Microsoft Admonished by U.S. District Court Judge

An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle Times reports that the judge in the z4 'product activation' patent infringement case has increased the jury's original $115 million verdict against Microsoft by $25 million. Both Microsoft and Autodesk (another defendant) were admonished by the judge for misconduct. The judge wrote 'The Court concludes that Defendants attempted to bury the relevant 107 exhibits ... in a massive pile of decoys' and called one failure to disclose evidence 'an intentional attempt by Defendants to mislead z4 and this Court.'"

Comments

Microsoft acting unethically?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

MS acting unethically? Willfully infringing on the patents of a small company? Engaging in litigation misconduct? Attemping to mislead the court?

I think Microsoft needs to read their own Put it in writing: Your business has ethics - particularly point 8:

Live it from the top down. It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics. That means it's particularly important that executives and top managers also adhere to the guidelines of an ethics code. If managers say one thing but do something else, that's nothing more than a license for the rest of the company to follow suit. "Good role modeling by top managers is a must," Swanson says. "Without it, ethics codes can be seen as mere window dressing."

You ever read that Steve or Bill?

Mind you - I'm not exactly on z4's 'side' here - I don't like software patents (and it doesn't look like z4 have a product, but rather are an 'IP' company). That said however, live by the sword, die by the sword hey MS? Want to enforce your FAT patents? Expect more of this sort of shit in the future.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[schon]

You're misreading it...

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

Maybe MS's code of ethics doesn't cover lying and theiving...

Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think those ethics apply only to MS business persons. These are lawyers we're talking about here; they have no ethics regardless of which company they work for.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[struppi]

After installing update 919951 which patched a critical vulnerability in MS Ethics 1.0 service pack 1 some customers have reported problems when MS Ethics fails to detect lying and/or theiving. Microsoft has announced a new version of security update 919951 on August 22, 2006. This new version was to address this problem for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1.

Microsoft is also aware of public reports that this issue could lead to a buffer overrun condition for customers who use MS Ethics 2.0 Service Pack 1 and who have applied security update 918899. We are not aware of attacks that try to use the reported vulnerability at this point, nor are we aware of customer impact at this point. Microsoft is aggressively investigating the public reports.

-- original source: Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 unexpectedly exits after you install the 918899 update http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923762/en-us

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[gEvil (beta)]

MS Ethics for Workgroups 3.11

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[JustOK]

They have ethics. Just not ones you like.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[MECC]

Microsoft - mislead a judge?!?!?

Preposterous!! Never in a million (well okay, ten) years!!

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.

Now you're just being silly.

Everyone knows that you should always wait for version 3 of any Microsoft product.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[truthsearch]

Maybe MS's code of ethics doesn't cover lying and theiving...

That's not a bug in their code. It's a feature.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they read their own code of ethics on a daily basis....when they open the window shades to let the sun in.

"Without it, ethics codes can be seen as mere window dressing."

"

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

You're both misreading it. The rule stipulates that a company may not have one person acting unethically; there are no restrictions on several people doing so.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[rizole]

I read it like this:

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics

It's okay to have no ethics, as long as no one notices.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[suds]

Ya but, those ethics are under 'small business' section(look at the URL). Mind you, Microsoft is a 'big business'.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[babbling]

This sort of thing needs to happen more often to Microsoft. They need to be turned against software patents.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[binkzz]

"You're misreading it...

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

" Nono, I think you're misreading it:

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[hey!]

It's okay to have no ethics, as long as no one notices.

Well, appearances are important. And in fact thinking about appearances is a way of looking at your behavior from other people's perspectives.

It's when you slip from managing your behavior to produce an appearance to managing appearances directly that you lose your way.

For example, the Catholic Church has a rule that clergy should not bring the Church into disrepute. What this means is that they shouldn't do anything that would be shameful if brought to light. However, it was all to easy to move from that to hiding truths that would bring the Church into disrepute when confronted with clergy pedophilia.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone should read the particulars in Judge Davis' Opinion. It can be found at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/z4.Misconduct.pdf The most interesting aspects can be found starting on page 39.

Here are some high (low) lights

"While the Court is not aware of any direct motivation on the part of Microsoft to harm Colvin, there is ample circumstantial evidence that to Microsoft Colvin and his patent rights were insignificant because Microsoft never thought Colvin would be able to pursue his rights against it. The evidence presented at trial suggests that Microsoft considered z4 a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft's time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents."

Examples of Litigation Misconduct:

1)"This raises a serious question as to whether the email would have ever seen the light of day, had z4 not uncovered it during Moncau's deposition the day before trial. As a sanction for not disclosing the email, the Court instructed the jury that Microsoft failed to produce this document during discovery as it was supposed to have done."

2) "Closer inspection of the database by z4 revealed not only that Hughes's data summary was an inaccurate reflection of the data, but that Microsoft had not accurately disclosed the method of extraction used by Hughes to create his summary chart. The Court determined that Microsoft had attempted to mislead z4, the Court, and the jury and excluded Hughes from testifying with regard."

3) "The facts surrounding the Winkenbach declaration are highly questionable. If the information in the Winkenbach declaration was merely a mistake, it could have turned into a very beneficial mistake for Defendants if z4 had not caught the discrepancy in the SKU numbers. In light of the other instances of litigation misconduct by Defendants brought to the Court's attention, Defendants are no longer given the benefit of the doubt before this Court. Accordingly, the Court considers this "mistake" an intentional attempt by Defendants to mislead z4 and this Court."

