deal was that Microsoft would only use the patents for defensive purposes, why not put that into the terms of the license? This sounds like a pure money grab, and there might not even be that much money to grab, since Ultimate TV was eventually shut down as a failure early in 2002.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Been on Mars, 5 Jun 2007 @ 5:00am

Who or what is Microsoft???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, myself, and i, 5 Jun 2007 @ 5:19am

you know the courts...
maybe just maybe the courts FINALLY got to the case. We have death row guys sitting there for fifty years, i don't see why a patent case shouldn't wait six years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 5 Jun 2007 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: you know the courts...
  maybe just maybe the courts FINALLY got to the case.
  According to the article, the patent trolls just filed last January. Much as I don't like Microsoft, I'll have to side with them on this one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thecaptain, 5 Jun 2007 @ 5:41am

knee jerk response and all
At first I thought the same thing, "why wait six years?". However when you give it some thought, it does not seem unreasonable.

A company that a friend works for is involved in business litigation similar to this and the court date was just set now, 2 years from now.

I'm sure prior to filing there were "negotiations" with Microsoft and those likely took time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle, 5 Jun 2007 @ 6:00am

it all adds up in the end...
Frankly I think that any stab at Microsoft is a small step forward. This is just another example (in hundreds, thousands?) of Microsoft eliminating competition through unfair practices. Had Microsoft developed through their own means the technology involved here it would seem less an issue.

On the other side of the fence however; how can you sue someone you legitimately licesensed your technology to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 5 Jun 2007 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: it all adds up in the end...
  Frankly I think that any stab at Microsoft is a small step forward. This is just another example (in hundreds, thousands?) of Microsoft eliminating competition through unfair practices.
  Yes, but I can't see someone lowering themselves to that level as being a step forward. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If the anti-Microsoft crowd is to claim victory over Microsoft, they must maintain a higher ethical standard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew, 5 Jun 2007 @ 6:03am

Copyright infringement!
FTFA The inventors, who formed a joint venture company called IntellivisionIntellivision!? They can't have that! Well they probably can, but still it confuses me and that's just wrong. I want my Intellivision Baseball!

Also, if you read the article you'd see the motion was filed in January. As in 2007. So they're, at least, 5 years out and trying to get money for nothing. While I'm sure the patent system and litigation has some merits here and there I think it might be best served for all to make a special court for only these items; a black hole perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajax 4Hire, 5 Jun 2007 @ 6:16am

If you need a well publicized example of the court
speedy process of the US Court System just look at "SCO vs. IBM et. al". A case that argueably has little or no merit yet has waifed thru the US Court system for years.

I have posted Bond for folks who had their life in limbo for years until the Prosecutor brings case before a judge to be dropped for lack of evidence. Note: you can have anyone arrested for anything by simply swearing out a warrant.

But this is a case of stupidity, note:
"The group agreed to license Microsoft the patent in 2001 with no royalty revenues attached..."

Why would you sign away all of your rights to revenue?
Were the drinking Microsoft kool-aid(tm)?

You can't shoot yourself in the foot and then blame the gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude, 5 Jun 2007 @ 6:31am

Shut up ,Mike,
Mike, stop misleading the general public about patent cases.

An average patent lawsuit costs 3-5 mil bucks just to start
It takes a while to raise this kind of money from investors, if you are a small guy

So just shut up, moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2007 @ 7:26am
  
  Angry Troll is more like it
  Don't feed the troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajax 4Hire, 5 Jun 2007 @ 9:03am

I don't agree with Microsoft often but
this is a case where Microsoft is clearly in the right.

Microsoft got the IP holders to sign away their rights: "The group agreed to license Microsoft the patent in 2001 with no royalty revenues attached".

This has "oh waaa", written all over it.

Maybe "the group" could get a Charitable Tax Deduction.
No, Microsoft is not a charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Bowness, 5 Jun 2007 @ 9:40am

Microsoft are actually right! Why the hell six years ago! Blatant attempt at cash!

Mark Bownes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shaun, 6 Jun 2007 @ 1:27am

That is defensive use
Microsoft licenced it to defend themselves from the patent holder sueing them - a clear defensive use of the patent. It's the patent holders own stupid fault they didn't get a better deal for it.

Defending Microsoft..... that leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Can we please get rid of software patents allready? They clearly arn't benificial to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]