Start-up Granted Injunction Against Microsoft

AustinSlacker writes " A San Jose, CA start-up, Alacritech Inc, was granted a preliminary injunction against Microsoft in a patent infringement lawsuit involving several patents related to Microsoft's implementation of "Chimney" TCP offload architecture."

Comments

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[DrEldarion]

For a change? People are always trying to take shots at Microsoft, it's just that most of them fail (and most of them SHOULD fail, since they're 99.9% BS, like the Eolas case).

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[UnknowingFool]

(and most of them SHOULD fail, since they're 99.9% BS, like the Eolas case).

Eolas is rather questionable but that doesn't mean this case is without merit. MS has done kind of thing before. For example, Stacker and Goldtouch.

Goldtouch Tech makes peripherals and launched a lawsuit against MS. After they shared a new mouse design with MS for licensing considerations, MS declined. 18 months later MS made a mouse that looked remarkably like theirs. This was around the 1999-2000 time frame. I don't put this past MS.

As a whole, I don't think Ballmer and Gates are urging these tactics. MS is a big company. Their will be bad apples with power and influence in any organization that do things that are immoral or illegal.

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[sconeu]

May I suggest you read Startup - A Silicon Valley Adventure, by Jerry Kaplan, and you'll see that this is standard modus operandi for MS.

That's exactly what they did to Go! Computer.

Phishy, no, Need patent to sue for infringement

[Finsterwald P Ogleth]

And if you look at the dates, Alacritech didn't get the patent till 2000, and another one in 2002.

I think you *need* the approved patent to sue for infringement. "Patent pending" won't cut it in court.

Besides, they may have notified MS in 2000, when they got the patent, but MS has the money to "wait it out", gambling (somewhat...eh, maybe not that much, based on their record)that the little guy will get starved out.

Burst was in the same position. I think the major reason Burst settled was because of cash flow.

Eventually, Kolar-Kotelly will have to take these types of behavior under legal consideration as evidence that MS will just not change. Maybe then we can get a ruling that's fair to the marketplace...

FPO

Re:Smells Phishy

[Maestro4k]

Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.

• It's not clear from the article when Alacritech found out MicroSoft had continued to use their technology. If they didn't find out until four years later, it would make sense that there's a gap there before they offered them a license. If all happened as Alacritech says it did, it's to their credit they tried to get MS to do the right thing and offered them a license. They could have skipped that and gone straight to a lawsuit, after all MS had stolen their technology pretty blatantly.

• This also doesn't look like a submarine patent scheme, MicroSoft hasn't actually started shipping products with the technology at question in them yet. Alacritech seems to be trying to prevent them from doing so, instead of waiting until it was all over the market then suddenly popping up and filing suit.

lawsuit documents prepared with microsoft word

[xoba]

lawsuit documents were prepared with microsoft word:

http://www.alacritech.com/assets/applets/Motion_fo r_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf

isn't filing suit against microsoft against their software license agreement? or if you do decide to sue microsoft, you agree to stop using their software?

Re:We are

[Lehk228]

the government is not forcing you to share what you invented, the government would be forcing you to sell at a reasonable price if you want to the government to prohibit others from inventing their own version very similar to yours

Re:Watch out Microsoft

[bergeron76]

We are against software patents.

Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.

I do, however, agree with you that there needs to be some MAJOR patent reform - and QUICKLY. IP, much like technology, grows at an extremely rapid rate.