4) "The Court concludes that Defendants attempted to bury the relevant 107 exhibits admitted at trial in its voluminous 3,449 marked exhibits in the hope that they could conceal their trial evidence in a massive pile of decoys. This type of trial tactic is not only unfair to z4, but creates unnecessary work on the Court staff and is confusing and potentially misleading to the jury."

"Finally, the Court is greatly disturbed by the repeated instances where Defendants actions go beyond what can be dismissed as a mere appearance of impropriety and collectively appear to represent a pattern which is of disappointment to the Court and a disservice to legitimate advocacy. The repeated examples, some of which are not even mentioned here, of what can be described as nothing less than misleading on the part of Defendants, justify a conclusion that Defendants committed litigation misconduct. This conduct, coupled with the fact that Microsoft was found to have willfully infringed the patents-in-suit results in this case being deemed exceptional."

"Finally, Microsoft attempted to conceal its misconduct as evidenced by the incidents discussed above with regard to litigation misconduct. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the lack of evidence that Microsoft presented with regard to due care in avoiding infringement of the '471 patent prior to this suit being filed and Microsoft's misconduct during the course of the trial, enhancement of the damages awarded against Microsoft is appropriate."

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[toopc]

I thought software patents were bad?

And for anbybody searching - Autodesk - someone had to mention them here on Slashdot.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[StikyPad]

Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.

You mean Ethics 2027, whose release is scheduled to coincide with Vista's. Bets are still open as to which will be released first, and by how long the other will lag.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I thought software patents were bad?

Yes, they are - that's why I wrote:

I don't like software patents (and it doesn't look like z4 have a product, but rather are an 'IP' company). That said however, live by the sword, die by the sword hey MS? Want to enforce your FAT patents? Expect more of this sort of shit in the future.

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[toopc]

Apple acting unethically? Willfully infringing on the patents of a much smaller company?

Did some guy at Apple just look at Creative's MP3 players back in the day and think, "Damn, I can rip their ideas off, add a click wheel, package it up in a pretty white box and steal their market!"?

Mind you, I'm only asking questions. ;)

Re:Microsoft acting unethically?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hmmmn,

Apple have acted appallingly recently when it comes to unjustified lawsuits. I don't know the ins & outs of the creative patent, but regardless of its merits, I don't feel much sympathy for Apple (they can live by the sword & die by it too).

If you were trying to troll me because of my username, I suggest you read my first journal - I am not the whiney mac fanboy you're looking for ;-)

software patents are just a bad idea

[TheLink]

Even if MS gets burnt by them doesn't make them good.

Plus "product activation" must have been reinvented a million times or something.

That said MS deserves to get smacked if they try to mess about with the courts.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus "product activation" must have been reinvented a million times or something.

Is it just me? i didn't even think this was patented because it's so obvious to me. It was filed in 1998. Wasn't there product activation before then?

Microsoft - you need to bust this patent with prior art, or get some laws fixing the patent system. You have been hit with that stupid Eolas patent, and now this.

Surely you can crush these guys. At least throw some chairs their way.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Being reinvented-- that is, thought of independently-- only protects with respect to copyright, not patents. Copyright is about copying-- patents are about the thing or process. The thing or process is protected no matter how you came about producing it or thinking of it.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[crucini]

If a court convicts Bob of infringing Alice's yodeling patent, this does not mean Alice invented yodeling. It means Alice invented a specific technique of yodeling and Bob used the technique.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[Gnavpot]

Being reinvented-- that is, thought of independently-- only protects with respect to copyright, not patents. Copyright is about copying-- patents are about the thing or process. The thing or process is protected no matter how you came about producing it or thinking of it.

Did you hear the "whoosh" sound? I think the GP was talking about patenting a reinvention, not reinventing something which is patented by others.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I read a software patent it didn't patent one specific technique. It patented over a billion techniques. These patents say things like "or breathing in instead of out" until they cover every possible method of doing something trivial.

Re:software patents are just a bad idea

[crucini]

If you object to the inventor claiming multiple embodiments of the invention, do you object to this only in software patents or in hardware patents as well? You seem to want the inventor to draft a "picture claim" - a claim that recites exactly the elements in the invention. Such a claim is easily worked around, and therefore valueless.

Can chairs be thrown in court?

[alexandreracine]

I bet they can.

Re:Can chairs be thrown in court?

[jonwil]

That reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters 2 where some chairs get thrown at a nasty judge by some ghosts.

So yeah, I guess chairs CAN be thrown in a courtroom :)

Pile of decoys?

[krell]

"judge wrote 'The Court concludes that Defendants attempted to bury the relevant 107 exhibits ... in a massive pile of decoys'

I see that Microsoft is still retaining Elmer F.U.D. for his legal services.

Re:Pile of decoys?

[CheeseburgerBrown]

"I would like to introduce into the evidence, your honour, this wooden ducky. Let the wooden ducky be known as Exhibit FUD. See the ducky dance? Dance ducky, dance."

Re:Pile of decoys?

[Infoport]

Microsoft's defense of the ploy?

