Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Autodesk Guilty of Patent Infringement
rfunches writes "A Texas jury has awarded $133 million in damages to David Colvin, after finding Microsoft and Autodesk guilty of infringing upon Colvin's two software patents for software antipiracy protection. Colvin's company, z4 Technologies Inc., filed patents for 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' Microsoft was ordered to pay $115 million, and Autodesk $18 million for infringement of the product-activation schemes. A spokesman from Microsoft contends that 'Microsoft developed its own product-activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent.' Appeals are expected."
From TFA: Well, I don't know about Autodesk, but I think everyone here knows Microsoft's rather dubious track record with patents, as evidenced by this list of previous Slashdot stories:
Sorry, Microsoft, but if you want to play the patent game like this, you can't be too upset when you get played from time to time.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
My initial reaction was total delight at knowing that software patents are biting software companies back. But on second thoughts, all this will encourage is many more mindless software patents by the big firms to cover their asses.
I don't want to read
...it's a silly software patent being exploited to make cash.
On the other, they're taking a bite out of microsoft.
I just don't know how to feel about that.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I remember password and/or code protected software on the earliest PCs, the Amiga, everything! How the hell is this patentable? Oh wait, its the US Patent Office, nevermind.
I haven't read TFA yet, so I don't know if it was mentioned or not. But, when was this patent filed? Was it before WfW came out? Codes for individual copies sounds very much like your typical product key, which dates back to at least WfW.
(I do promise that I will read the fine article later on, when time permits.)
This space unintentionally left blank.
If Microsoft just got rid of product activation codes altogether, I would be a happy camper.
The single biggest thing that held back WinXP OTS sales is the product activation scheme. Naturally, WinXP still did great because of OEM pre-installed PCs, but I've never met anyone who went out and bought XP itself.
There's just something really wrong with having to call MS every time I need to reinstall or I change some hardware.
"Colvin's company, z4 Technologies Inc., filed patents for 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.'"
Well seeing how slashdot feels about copy-protection. You should be hoping these get invalidated. And not just because you all hate big business.
Anyone else reminded of the "South Park" election episode, where the only available choices were a big douche or a turd sandwich?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
That amount of money to be paid by Microsoft is the rough equivalent of $15.50 to the average person.
At least the guy may get compensated for their misdeeds?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This patent was filed in September 5, 2003. Here are just a few of the Microsoft products that used this methodology before the patent was filed:
That's not even mentioning the plethora of other Microsoft products for the PC and Mac that used unique IDs. Anything that came with a certificate of authenticity had its own unique number. Microsoft obviously has prior use, and this is a clear case of a computer-illiterate uneducated jury making poor decisions. Surely this will be overturned on appeal.
how can they defend themselfs in europe when they cant defend themselfs at home? my how the patents crumble when you are a monoply
Microsoft developed its own product-activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent.' This comming from the same company that wanted to patent the TCP/IP protocol a few years back?
Microsoft has a lot of money, and with that money, they can afford these things called "lawyers". Since they can afford more of these than the smaller company, it really doesn't matter if Microsoft believes the patent truly is invalid or not; they can wave enough FUD around until the company settles, or until the Judge in the case gets a headache and starts doing silly things.
Sadly, David vs. Goliath only really works on Television.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
From the eating-their-own-shit-department
How many times must I post this? In the US, it is date of invention that matters not date of filing. The rest of the world understands the problem with this approach, which was fine when distance and slow transport isolated communities, but is now hopelessly out of date. Only in the US can you have submarine patents. This is the most broken thing in the entire system. Without that, even properly reviewed software patents might be tolerable. Prior art is hard to prove in a country where someone has sat on an invention for ages in a notebook witnessed by an attorney and stored in a safe.
Pining for the fjords
http://www.z4.com/ appears to be yet another company that does nothing, but likes to get paid well for it.
I love it how this link, http://www.z4.com/piracy.php , talks about how Microsoft and Autodesk are victims of piracy.
A whois search on z4.com says that Colvin Design Company set up the registrar info. Well, a google search on Colvin Design Company yields nothing. Colvin Design is supposedly located in Commerce Township, MI. z4 is from Oakland County, MI about 12 miles away from Commerce Township.
No products or anything of substance on the z4 site.
Looks like another lawyer trick.
On one side, we have to rail against software patents...
On the other, here is Microsoft forced to pay a little guy for infringing on his patent...
AFAICS, any product which can link an individual registration code to something else which can verify it's validity, would be prior art.
I think a good old "Dongle" will do.
I also think dongles somewhat predate the 2003 registration of the patent in question.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
At least the guy may get compensated for their misdeeds?
Using unique product keys is a misdeed? Individual bank PINs, maybe, too? Come on, it's a plain-as-day concept. There are only two reason companies scramble to patent stuff like this: to actually produce nothing except the capacity to sue people for a living, or to cover their asses while they're in the business of actually providing goods and services to real customers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are two patents that were coverd by this suit.
