Mitsubishi (and the world) sue Vizio over MPEG-2 patents

[greggh]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/mits ... 2-patents/

It's no secret the rest of the display industry hasn't been happy with Vizio shaking up the low end with its cheap HDTVs, and now Mitsubishi and others have joined in a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of refusing to license necessary patents. The 15 patents allegedly violated are for MPEG-2 compression that Mitsu, Sony, Samsung, Philips, Thomson, JVC and Columbia University of New York claim Vizio refuses to license. Vizio says it don't need no stinking licenses, since its suppliers already have them and it believes these licenses extend to its products. MPEG-LA also filed a similar suit against Target's TruTech house brand of televisions; while we'll have to wait for a ruling on the case to see who is right, it seems if they can't compete with these lower prices, other manufacturers will make sure cheap HDTVs cost more to make. For its part, Vizio says it does not believe this suit will have a materially adverse impact on its business, so for now, let the low-price flat screens roll.

Saw this article and it reminded me of what Dann was talking about. It sure is easy to forget that something as basic as mpeg2 is not as free and open as I use to think.

[dann]

I don't get it. How could all these manufactures sue Vizio over a patent that they themselves do not hold. The MPEG-LA is the distributor of the licenses for mpeg, so they should be suing right? How can this be?

Does that mean I could sue MS over an alleged patent infringement even though I don't hold the patent, but if I could theoretically prove they violated I could sue?

[greggh]

I don't get it either. I think we need to get Dave Yates expert legal advice on this one too.