"But your honor, they didn't fine the big corporation who did that to Julia Roberts!
and she is pretty!"

*sigh*
stealing manuvers from Erin Brockovich now?

Less "activation"?

[mallardtheduck]

Hopefully these sorts of legal problems will discorage other companies from using annoying anti-customer "activation" schemes...

Re:Less "activation"?

[buzzn]

Hopefully these sorts of legal problems will discorage [sic] other companies from using annoying anti-customer "activation" schemes...

They won't. The decision states that there will be no injunction, which means MS can continue using activation. They just have to tip the people who successfully misused the patent system.

And, for the record, activation is not anti-customer, that's your thinly veiled agenda talking.

For a few dollars more....

[pottymouth]

I'm sure with for a few extra bucks MS can buy whatever legal resources (including judges, prosecutors, congressmen, lobbyists) it needs to make it all better. Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

"Money's like honey, my little sonny, and a rich man's joke is always funny"

Re:For a few dollars more....

[inviolet]

Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

By what other means would you have our society ruled?

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Then how do you explain the RIAA?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

I'm sure with for a few extra bucks MS can buy whatever legal resources (including judges, prosecutors, congressmen, lobbyists) it needs to make it all better. Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

Funny how this system is so similar to the political/economic situations of nations of post-Colonial Africa, down to the massive trade imbalances, dependence on foreign loans, and abuse of power to make more money. The monied interests in the US are taking the money while they can, because there will be nothing left to take in 10-20 years... hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Anonymous Coward]

flowing automatically to those who labor

Ahahahah

Thanks, I was looking forward to a long dull business trip this afternoon, you've brightened my day considerably...

oh wait, you were serious, weren't you?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[IIH]

Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....

By what other means would you have our society ruled?

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money, it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.

Take for example, landowners in the past. Even if a non-landowner worked hard, it was very difficult to become a landowner due to the power of landowners over their tenants.

Or, if a person/group own a sufficent amount of the businesses in a particular area, it's very difficult for a new person to challenge that, as the existing group can raise their prices to supply the new business, resulting in the existing group profiting off the work of someone else, which is why monoploys are harmeful.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Richard Steiner]

By what other means would you have our society ruled?

Justice would be nice. Perhaps also the lawful upholding of our constitution.

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Not in corporate America. Most of the money tends to flow to those in the org chart who are far above the actual producers.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[dave562]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Can you share anything to back up that statement?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[jthill]

Another advertisement for home schooling.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Chris Mattern]

>> That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money,
  >> it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.

Untrue. It is the intelligent management of money that makes money. Without the intelligent management, the money does not make money but instead disappears. Try Googling on the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Chris Mattern

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Foobar of Borg]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Great! I always had a historical interest in Weimar-era Germany. Now, I get to experience it first hand!

Seriously, though, I would be interested if you could cite an article or two. I actually agree with you from what I can see myself, but I would like to know what others have written on the subject.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[gtall]

So, you subscribe to the Pie Theory of Economics, i.e., the Pie is fixed and after eaten, gone. Well, I guess we can all relax and wait for the end.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the intelligent management of money that makes money. Without the intelligent management, the money does not make money but instead disappears. Try Googling on the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

While this is quite true, unfortunately it tends to be generation 2 that enters politics.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Pollardito]

in this case it looks like $25M is the amount of money that "makes it all better", members of congress might charge more than that anyway

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

Here's (pdf) a tidbit. HTML version

Believe me, Kolitkoff is not alone in his predictions, though of course the US could take action to forestall the bankruptcy and reneging on its debts.

Look to Anjan Thakor (Olin School of Business) to discuss Kotlikoff's paper in the next Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

So, you subscribe to the Pie Theory of Economics, i.e., the Pie is fixed and after eaten, gone. Well, I guess we can all relax and wait for the end.

'Gone' is used metaphorically. To continue the comparison to post-Colonial Africa, when the bottom fell out of most of these nations, what happened? Cancellation of debt... there's a reason investors (including the World Bank and IMF) are hesitant to loan funds to central African nations. War. Famine. Economic collapse. It's hubris to believe the US can't fall into the same trap, though we have the political infrastructure to weather it better.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.

Hahaha, that's a good one. Money has the virtue of flowing to those who labor to accumulate it. It has the virtue of flowing fastest to those who innovate ways to take advantage of political systems.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[rewt66]

Better, yes. But viewed objectively, our political infrastructure doesn't look so hot at the moment...

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue. It is the intelligent management of money that makes money. Without the intelligent management, the money does not make money but instead disappears. Try Googling on the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Not true! Suppose I mis-manage my billion trust fund that my Daddy left me, and bungle things so badly that I make only 0.01% annual profit. You carefully manage your $3.75, and invest it brilliantly at a hundredfold return.

I have $100,000. I can still live a decent life. You, for all your genius, still only have $375; which means you can't pay your rent, and will soon be thrown in jail for vagrancy unless you find some other form of income.

It's not the interest rate: it's the principle that counts! :-)

Re:For a few dollars more....

[NaDrew]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

Can you share anything to back up that statement?