6044471
This one deals with a system where you provide information to the company and are given a code. When you install the software you are required to enter the code or series of codes and it checks with the companies databases and veries that the password and other info is correct. There are clauses in it to deal with multiple passwords, and shutting down software that has incorrectly entered password.
6785825
This is kind of like the first but instead you are provided a key with the software which provided use for a limited time. Then during that time you are required to call the registration company and provide information and you receive an additional code which then unlocks the software for future use.
This is not your average enter the 16digit code/password to use the software it is the Windows XP thing where internet access is required.
Just the other day I was taking a shit and when I farted, a patent lawyer popped his head out of the bowl and served me papers!
I didn't think much of this at the time, but when I was wiping my ass with it, the feds kicked the john door in and arrested me for violating the DMCA!
I've changed massive amounts of hardware in systems (motherboard included), and had Windows tell me it needs to reactivate, and it was all done automatically through the internet. It just contacted the microsoft activation server, and reset itself. This was on both XP Pro and Media Center 2005 systems.
I did find cursory info about Colvin:
http://listings.allpages.com/mi-0010935235-commer
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0
Seems like a company that does web design for someone else should have a webpage of their own, right?
Oh, and they gave $500 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributi
Rejected: Too much prior art.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I feel good! I knew that I would now!
You know, the more patent disputes and awarding I see on a daily basis, the more it makes me sick about the whole patent process! Understandably so, interests of companies should be protected, but companies should not be able to sit on ideas (Not so much in this case).
[%] Cingular Ringtones
i have never met a benevolent 800 pound gorilla, i doubt they exist.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Reading the patents (6,044,471 and 6,785,825) one is struck by a few things:
Beyond all this, the real question is of economics: did it cost Mr. Colvin $118M to develop this "invention"? Society has no incentive to allow people to monopolize ideas which have a zero development cost: people would invent them anyway since there's a profit motive even if other people can employ the invention. It should therefore be clear that the Patent Clause and US Code Title 35 were not intended to cover this invention. The fact that it was accepted anyway tell us a lot (that we already knew) about the US patent system. For example "non-obvious" has devloved to mean "not already known", a situation which is beyond words.
You got modded as troll, but that was actually pretty funny. :D
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I suspect that you don't work in an office with a large number of PCs being repaired or replaced and having the old software reloaded onto the new machines. If you can afford to pay the MS tax and always buy a new machine with a new copy of Windows on it, power to you.
to a particular copy. I can use any product key I want, but once it's been used, it is THEN tied to the hardware, and not the copy of Windows XP.
WPA sends a hash of the hardware the license is going to be locked to, and get's a license key back from the MS WPA Servers. The license is tied to the hardware, not the software. I could reinstall Windows XP with a completely different CD, and use the same product key I used before, and everything would work.
The Inq. Article Right To Create blog Bob Jacobsen's site
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Software patents = bad
Product activation = bad
I'm torn ...
... why didn't Microsoft patent it first? Microsoft is pretty well known for filing ridiculous patents already.
This case was tried in Texas in a district which has become famous for trying patent cases. The jury pool is very pro-plaintiff and generally poorly educated, with one of the lowest literacy rates in the country. The local judges are known for advising attorneys to watch Hands on Hard Bodies, not pron, but a film about people trying to win a truck, as a way of seeing what they're getting into. The appeals will decide this case, not the jury.
But then Microsoft is behind the idea of a "first to file" system according to this page.
Regarding legal reform, the United States is the only country in the world that applies a "first-to-invent" standard for awarding patents. Under a first-to-invent system, the first actual inventor is given priority even though that inventor may file his patent after the filing date of another applicant claiming the same invention. Every other country applies a "first-to-file" standard, meaning that the first person to file a patent application on an invention is given priority. A growing number of U.S. stakeholders -- including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association -- have recently come out in support of the United States moving towards a first-to-file system. Doing so would not only earn us goodwill internationally, but would also make the U.S. system substantially clearer, simpler and more predictable.
Microsoft should just pay the man and show they have some integrity.Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Lets not forget the Texas jury effect. They are well known for "sticking it" to the big guys. Texas jurys have a history of siding with the little guys whether is accidental injury, malpractice, product liability, etc. Whenever it is a little guy vs big business/guy, they have a tendency to side with the little guy. It is after a jury of ones "peers" and when the peers are 12 little guys instead of CEOs, executives, or even "company" entities, they are much more likely to side for the people who are like them.
This is just human nature when the jury can see the face of the wronged/injured party and can empathize/sympathize with them. It is harder to feel sorry for a big company when they are just seen a deep pockets.
