Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Found Guilty of Patent Infringement
Spy der Mann writes "Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay a Guatamalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado almost $9m in damages.
The US District Court of Central California court ruled that Microsoft had infringed on his intellectual property and ordered it to pay him $8.96m.
The patent in question is a method to transfer data between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access using a single spreadsheet."
In other news, Guantemala's gross domestic product tripled today...
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
So wait, does this mean patents are good now?
I'm so confused!
that MS is firing a few thousand patents a year at the USPTO - protecting themselves.
You gotta have some sympathy for MS about this.
"Damn! Should have settled. They were offering me $10 million."
'Nuff said.
Patent infringement is not a crime, so they were not, in fact, found "guilty".
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Not that MS cares, or anything, seeing as no one can push them around at their own game.
So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes.
Then he sued Microsoft???
I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
As much as I hate Microsoft, I hate people who think they can use patents to cash in on something after the fact. Rambus did this in its ambush of memory makers. Eolas did this to Microsoft. Intertrust is doing this now to MS.
These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.
At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.
i like this idea you are trying to sell us. but it reminds me of something we are already working on. you may leave now, no need to take your folder with you.
That isn't American dollars. He "only" got $1,166,448
Jackson found innocent, invites school bus full of children to his ranch to celebrate.
Yahoo decides to give up fight against Google and shifts all it's resources to making small toys for the quarter machines at grocery stores.
Gnome and KDE finally resolve differences and merge, new name to be KnomE
Secluded inventor in Guatamala buys entire country a round.
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
Well, the giant isn't exactly falling. I'm sure that to the winner of the lawsuit, it felt great to get paid loads of money for his patent.
To Microsoft and the billions upon billions of dollars under their control, however, it's like trying to drain a lake by siphoning it through a straw.
Why, aren't they usually happy when software patent rights are recognized?
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Microsoft sued over a patent concerning *its own* products! CLASSIC!
Nandz.
doesnt bill have that much in his couch ?
Can anyone tell me more about their good/bad experiences regarding IP and Microsoft ?
Dear rd4tech
I've had a good experience, and I definitely look forward to future business with them.
Sincerely
Carlos Armando Amado
it's like trying to drain a lake by siphoning it through a straw.
Giving any action enough time, it will succeed.
I am sure this being somewhat a large hit to MS's horrible record, it would cause other patent holders to reconsider bringing up cases against the Microsoft.
As I pointed out in another comment to another story, among software developers the standard wisdom is, "Get in bed with Microsoft, and expect to get screwed." They have repeatedly managed to extract whatever they want from collaborations or licenses and left the other party wondering how it is that they got nothing.
I'm afraid of making any sort of software, even for fun. If it somehow leaves my PC goes public, someone could notice I made it, dig up some old patent, and sue my ass to Hoboken, New Jersey. This leeching is far worse than file leeching, and it's always sad to see that something intended to advance science and the arts (see Sec. 8, Clause 8) is impeding it instead. If it can happen to "M$" with their many IP/etc. lawyers, it can happen, and cause far worse damage, to us. That's -1, Scary to me.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Carlos Armando Amado devised a way to connect Excel with Access using a specially crafted spreadsheet during his tenure as a graduate student at Stanford University. After applying for a patent in 1990, Mr. Amando approached Microsoft to license the software, but was denied.
Microsoft then used the same exact method.
Now, while i totally disagree with the idea of patents like this... It changes the story a bit doesnt it?
Heh, after all this is slashdot.
Sorry, the giant tripped over a giant turtle and spilled some cash.
Just another cost of doing business. Put it down in the books as a business expense for a tax write off.
And does anyone think Microsoft would even notice a $9 million bill? Their phone bills are probably larger than this.
As much as I hate the company and its products, and believe me I do, this is a case that should've either been thrown out or used to nullify the patent. Instead the judgement strengthened the concept of software patents and non-novel patents, which in turn strengthens Microsoft's position as a monopoly, for a sum of money that's just barely half a single day's take.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
seeing as no one can push them around at their own game
If I ran the numbers right, based on their third quarter earnings this will set Microsoft's profits back 7.5 days. That's profit, not revenue.
That worked out to $329/second, or about $40 grand by time Slashdot will let you post another comment.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
Does that make any sense to you? Guy didn't invent either program. He's not some disgruntled ex-Microsoft programmer out to get his just dues. He's not some super, uber-leet programmer who came out with "Carlos's Excel" or "Carlos's Access" years before Microsoft did and simply didn't succeed due to lack of marketing. This is some Joe Nobody who filed a broad, vague patent that the courts were stupid enough to uphold.
Now I like Microsoft as much as the next IT geek (ie. not at all) but I no longer have a clash of conscience over patent issues. The patent system is completely out of control and is causing terrible damage to the industry. As a small developer, patents terrify me. And who are patents supposed to protect in the first place?