Sure. Bush: Social Security trust fund just IOUs

Note that the Social Security trust fund is comprised of US Treasuries. So while "mainstream economists" may not be saying this, our democratically elected government is certainly doing so.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Chris Mattern]

>> Not true! Suppose I mis-manage my billion trust fund that my Daddy left me,
  >> and bungle things so badly that I make only 0.01% annual profit

You have a very mild definition of "bungle". In practice, it never works that way. Investments are made that *lose* money, hand over fist. It would seem that preservation of capital would be a simple concept to grasp, but in practice it's harder than it seems, especially with an inheritance baby who doesn't really understand the value of money. One of the sites I Googled up claimed that about 90% of large family inheritances are indeed gone by the third generation.

Chris Mattern

Re:For a few dollars more....

[inviolet]

Money has the virtue of flowing to those who labor to accumulate it. It has the virtue of flowing fastest to those who innovate ways to take advantage of political systems.

No matter what form of power a society embraces your objection applies. It is not a problem caused or solved by money.

Money, at least, brings with it an incentive to greater productivity. Contrast that to a quota-based economy -- assuming there are any around that have not yet collapsed. Or for some real fun, contrast that to the coming influence-based society.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Red Flayer]

Good point about being applicable to any power structure.

Money, at least, brings with it an incentive to greater productivity. Contrast that to a quota-based economy -- assuming there are any around that have not yet collapsed. Or for some real fun, contrast that to the coming influence-based society.

Well, it boils down to the fact that human nature demands most people to act selfishly -- quota-based systems don't work because there is still some way individuals can game the system for selfish reasons. This leads to major inequities in wealth distribution, which ultimately causes the system to fail.

As to an influence-based society, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean a patronage system? I'm interested in what you have to say.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Overly Critical Guy]

You know what, I'm getting tired of this college-dorm-room Slashdot mindset that declares, as if based on research or experience, that all judges, prosecutors, and congressmen are bought and paid for and that money rules all. There is no evidence to back that, and in fact, we have the least corrupt legal system in the world. Our system sees more prosecutions for crimes than even the U.K. So could we please stop with the lame +5 upmodded throwaway comments about how evil and corrupt you think the American judicial system is just because you saw that corrupt-judge rerun of Law & Order last week?

Re:For a few dollars more....

[terrymr]

Yes I was amazed the market for treasury bonds didn't crash over night when the president called them "Just IOUs"

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a very mild definition of "bungle".

I don't think so. 500 times *worse* than prime rate would count as "bungle" by just about investment strategy. In other words, it's 500 times worse than just leaving the money in a bank account, and forgetting about it.

When it comes to investing, capital is power. Put even a small amount of effort into your investments, and you'll reap returns better than the most aggressive cash-poor investors can match; with massive capital, you can make money even on the tiniest of margins, and you can diversify to international markets that the average guy can't even reach. All you have to do is make more than you spend.

Hell, with even billion dollars, it doesn't matter what you do. Spend five hundred thousand dollars every year; and your descendants will run out of money in 200 years. When you're rich, you just can't lose.

In practice, it never works that way. Investments are made that *lose* money, hand over fist. It would seem that preservation of capital would be a simple concept to grasp, but in practice it's harder than it seems, especially with an inheritance baby who doesn't really understand the value of money. One of the sites I Googled up claimed that about 90% of large family inheritances are indeed gone by the third generation.

You're ignoring the real problem; they threw away money hand over fist, because they just didn't care. And it still took then a long, long time to do it. By the time three generations go by, you've covered well over a century of wealth and priviledge. That's a very long time for the playing field to level itself; if in fact it ever does at all (in 10% of the cases, by your own stats, it takes longer than a century to do so!)

The fact is, being born rich means you'll be rich, and so will your descendants. Perhaps not forever, but for a long, long time.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[jelle]

I'm not an economist, but when somebody argues that adding a 33% tax will stave off economic problems, I can't help but doubt their credentials (short summary: it won't have the effect the author thinks it will, in neither of both intended ways (simplification and taxation on spending versus earning)).

I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy, but the article does not contain the answer.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Apoklypse]

regarding the US and specifically observing the fact that you are deaf dumb blind and stupid, as well as being intellectually incompetent, when would like to open your eyes and observe for yourself the corrupt illegal illegitimate fascist bush regime?

welcome to 1984 buddy! yeah! as long as everything is a crime we can control you. as long as we can manufacture enemies and create a crisis, we can manipulate and control you idiots. look for the quotes in bushie's speeches, and rumsfeld's speeches ...

" some people consider you the elite, I call you my baseline. "

and ps, yeah loser, there is very clear and a multitude of evidence to back the claims stated ... do your own research and maybe you will actually LEARN, rather than being a SHEEPLE led to the slaughter and told what THEY think you NEED to KNOW.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Apoklypse]

are you trying to mislead me and the rest of the world into believing that there are actually judges and legal teams who are not being BOUGHT and PAID FOR on a daily basis in the USA, particularly in the matter of large important cases? btw I do not watch TV, nor understand your references to same. I deal in the facts.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[dryeo]

I take it you are talking about the USA, a country that in parts of the Judges (and I think the prosecuters) are elected. Electing judges can't help but lead to corruption.
First you get judges more worried about giving a verdict based on getting reelected instead of just based on the evidence.
Second you get judges who have to worry about coming up with money to get (re)elected.
As you say your system sees more prosecutions then the UK and I think most other countries and also more convictions (based on your inmate population).
There is something corrupt about a country that brags about its freedoms yet throws millions into jail.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[Baloo Ursidae]

hell, even mainstream economists are estimating that US Treasury Securities will be considered junk bonds in the next 20-30 years.

