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 $8.96m.
The patent in question is a method to transfer data between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access using a single spreadsheet."
In other news, Guantemala's gross domestic product tripled today...
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
So wait, does this mean patents are good now?
I'm so confused!
Patent infringement is not a crime, so they were not, in fact, found "guilty".
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
i like this idea you are trying to sell us. but it reminds me of something we are already working on. you may leave now, no need to take your folder with you.
Jackson found innocent, invites school bus full of children to his ranch to celebrate.
Yahoo decides to give up fight against Google and shifts all it's resources to making small toys for the quarter machines at grocery stores.
Gnome and KDE finally resolve differences and merge, new name to be KnomE
Secluded inventor in Guatamala buys entire country a round.
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
Can anyone tell me more about their good/bad experiences regarding IP and Microsoft ?
Dear rd4tech
I've had a good experience, and I definitely look forward to future business with them.
Sincerely
Carlos Armando Amado
I'm afraid of making any sort of software, even for fun. If it somehow leaves my PC goes public, someone could notice I made it, dig up some old patent, and sue my ass to Hoboken, New Jersey. This leeching is far worse than file leeching, and it's always sad to see that something intended to advance science and the arts (see Sec. 8, Clause 8) is impeding it instead. If it can happen to "M$" 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.
Poetic justice?! Hardly!
The only good that could come of this would be the remote chance that it could convince MS that software patents are a terrible idea and prod them into backing Red Hat and Oracle's push to reform patents in the US and Europe.
Sorry, the giant tripped over a giant turtle and spilled some cash.
Yeh, the same double standard that says landmines are always bad, but that we can ignore temporarily if say, Pol Pot gets one accidentally stuffed up his ass.
Oh wait. That's not a double standard, that's just us cheering when bad things happen to bad people. Whooddah thunkit?
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.
All that they have to do is demonstrate prior art if they're charged with patent infringement
Sorry, but that's simply not the case, as I'm currently serving as an expert witness for a defendant in a patent case. It's not enough to have prior art, you must also convince a jury that you have prior art. Good luck getting a jury of everyday schmoes to understand some complex technical issue.
You see both sides will have expert witnesses, and they will both say how much they believe they are right. Both sides will spout technical jargon and the juries eyes will glaze over. And the jury will determine the winner based on things like who most likable. So if you can paint yourself as some poor schlub who got ripped off by MS, then the technical stuff really doesn't matter. Really. It's fucking sad, but that's how it works.
Arbitrary sig