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.
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 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.
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.
Rejected: Too much prior art.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
The single biggest thing that held back WinXP OTS sales is the product activation scheme.
Good point. I still haven't purchased a copy of XP for that reason alone. I don't mind hte price, I just don't want to have to reactive everytime I change hardware.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.