I think the six trillion dollars of debt pretty much demonstrates that they're junk bonds right now.

Re:For a few dollars more....

[pottymouth]

"Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others."

STEPPING UP ON SOAP BOX ===>

Sure it does. At the same time it is just as likely (maybe more) to flow to those that are corrupt and evil (Sadam, Castro, Kim Jong Il, arguably Bill Gates). Certainly many people labor all their lives (slaves in Syria and IT workers in the US for example) do more for far, far less. That's my problem with money as an ends and not just a means for doing REAL stuff. I feel (just my opinion) that the US has lost it's way about what is important. Having a few million or billion dollars is of no interest in and of itself. My dog could be a billionaire if the right nut job left her the money, who cares? The things that made the US great are things like fighting to keep our country united and eliminate slavery at the same time. Defending the world from tyrants (then as now) in two world wars. Building some of the greatest civil works projects of the century, putting man on the moon, all the fantastic inventions that have come from US owned laboratories (LBL, PARC, Bell Labs, more). The US was DOING STUFF. Some good, some bad and opions will very as to which was what but we weren't just doing things to stuff more money in our pockets. Look at the current cultural icons, (C)rap stars, Paris Hilton (Lord help us all), athletes. They do nothing for mankind (well, Paris ... never mind). What about scientists, explorers, inventors, people that risk their lives to do things bigger than themselves? People that spend years in school educating themselves are laughed at and called geeks (or worse). Hell, we don't even defend ourselves as a country or take pride in being an American anymore.

I think we've lost our way and we need a good smack (maybe from an Iranian, Chinese, Russian alliance for WW3?) to wake us up.

STEPPING DOWN FROM SOAP BOX

Re:For a few dollars more....

[pottymouth]

"college-dorm-room Slashdot mindset "

Would that be your mindset of mine? I've not seen a college dorm since 1980. I've been living in the bad old world for a while and I've not seen anything that makes me believe that government corruption is not rampant. No, not at an all time high and not worse than anywhere else, just rampant. Our current preoccupation with money (similar, historically, to the mid to late 1920's) will lead us to some very hard times. When the distance between the wealthy classes and the working classes grows too great things get bad. Combine that with the lobby system we have for letting corporations and individuals literally buy our government representatives I see some pretty ugly stuff going on. Stuff that makes no sense to the common person (like letting between 10 and 30 million uneducated, unskilled laborers invade our country unchallenged. like paying 10's of billions to support/protect Saudi Arabia). I am not anti-business nor anti-rich (hope to be in the "wealthy class" some day) but we haven't done a signifigant thing scientifically, technologically or socially since the 60's. Mostly we're just making more money......

Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[in2mind]

Product activation over the internet has been having some success with regards to checking piracy. Its quite natural that most software companies would adopt this method to check illegal copies of its software.

So for every company that wants to use this 'Product Activation',they should pay royalty to 'z4' ?
Is that what z4 wants? or Is it that no one else should use 'PA'.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[BodhiCat]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Microsoft are claiming that this is a bad patent because of prior Art. Is this really the case?

I remember an encrypted CD back from the mid 90s containing all sorts of expensive software where you paid to get the various encryption keys. Someone cracked it. I suppose that approach was different enough to the sort of activation scheme XP uses as to not be covered by it.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Monkelectric]

Early 90's... Quake CD. You could go out, buy the quake demo for $10 and unlock EVERY id game there was at the time. I think tehy deserved it though, $10 for a DEMO CD?

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Because anything, at all, that hurts Microsoft is good for the rest of the industry. Period.

Look, I despise software patents; I think they're one of the worst hindrances to technological progress ever devised in modern times.* But one of the main reasons these bullshit patents are so prevalent is because the 900 lb. gorillas of the industry always have thousands of them, and aren't shy about using them to threaten competitors. If the largest and strongest of those gorillas (the 1000 lb. gorilla, let's say, which is currently Microsoft) can be forced on occasion to, um, slim down a little, that makes things just the teeniest bit easier for the rest of us. And it brings us closer to a truly competitive marketplace in which, just maybe, we'll see the conditions for the growth of a significant lobby, made up of companies that have suffered from the absurdity of the current patent laws, to try to do away with the stupid things entirely.

*Qualifier added because software patents, as onerous as they are, don't compare to, say, burning people at the stake. It's important to keep things in perspective.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[kannibal_klown]

Early 90's... Quake CD. You could go out, buy the quake demo for $10 and unlock EVERY id game there was at the time. I think tehy deserved it though, $10 for a DEMO CD?

Eh, while a ripoff you have to remember that back then broadband wasn't really in unless you had connections. I think the most I could get in my town at the time was ISDN. On top of which, a large percentage of "internet users" were still AOL users and many of them were still paying for x hours per month (ie, not unlimited).

