The past damage argument is completely bogus,I can see the case being thrown out in the future.As for paying future royalties,it seems to me,that websites could just get around it,by using a different format.Don't Real,and iTunes use something other than MP3 ? I stream a lot of stuff off the web,and about 60% of the sites do use Real or iTunes exclusively.As well as something called Icecast , for PC owners.Moreso than a year ago.Could they have known this was coming ?
I agree,this is sad.If I recall,the development of MP3,goes back to 1987.Is this one of the very last new things Lucent/Bell ever developed ? That was 20 years ago.The term of patent is just about due to expire,and they want to grab whatever money they can,while they can.Or am I all wrong here ?
Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/technology/23patent.html
Methinks this will be overturned later on. No way every licensee of MP3 for playback didn't dot the
i's and cross the t's years ago. How pathetic that Lucent, the heir to Bell Labs, is now reduced to
"profit by litigation" since it has otherwise been killed off and is now owned by a struggling
-- Tom Fine
"If you're not on somebody's watchlist,you're not doing your job"
Dave Von Kleist
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.