Mullor's statement:

In response to numerous requests for comments regarding a lawsuit filed against me in Washington, I would like to make the following comments.

I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 relating to software anti-piracy technology, and Ancora is my company.

I applied for my patent in 1998. In 2002, the patent issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In 2003, I approached Microsoft and had several discussions with a Microsoft lawyer and employees of Microsoft’s Anti Piracy group about my invention and the benefits Microsoft could realize by using it. Microsoft declined and said they had no interest in my invention.

After 3 years of working at a start up without salary and benefits, and with a first child about to be born, it was time for me to move on and look for a job to support my family. We ceased business operations at Ancora in 2005, and Microsoft was the first company to extend me an employment offer. I accepted. In early 2006, I moved my family to Seattle from Los Angeles, bought a house and focused on my new career at Microsoft. I enjoyed my job very much, and Microsoft commended my work and even promoted me.

When I joined Microsoft, I notified them in writing of Ancora and my patent in both my resume and in my employment agreement. In its complaint against me, Microsoft withheld the portions of these key documents that show this.

At the same time I was employed at Microsoft, but unknown to me, Microsoft was developing what is now known as “OEM Activation.” OEM Activation is installed on computers made by HP, Dell, Toshiba and others (called OEMs) to prevent piracy of Microsoft’s Windows Vista software installed on those computers. This work was being done in a different department at Microsoft.

OEM Activation is a blatant copy of my invention. In fact, the same Microsoft person that I explained my invention to back in 2003 was involved in the development of OEM Activation.

In June 2008, my company Ancora filed a patent infringement lawsuit against HP, Dell and Toshiba in the federal court in Los Angeles. Microsoft fired me for trying to protect my own invention —- an invention I told them about before they ever hired me. Microsoft was added to the Los Angeles case shortly after I was fired.

Recently, Microsoft filed a retaliation suit against me personally in Seattle. Microsoft accuses me of lying, deceit, fraud and misappropriation. These are shameful, dishonest attacks on my character by Microsoft – the company that stole my idea in the first place. Their attacks are untrue, and they hurt me and my family.

Microsoft basically admits stealing my idea in the complaint they filed because they are asking for a license to my patent. Microsoft would only need a license to my patent if they were infringing it in the first place.

My patent case in Los Angeles has been going on for several months now with substantial progress. Clearly, Microsoft and the PC OEMs realized that they have no defense on the merits of the patent case. They are now looking for ways to avoid being held liable for their actions — they stole the technology, they’re infringing our patent, and the use of our invention by Microsoft and the OEM’s has generated millions of dollars in profits that would have otherwise been lost to piracy.

Microsoft’s complaint against me in Washington is a shameful and a desperate attempt to put pressure on me and my family from continuing to pursue our legal rights in the federal court in Los Angeles. We will not stop until the truth comes out. We are ready to take the stand for all other inventors and entrepreneurs and tell Microsoft: “no more.”

As mentioned in the initial article, Microsoft does admit to using Ancora technology—claiming that it was their right to do so because Mullor did not disclose ownership of the patent when he was hired. Whether or not Muller did, in fact, submit this disclosure and/or spy on the company will be up to the courts to decide.

That's right. They won't let you choose which stuff you can upgrade. This has been reported already, at least by this guy—and I suppose it's not new news given the fact that they've done upgrades since EMI went DRM-free a while back—but the scope is much greater now that all the labels are on board. After returning from a week of Macworld and CES to the comforts of home, the impact of this has hit me, like the baseball bat I took on the cheekbone back in 1993.

You're snickering. Not about the baseball bat (I hope), but about the whole spending-money-on-iTunes thing. Yep, I am a recovered iTunes DRM-music-buying addict. I still pay for music, but now Amazon is the legitimate source of all my thankfully DRM-free impulse buys.

Last Tuesday's announcement that iTunes would go DRM-free was good news in several ways: Not only might iTunes win me back as a customer, but I also would be able to upgrade the best stuff I bought over the years, so I could have it in high quality, playable not just on my Apple (TM) products, but also on Sonos or BlackBerry or any other fun music-savvy device that comes in and out of my house.

So I clicked "Upgrade To iTunes Plus" and I got a gun to my face saying "$250 or else."

Seriously, they want $250—actually, they want $250.06 but what's a few pennies between lifelong friends?—to upgrade the 1,000+ songs I've bought over the years. That would mean that all those albums I paid $9.99 for would actually cost me $13 in the end. That's the same amount the damn CD would have cost me in the first place, if I still bought those museum pieces. And the CD would have given me the option to rip at higher quality than 256Kbps, and would come with liner notes telling me who played that sick drum solo on Track 12, to boot.

The clincher was this: When I went to click on just the albums I really wanted to update, the "upgrade" price was... full price. WHA?? I clicked on the FAQ, and this is what I saw:

I remembered a similar bulk upgrade offer before, when it was just EMI's content, but as you can imagine, the price they wanted for that was less scary. I must've paid it (probably under the influence of alcohol). I haven't caved this time—not yet at least. I'd be faced with having to explain a $250 iTunes charge to the wife without getting any new music, movies or music videos to show for it. She's a cool person and all, but I wouldn't escape that conversation without some kind of half-accusatory, half-pitying "Oh babe."

Do you see what you're doing to me and to my family, iTunes? I guess you do: You are only the monster the music industry has made you for screwing with their decades-long con. Amazon definitely got the better deal, most likely for appearing harmless—no doubt their inevitable contract renegotiation will be a bitch and a half.

And to those of you out there who steal music instead of buying it, well, frankly, I can totally see why. [iTunes What's New]

AppleInsider cites a Dec. 3 story from the French publication Electron Libre that says iTunes will remove DRM from Sony BMG, Universal and Warner tracks on December 9th, like it already does with EMI and indie content. The story doesn't say what percentage of tracks from the major labels, or what the cost bump for the new tracks might be, if any, though it seems to say the thing might cover every single album and track on iTunes. In fact, check out this rather ungraceful machine translation of the French story for yourself:

...The signals are clear today. iTunes should offer catalogs of three majors Universal Music, SonyBMG Music and Waner [sic] rid of technological protection measures next Tuesday, Dec. 9. The transition to DRM Free should be at a global level...

With that opener, it almost reads like a fortune. I for one hope this fortune comes true. [Electron Libre via AppleInsider]

Though the European Parliament has plenty of power, this particular legislation seems to be more for advisory purposes. The BBC says:

The vote has no legal force and leaves national governments free to implement their own anti-piracy plans. But, said the Open Rights Group, it does "signify resistance" among European law makers to the strict measures that nations such as France are implementing.

Content owners can leverage the popularity of new media distribution channels by identifying what content is being shared, viewed, mashed up or accessed. This intelligence enables content owners to make meaningful decisions on what content to allow or disallow on such sites.