So for some, paying $10 was worth it. The Quake demo was probably the largest demo at the time (which took a WHILE to download on a 28.8 modem) and you'd use up some of your "minutes." All you had to do was drive to a nearby store and pay for the CD.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, the original Quake demo cd with all of IDs software unlockable on it was cool.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[tbannist]

Because we love to see Microsoft slapped down regardless of the reason. We're still against software patents, we just want to spent a few minutes shouting "ha-ha" at Microsoft. Maybe even shout a few "If you'd done a better job of stopping software patents, this wouldn't have happened!" at them.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

in reply to your questions and also other replies made already:

two wrongs do not make a right.

software patents is bad
patent violation is bad
lying in court is bad

none of these things can cancel another out.

It would be hilarious if MS was taken out of business due to patent violations, but the eventual fallout from such an event would be disastrous for absolutely everybody.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[ozmanjusri]

Product activation over the internet has been having some success with regards to checking piracy.

No, it isn't. There's not a single activated product I can think of that hasn't been cracked and made freely available to software pirates.

Where activation has been extremely successful is in forcing honest customers to buy the same product over and over again as their hardware fails or is replaced. That's its real function - to artificially obsolete software so developers can get more money for less effort.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[nxtw]

I remember this now-defunct store, possibly called "Media Play" that sold shareware on floppy disks for $5 ea. One of the games was Wolfenstein 3D... in 1996.

While it seems like Media Play went out of business recently, that store closed at least eight years ago...

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[JimDaGeek]

I agree, why is everyone against software patents except when the judgement is against Microsoft?

Not just Microsoft, but all large companies with enough money to actually change the patent system. See, here in the USA our crooked politicians only bow down to one master. The mighty US dollar (or not so mighty). Mega-corps have enough money to bribe politicians to actually get laws made and/or changed.

I personally hope to see tons of software patent suits against Microsoft and other big corps with a lot of software patents. If these big corps pay out enough money, they might just send some money to our crooked politicians to buy some laws.

The only negative to my "theory" is that I wouldn't put it past the mega-corps to try to "reform" software patents by making software patents available to big corps, but make it real hard for small/medium companies to get them.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[gutnor]

"Because anything, at all, that hurts Microsoft is good for the rest of the industry. Period."

You mean like a sort of "Think Of the Children" applied to /. ?

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[ZachPruckowski]

There are instances where obscure Star Force titles haven't been cracked - because it's too much work for little gain with smaller titles, but anything you or I have heard of in any form of mainstream game press has almost certainly been cracked. And it only takes one cracker to get it cracked for good.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is the 1000 lb Gorilla

Microsoft Patents 5418
IBM Patents 43891

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[crucini]

Classic binary geek thinking. Business does not work that way. If a restaurant has too many flies in its kitchen, it can hang up flypaper, cover garbage cans, and patch insect screens. If a geek were present, he'd point out that this is useless, since a single fly can fly in when the back door is opened.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[fishybell]

Funny thing is, the Media Play where I lived was always busy. During store hours there were never less than 15 cars in the parking lot, usually more like 30. Considering that the neighboring fabric/craft store still exists with a perpetually empty parking lot, everyone was quite surprised when they closed up shop.

On the bright side the new FYE mega store (or whatever they call it) has essentially the same stuff, more cashiers on staff, and lower prices. For roughly 3 months of no place with a good selection of video games, movies, and music, I think we all came out ahead.

Well, except for Media Play of course.

Re:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[tcc3]

Thats bullshit. You either stand by a principle or you dont. Thats like saying its ok to undermine civil liberties as long as we're "fighting terrorism."

This principle is also known as two wrongs not making a right.

Snakes in Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had a great movie idea.

Re:Snakes in Court?

[OverlordQ]

What's the tag line going to be?

"I'm tired of these motherfucking chairs, on this mother fucking stage . . . . DEVELOPERS!"

Can't help but think of SCO

[Weaselmancer]

He cited several examples in which the defendants failed to fully and promptly disclose evidence, calling one instance "an intentional attempt by Defendants to mislead z4 and this Court."

Ok, so if this is an actionable item - why hasn't SCO been nailed with something similar? They've been doing the smoke and mirrors thing for years now.

What gives? Why can a judge nail MS with this, but not SCO?

Re:Can't help but think of SCO

[Alchemar]

IANAL, but I think it might have something to do with "added on to the judgement". Are these kind of things usually done at the end of the case instead of during where it would prevent the deep pockets from running up the leagal bill, and hope the little guy can survive long enough to be reimburst?

Re:Can't help but think of SCO

[tbannist]

Apparently SCO is much better at the smoke and mirrors game. Also, Microsoft actually did infringe on the patent (regardless of the value of the patent) so it's much easier to get a judgement for specific claims that are trivially proven true, than to get one against nebulous constantly-shifting claims that are individually difficult to disprove. SCO should have a rather large slap down coming. I expect no less than "pay the defendants legal costs" which at this point may be more than the judgement against Microsoft.

Re:Can't help but think of SCO

[nickfrommaryland]

There are provisions that can restrict what the big guy can do during discovery, but these mechanisms are rarely used, mainly because it is difficult to see what is and is not a decoy. Judges prefer to wait until it is clear, and that usually means at the end of the case. These are covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It seems to me, however, that the judge added a bit more, just because it was Microsoft.

Re:Can't help but think of SCO

[jackbird]

Roughly 2/3 of SCO's claims were recently thrown out by the magistrate judge for lack of disclosure - they have been nailed for something similar.

And when IBM's Lanham Act counterclaims start being litigated, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Lindon. For now, the judges are bending over backwards and then some to make the case appeal-proof.