Now I don't know the specifics of the case, but given the current rampant abuse of the patent system I'm going to side with the Evil Empire here by default, until I see a decent argument over why this is a fair patent. Most are not. Mind you, MS probably do deserve this sort of thing given their support for software patents.
No, we use U.S. Dollars, even for civl awards here in Ahnuldh's Cal-eee-fonya.
Wasn't Microsoft Access 1.0 released in 1993 or so?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well, you can't anymore!
Unfortunately if you look you'll notice that as the number of frivolous patent lawsuits against Microsoft has gradually increased over the last few years, Microsoft's response has been... to suddenly start filing a whole bunch of patents. Lots of patents. Even more than before. And making a big deal in the press about patents and how important they are. And making a big deal to Europe about why they need software patents. Whereas before software patents was something they didn't really give much public indication of caring about one way or the other.
Microsoft obviously isn't doing this for protection, since the only people who've been suing Microsoft have been tiny parasite IP companies-- the kind of people who a patent shield is useless against. Instead it almost kind of seems to me like Microsoft is brushing off the patent judgments like an elephant swatting flies with its tail, but meanwhile going "wait... you mean patents can be used for evil? Interesting...", as if even though the lawsuits may sting a little they don't mind so much because it's given them some ideas of their own.
I hope to whatever Gods may or may not exist that this is just my overactive paranoid imagination.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I guess that's what they get for being ubiquitous.
Kind of ironic and strange that they can be sued for patents on interactions between their own software packages.
Could I patent, just as an example, methods for converting between PDF and PSD files, and then sue Adobe for infringing when they do the obvious?
Something not right about this; I guess it's just showing up yet another problem with copyright law. Pretty thorny one if you think about it.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Like most things at Slashdot, there is a double standard at play here. In other words, the Slashdot fanboys are not as pue as they like to think of themselves as. If it's bad for MS, it's good "just because". Pay backs, you know? Like little children...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Except the straw is much smaller than the waterfall pouring into the lake, so no, it wont succeed if given time.
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
"and with one small stone, the giant fell..." ... to his knees laughing.
In capitalist America; after you beat the system, the system beats you.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
No. What will happen is that big companies that have influence over government policy will lobby to have the bar raised so high that small patent holders ("whores", as you say) will not be able to prove a case in the first place.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes. Then he sued Microsoft??? I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.
You didn't get it:
1. The guy came up with a technique to interact with Access and Excel while doing graduate studies and gets a patent.
2. He approached Microsoft Corp. in the 90s and offered them his patent. Microsoft rejects the idea and say they're not interested.
3. About the same time, Microsoft adds the same technique to his products, makes a great deal of it and gets millions in revenue.
4. Then, and only then, the guy went to court, proved that he was the first to come up with the technique , proved that he approached Microsoft, proved that he showed it to them before they ever thought about it and then gets a fair amount of money.
I don't support software patents, but if Microsoft is promoting that nasty game, they have to obey the nasty game's rules.
Basically, it went like this:
Microsoft obtains software product A.
Microsoft obtains software product B.
Microsoft begins making them work together.
Guy beats Microsoft to market.
Microsoft continues making their products work together.
Guy sues Microsoft, wins millions for being first to patent obvious method made "novel" by the fact that it works on those confusin' new computers.
This would work against Linux.
This crap would work on anything.
Microsoft did *NOTHING* wrong here. They didn't steal his stuff or anything. They just made their own products work together. It probably wouldn't even have been an issue if Excel and Access had been marketed under the same freaking product name.
Ludicrous.
here is the sentence after what you quoted. Are periods taboo in patents? I never read one before, but this is horrendous. Someone should be shot just for butchering the english language that badly.
a program in execution by said computer for controlling operations thereof for receiving user input defining one or more analysis rules to be applied to user specified data from said memory, each said analysis rule being a user defined arithmetic and/or logic test to be applied to user specified items of said data and for controlling said computer to receive and store user entered data defining the alphanumeric text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result of each said analysis rule, each said diagnostic statement comprised of a user defined alphanumeric text string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the analysis rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input controlling which of said analysis rules are to be applied to said data, and for applying said analysis rules so designated to the data designated by said user and returning a true or false result for each analysis rule so applied depending upon the state of the data to which each analysis rule was applied, and for each true result returned by an analysis rule, controlling said computer to store in a file in said memory the user programmed text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result as a diagnostic in a diagnostic database, and for controlling said computer to receive and store in said memory user input defining one or more expert tests, each expert test comprising a user defined arithmetic and/or logic statement to be applied to one or more diagnostics selected by user input from the diagnostics stored in said diagnostic database, said arithmetic and/or logic statement comprised of mathematical operators and/or logical operators from any logic set such as predicate logic or Boolean logic including at least the AND, OR and NOT functions, each said expert test returning either a true or false result, and for controlling said computer to receive user input defining the text of a super diagnostic statement in the form of an alphanumeric string associated with each true result of one of said expert tests, each said superdiagnostic being an alphanumeric string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result of the expert rule, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the expert rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input defining which of said expert tests to execute on user specified diagnostics in said diagnostic database, and for controlling the computer to execute the expert tests so designated, and for controlling said computer to store as a super diagnostic in a super diagnostic file in said memory the super diagnostic statement associated with any true result returned by any said expert test.