This may seem unfair and quite often it is when small businesses or doctors are bankrupted because of this inherent bias. In cases where the deep pockets really are deep pockets, companies like MS and Autodesk you can argue that it has a progressive wealth distributive effect. But ultimately, I think that MS and Autodesk will pass the costs down to, you guessed it, us.
...it was also decided that this guys software doesn't work as millions of people have illegal copies of both Autodesk and Microsoft software.
I wish microsoft would change course and fight the system! rather than try to exploit it. As one of the biggest and most obvious targets in the country youd think they of all people would be trying to put an end to this, rather than feeding it and exploiting it themselves..
I wrote this exact kind of thing into some of my software as early as 99 and i think ive seen it in other applications as well
its an obvious idea but not very easy to impliment, if someone managed to do it without stealing someone elses code they definately shouldnt have to pay 115million dollars
our patent system is RUINING inovation..
its to where you cant write any new code at all without stomping all over dozens of ridiculously broad/vague/obvious patents
Truly this is a case where two wrongs make a right. Forcing royalties on a feature we dislike may remove that feature in the future.
Of course the pessimist in me says that removing that feature will force something infinitely worse.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
This is why Microsoft (and virtually every other software company) have patents. To protect themselves via the "If you sue me I'll sue you" line.
Just because you don't like the rules of the game and are vocal about it doesn't mean you don't deserve equal protection under those rules.
For instance, one can be against a tax cut without actually voluntarily giving the IRS extra money when it goes through anyway.
There is a big difference to first to file and blatantly patenting something that already exists. first to file is meant to protect those that genuinely are filing a patent where they did not have knowledge of someone elses invention. This loser has taken what exists or is well known and filed a patent for it, this is the type of scum that makes MS seem saintly by comparison.
You're making that up. There's no way the real U.S. Patent Office would reject a silly patent with tons of prior art behind it!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I'm going to patent an online method to patent troll! Then when patent trolls sue big companies, they have to give me all their booty.
Well then I'm gonna patent patenting of obvious ideas for malicious purposes.
Sadly the idea of 'defensive patents' only works against other high tech companies with product based revenue streams to protect. It doesn't provide a defense against patent trolls.
The big software companies thought they had a great way to protect them selves from any up and coming, young, innovative start-ups that might compete with them. Create huge war chests of silly software patents and form an old-boys club. All the usual suspects IBM, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others joined in. They've got what they've got and they want to keep it.
If you were already established, you could cross license your patents with the other already established old-boys, and keep doing business. But if some upstart comes along you could charge them money to license your patents, reducing their profitability. That would reduce their ability to threaten your profitability. If the up-start couldn't afford to pay, buy them out cheap. If the people behind the upstart wanted profit, they would either pay or sell because they couldn't profit or gain investors if people thought their products infringed one of the old-boy's patents.
This works against upstarts that have actual products to sell, but the patent trolls just want money. Now that the old-boys have created a system that grants and enforces silly software patents, the patent trolls can buy up defunct tech companies for pennies on the dollar just for their patent portfolios. If the old-boys threaten to use their 'defensive patents' to stop the trolls from selling their products, the trolls just laugh. The trolls don't sell any products. They just sue rich old-boys.
The old-boys created a system of software patents that they thought would help them cripple innovative young competitors, and it does work the way they intended. However they also created a system that could be exploited by patent trolls that have nothing to lose. The old-boys have to decide if the benefits of the added government regulation provided by software patents outweighs the cost of paying tolls to the trolls.
Remember what patents are. Patents are government granted, time limited monopolies. Patents are anti-competitive tools. They are anti-free market devices used to reduce competition in the market place. Supporting increased "Intellectual Property" rights is not a conservative economic position, it is definitely a socialist position that believes the government is better at picking winners and losers in the market place than market forces are. If you support increases in patents copyrights and trademarks, you support liberal economic theories. The constitution already set limits on the length of patents. Patents need to be non-obvious and original. I've seen laws that have changed the way patents work, but I haven't seen any constitutional amendments.
Pace Anti-Piracy was using this type of technology before then. Sounds like this could be invalidated by contact with the right people. For those that don't know, PaceAP supplies the registration and protection code for most Pro Audio applications. I first ran across their stuff in 1994/1995.
Shawn's Tech Articles
And if that were the case and they had some evidence of this at all or any documentation then the patent would be invalid and they would have never lost... so it's a random claim.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
how is MS trying to patent parts of the iPod in anyway defensive?
iPods were shipping before the MS patent was even filed.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
They are basically claiming that having verifiable serialization on software is a patent?
How many software companies sell software where the real purchase you make is the "CD-key" or "activation key". This means all of them are violating this persons patent. There's no way this was a recent invention. And wouldn't it go back further to the early Netware days with serial numbers then? I think this gets to the point or an idea which is basic enough that it doesn't warrant a patent as as "non common sense".
