Much has been written about the affect of Alcatel-Lucent suing Microsoft Corp. for patent infringement on MP3s, partly because the $1.5 billion award was so big, but also because everyone who uses MP3s may soon find themselves in Alcatel-Lucent's crosshairs. What is interesting about the lawsuit is that Microsoft thought it had licensed the technology legitimately for $16 million from Fraunhofer, which developed the MP3 compression technology along with Lucent's Bell Labs. Apparently it hadn't.

While this may strike some as unfair — in the shifting world of intellectual property it’s sometimes hard to tell who owns anything until it goes to court — it’s a bit ironic that Microsoft should be the recipient of such a suit. The Redmond giant has long practiced its own brand of fear uncertainty and doubt with regard to patent ownership when it comes to open source programs. Its stance is reminiscent of Alcatel-Lucent's. Essentially, if you use Microsoft products you can't be sued for infringed patents within those products, but if you are using open source products, it may cost you. After all, you don't know if those "shifty" open source programmer might be infringing on another company’s patents, but ultimately you might be responsible. Yes, even if you paid for the code in good faith.

Microsoft is in a similar position now, having licensed what it thought was a legitimate patent, only to be told that it wasn't, leaving it on the hook for $1.5 billion. Sure that verdict may be appealed and damages may be reduced, but for intellectual property and patents to become true investable assets, as The Deal has claimed in a recent issue, it must be considered a legitimate right without a court fight. — Stacey Higginbotham

Join Corporate Dealmaker's LinkedIn forum