Re:Can't help but think of SCO

[asuffield]

There's numerous peripheral reasons... but mostly, the legal system is just very slow to begin with, and SCO's lawyers have been delaying the case as much as they possibly can. They probably can eventually get penalised like this, but it won't be seriously considered for a long time yet (maybe next year, maybe the year after).

Long Trial

[neonprimetime]

The defendants marked 3,449 exhibits, but only admitted 107 of them at trial.

Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!

Re:Long Trial

[jkabbe]

Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!

Typically yes. The attorney will also have to lay foundation for the exhibit, asking questions of the witness to establish what the exhibit is and why the witness would know something about it. Putting an exhibit into evidence might only take a minute or two. For 107 exhibits would probably be as little as 2-3 hours total. Not a short amount of time, but since patent trials can last weeks, it's really not that much.

Re:Long Trial

[kilgortrout]

In federal court, each side submits a pretrial statement to the court listing, among other things, the exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. Most of the time, the parties stipulate to the admissibility of most exhibits, or at least to the authenticity of the document exhibits in order to streamline the proceedings. These things are generally not in dispute and the court leans pretty heavy on the parties to enter into these stipulations unless there is a genuine dispute. Absent a stipulation, you must call a witness to lay the foundation for each document entered in evidence.

Ooh, the irony

[zoeblade]

So a large corporation has ripped off a small company's software, which was specifically designed to stop people ripping off software. Somehow I doubt individuals sharing software is as big a threat as corporations cloning it.

Re:Ooh, the irony

[Haeleth]

So a large corporation has ripped off a small company's software, which was specifically designed to stop people ripping off software.

No, a large corporation has infringed on a small company's patent. The small company doesn't appear to actually produce any software or other tangible products; they just claim to own a bunch of ideas.

The software in question was written wholly by Microsoft, and probably without reference to anything owned or produced by z4 at all. Unfortunately for Microsoft, ignorance of an obscure patent is no excuse for daring to have the same idea.

Yet again...

[Red Flayer]

We see that MS (and they are not alone in this) regard the law as something to be circumvented, something to play games with. Law is not absolute to them -- any risk of punishment is exactly that -- a possible risk to be weighed against the potential returns of a strategy or action.

Props to the judge for calling MS on its shenanigans; jeers for the penalty being insignificant to them.

These actions by MS are indicative of the collapse of the rule of law in the US. Without meaningful punishments for attempting to circumvent the laws and/or undermine the legal process, it will not change. $25MM is hardly a disincentive for MS.

IMO, the lawyers who used the obfuscatory tactic should be disbarred... and personally fined for contempt of court. And the executive(s) who authorized the tactic (or were responsible for the law team) should also be personally fined. And production of MS products should be halted until they can prove they are not still abusing the patent (by providing their code, in entirety, for review by the justice system, with any relevant sections clearly denoted).

Re:Yet again...

[deviantphil]

IMO, the lawyers who used the obfuscatory tactic should be disbarred.

At the very least they should be referred to the ethic's board in the jurisdiction. Another example of Corporate America (and their lawyers!) getting a slap on the wrists. Any other company sued by MS for infrindging patents would probably end up bankrupt by the fines (no less the court costs). $140M is a drop in the bucket for MS...much like $140 would be to me.

Re:Yet again...

[Wylfing]

I agree that there is an imbalance in the treatment of "offenders" (civil or criminal) but that has always been the case. A black man who holds up a liquor store for $200 gets 5 years in jail, but a corporate executive who robs his company's shareholders for $40 million is likely to get no punishment at all.

However, depite that, what we do not want is a rigid legal system in which "offenders" are "reliably" punished. It is supposed to be a highly flexible system that thwarts the potential tyrrany of both Congress and the Executive. Yes, that means some defense lawyers will use this flexibility to wiggle their clients out of a tight spot, but that actually works to our general benefit. Getting a judgment against someone should be all kinds of difficult, even in a civil case.

Re:Yet again...

[Baloo Ursidae]

More like $40. Money is hard to earn and easy to spend unless you actually have enough money to have a negative opinion of the capital gains tax.

No, no, no... "on the internet"

[Overzeetop]

You mised the part of the patent application that specified "on the internet." That makes it both unique and non-obvious, because doing anything on the internet is completely different than doing it off the internet. Hasn't /. taught you anything about the USPTO this past decade? ;-)

Re:No, no, no... "on the internet"

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Ah, of course, that was the essential difference I was missing.

Wait a minute, doesn't the Internet consist of a set of tubes? With little postmen pushing all those emails around? Microsoft should have gone for an email based authentification system - then they would have been safe.

silly reporters

[__aamnbm3774]

FTA: Autodesk did not return calls for comment.
Maybe the power went out.

Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[denis-The-menace]

Software Patents should never have existed in the first place.
They're basically patenting logic and Math equations.
All it's doing is making patent law more profitable.
Imagine how many lawyer would be out of work without Software Patents.
Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[91degrees]

They're basically patenting logic and Math equations.

So why is this any worse than patenting physical and chemical effects?

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[Mr. Underbridge]

Or machines? Gears are just physical manifestations of equations and math, as is amply pointed out by any book Stephenson has ever written.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[rolfwind]

I believe because you (used to) be able to only patent a specific implementation. Software patents is or comes too close to patenting the idea itself. Someone used to be free to build a better mousetrap, just not working exactly like the one you patented. Now the very idea of the mousetrap is effectively patented when we pursue software patents.