Yes, the formatting is right on that.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Don't worry, they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Vote for Pedro
$9M to Microsoft is less hurt than you dropping a penny.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Clarifying the judgement, MS said the inventor would receive more than 1.6 million dollars worth of Windows licenses (non transferable, of course)!
Isn't this how MS is paying all its fines slapped by various government bodies?
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
apple goes to intel!
microsoft found guilty of patent infringement!
i've woken up in bizzaro world!
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
What if MS deliberately failed to put up a good case for themselves, calling the 9 mil an "investment" into the efficacy of their patent portfolio? Set a nice precedence for themselves for what was already called a "pittance" wouldn't it?
5,537,590, 16 July, 1996
The same guy appears to have been granted a more recent patent for a related process:
5,701,400, 23 December, 1997
The wording of the second one is very buzzword-laden and overblown ("artificial intelligence"? whatever). I'm still looking over both of them.
The news articles seem to have a number of other things wrong. First, no one with the last name Amado applied for a patent in 1990. The patent which appears to be being discussed was filed for in 1993 (After Access was released).
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
5,293,615, 8 March 1994
His last name is spelled differently, but this appears to be the one. I was an Amiga user in 1990, but this sounds like basic database/spreadsheet usage to me.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
How did you manage to get that far? I stopped after about the the 15th line of the first sentence.
And a giant slap for the Giant. Seriously, audacity that microsoft displays every now and then and the attitude that they are above the law must turn off any good sensible person in this world. I am glad the judge saw them through for what they really are. A bully and a killer of innovative spirits.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
I don't know if you remember 1992, but back then, you couldn't get Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word to talk. Believe, I tried. I was going to college back then and for one of my engineering classes, I tried to embed an Excel spreadsheet into Word. The spreadsheet has come complex calculations in it and I didn't want to type in the values by hand. Eventually I had to save Excel as text and then open that up in Word. So this getting two MS programs to interact was non-obvious.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3) Let someone else use your invention and keep quiet
RTFA, after he invented and applied for a patent, he approached MS with it. They declined to buy it. He was awarded the patent. He claims that MS used his patent. When he found out, he sued.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I guess I'm understanding why even Microsoft is asking for software patent reform: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/ 11/1216222&tid=109&tid=155&tid=123&tid=219
Not that anybody on slashdot cares about things like this, but the correct spelling is Guatemalan
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
I don't think Microsoft really lost here.
Think with me: if Microsoft really wanted to win this case, they would just appeal. They've got the money, they've got the lawyers, there is NO WAY Joe Smallpotatoes would win in the end. Especially not this ridiculous patent, which should be easy to overthrow on the grounds of obviousness.
So, I can only conclude that Microsoft is actually happy to lose this one. And why would that be? My guess is that they simply have lots of these obvious patents themselves, which they hope to apply tactically in the near future to bring down small entrepreneurs. Since they now lost this case, in the future, when someone they sue tries to tell the judge that a Microsoft patent is obvious, Microsoft can reply by pointing out the historic case in which a judge upheld a similar patent, which is therefore non-obvious.
This is a tactical loss for Microsoft. And I see a bleak future.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Excel.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
And exactly what is the difference between inventing Excel, or C / C++, Java, Perl, and have people loading software patents based on that technology?
None. This just shows why software patents is bad. It's all mathematics, and they're trying to sell what we already own, to us..
Microsoft deserves this, because they're in the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world. Not because of revenge, but they have to live with the consequences of their ignorant decisions - Karma pure and simple.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Microsoft is now getting one of those giants like IBM who will constantly be bugged by private patent owners (bogus or real) for money. My experience is that though large companies have many patents, the quality of their portfolio is relatively low as they like big numbers. Small companies, on the other hand, have either a completely worthless portfolio or a small but very powerfull portfolio. And a small production, so the backfire risk of a patent lawsuit towards Microsoft is negligible.
But I do not think a (the?) new US patent system backed by Microsoft will solve that problem for Microsoft. It will probably make it worse. Suffer, dudes...
Bzzzzzzt. They were not an integrated suite in 1990. They were separate products. What allowed them to be integrated into a suite? Maybe ideas like the one this guy patented and Microsoft infringed upon.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.