Wait.. I mentioned common sense in a discussion about US Patent law. I feel both dirty.. and confused...
I won't claim that Microsoft is not just getting some of what they like to dish out. But you believe that the patent system is wrong and flawed then any misuse of it is misuse no matter who the plaintiff and/or defendant are.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
As far as I'm concerned, the more of these judgements that are handed out, the more it will wake up politicians and the corporate elite that software patents were always a bad idea. Let them bleed for their greed.
They should have listened to Knuth.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Is it too late to Patent the use of food to sustain life?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The daft thing is that the algorithm is pretty basic. There are much better ways which extend this and which I've seen in use a lot. One we've used is to use a digital signature of the user's company name and license expirey date as the license key, and have the program check this using our public key before starting. That way the license is strongly tied to the customer, and the expirey date cannot be changed.
I seem to recall Acrobat and Photoshop having keys way way back when. Were they generic? I couldn't tell you.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Millions of slashbot brains simultaneously combust into open source spaghetti code while attempting to simultaneously side against teh big evil M$ empire and the software patent at hand.
A Texas jury has awarded $133 million in damages
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death in Texas. - Oscar Wilde
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Get an overly broad patent for DRM and other anti-piracy measures, refuse to license the "intellectual property", then sue anyone who tries to restrict their software/music/movies in any way!
I've already patented using a key to unlock something. Noone thought of it before me.
There are patent lawsuits going on all the time. Microsoft gets picked on frequently because they are the giant of today's software industry. They've also been around for over 30 years. It's interesting how everyone tries to take a chunk of a company that makes money and is very public, while hardly noticing those companies that are very small. It is possible that people actually try to find ways to step on the toes of large corporations like Microsoft when it comes to patents, so that they can go to court and win money. I'm not saying whether or not Microsoft violated a patent here, but just because someone went to court with them doesn't mean they actually did it. If it was Linux, most of the comments here would be about how Linux did nothing wrong simply because the opinions of them in this population tend to be more positive. I think we need to sit back and look at this situation more objectively. It is easy in the corporate world to patent something almost identical to someone else. In fact, it is getting very difficult to determine differences in software. It is possible teams in the companies came up with the same idea on their own, and now it is up to them to prove it.
Well isn't it obvious? They are trying to defend their market and mind share.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
How could the patent even be issued?
Microsoft developed its own product-activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent.
z4 Technologies also developed its product-activation technologies before it filed for its patent.
The question is, who was first?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I work for a company with fewer than 20 people. But we do have more than 50 PCs between 2 training labs, assorted experimental projects, and workstations and laptops for most of our staff. As economical as site licensing may be, it's more expensive than OEM pricing for machines we've purchased in the past and transfering those licenses to their replacements.
A similar copy protection system was available from
http://www.microcosm.co.uk/aboutus.shtml
from the site
'In 1989 we produced a totally new type of floppy disk copy protection system that was easy to use but immune to attacks from hackers. In 1995 CopyControl Floppy received the Ziff-Davis award for software excellence.'
You're confusing two concepts. Prior art - you're doing something stupid and obvious and making a silly patent. First to (file|invent) - who gets a patent based on filing/invention date. These are inherently contradictory, of course, since if I invent something first and you patent it, I can claim prior art. So first-to-file is a ludicrous idea.
Unfortunately I have no mod points right now... People make politically uncorrect jokes about all kinds of things. So now that there is one (a funny one at that!) about homosexuality it gets modded as troll??
Why post this story?! Patents are obviously good! Where would we be without the patent on "A method of trading goods and services for legal tender"? What company would possibly have the incentive to develop "a method to provide assistance to customers using standard telecommunications infastructure" without being promised a patent for their work?
It's been a long time.
With three factors in this case rather than the usual two, you may find it easier to choose your groupthink:
I'm just not so sure because of the infinitely told story of Grey vs. Bell for the telephone, how Bell made it to the patent office first so his application was served first, etc etc..
In the old days of the United States patent system, a "caveat" described an incomplete invention that was not yet fully reduced to practice, designed to confidentially notify the Patent Office of prior art. In the case of the telephone, A. G. Bell had filed a finished patent application, and Elisha Gray had only a caveat. Thus it could be argued that even if Gray's caveat had arrived first, Bell's invention would necessarily have been much further along.
Microsoft could hire a high-powered Washington lobby group with the change found in Bill Gates' sofa. If they wanted to, they could have the entire patent system torn out and replaced in under a year. Sure they'd give up the biggest strategic chip they currently hold against widespread Linux adoption, but to date these patent lawsuits are costing them a lot more than Linux is.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
http://slashdot.org/yro/02/07/18/157217.shtml?tid= 155
I don't know if it's already been said (probably), but if, in fact, M$ did do something similar before z4, then this is evidence of the stupidity of software patents.