The US has started to rest to much of its laurels on "Intellectual Property." Some intellectual property, you used to be able sell (books, music) and make money off it that way. This property was protected by copyright. So someone can make a book with a world like "Lord of the Rings" (and many have) or a game like Doom or music like (in same genre) Michael Jacksons - they just can't reproduced the original and claim it as theirs. Ideas and culture freely circulated around this way.

Some intellectual property (University research, public domain data) you used to be able to share freely and it enriched the whole economy -- helped your company manufacture better things or things cheaper, etcetera.

Patenting ideas themselves does nothing but stifle all innovation as ideas get owned. Common approaches to problems are now infinitely patentable to every new medium. Ad infinitum.

The US (and the West) will perish under a burden of its own making if we continue down this path. Patents of this type punish the innovative companies and breed hyenas that do nothing but litigate the rest of us into submission and poverty.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[mcc36]

I'm sorry to inform you that I own the patent on that mathematical equality. You now owe me ten cents.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[the eric conspiracy]

I believe because you (used to) be able to only patent a specific implementation. Software patents is or comes too close to patenting the idea itself. Someone used to be free to build a better mousetrap, just not working exactly like the one you patented. Now the very idea of the mousetrap is effectively patented when we pursue software patents.

That is generally true because of the ubiquity of computers. Patenting implementing an encryption algorithm in a computer is pretty much equivalent to patenting the idea because the only real useful implementation is going to be on computers. Yes, you can still do the encryption using pen and paper but that is not a practical alternative.

In reality the effective patenting of ideas by covering all of their important implementations is nothing new. It is only the lack of historical perspective by those working in the software field that makes it seem to them it is so.

The real problem in the current patent system is that the quality of the searches are poor, and the hurdles for originality and non-obviousness are far too low. Raising these barriers would be of great benefit to the patent system and inventors.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[TekPolitik]

Or machines? Gears are just physical manifestations of equations and math

The difference is that many things that are not patentable are treated as patentable simply by adding the words "by means of a computer" at the end. That probably sounds like exaggeration, but it is the literal truth. You can quite literally submit one patent to the examiner describing everything that happens without explicitly mentioning the computer, and it will be denied. Amend the patent by adding "by means of a computer" to each claim (or to some claim in the dependency chain for each claim) and the patent will be allowed. It sounds paranoid to say that, but that is quite literally the rule the patent offices are applying and they will admit this.

What is being patented is not the equations and math - what is being patented in most software patents is the problem, not its solution.

To a layperson the Z4 patent may even appear like it is patenting a "solution", but it is not. To somebody with both IP law and software development training, it is fairly clear that what is being patented here is a well travelled problem space. I was doing most of the things claimed in this patent in 1991. I figured only a complete idiot would fail to come up with the same approach when presented with the same matrix of business requirements. The claims in that patent that I wasn't doing were inappropriate then because the global infrastructure to do them was not in place, but they are obvious extensions once the new infrastructure is added into the mix.

When you lodge a patent application, you are declaring that every single numbered claim made in the patent is something meriting a patent - that it is both novel (no prior art) and involves an inventive step (is not obvious). Most of the claims in the Z4 patent would fail both tests on their face when evaluated by a suitably qualified expert, and the others would have no chance of surviving a serious analysis by such an expert. The problem is the patent examiners are not qualified to evaluate software patent claims. The judges are not qualified to evaluate software patent claims. And here's the kicker - generally the experts used in software patent cases are not qualified to evaluate software patent claims since they only have software expertise (and sometimes not even that), when what is required is software expertise, legal expertise and a dash of business expertise.

Moreover, the lack of expertise on the part of the examiners has consequences that are truly diabolical. Once a patent is granted, the law states that they are presumed valid. This puts the onus on the alleged infringer to establish invalidity, and that is hard - near impossible - when the court and its experts lack the necessary skills to evaluate the claims. Get it past the examiner and you are normally home free.

The facts in patent lawsuits should not be evaluated by judges. They should be evaluated by arbitrators who are skilled in the art covered by the patent (or by specialty patent courts requiring qualifications in the art as well as qualifications in law). Where the arbitrator of validity is satisfied that the patent contains even one claim that could not have been declared to be novel and involving an inventive step by a person acting honestly and reasonably, every patent made by that applicant should have the burden of proof reversed (if not be struck out entirely) on grounds of fraud - because that is what a lot of these patent claims are, and certainly most if not all of the claims in the Z4 patent. On top of the reversal of the burden of proof a large fine should be imposed if not a term of imprisonment. Given the damage these fraudulent patents do, this is not over the top - we lock people up for stealing cars worth tens of thousands, yet patent fraudsters (and this is what we should be calling patent trolls) steal millions at a time with the assistance of the legal system.

Re:Software Patents = Welfare for Lawyers

[Mr. Underbridge]

The difference is that many things that are not patentable are treated as patentable simply by adding the words "by means of a computer" at the end

To me, that's a problem with the patent system in general, not software patents specifically. I wouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the 1-click patent.

Book 'Em

[Doc Ruby]

Now that the z4 case is wrapped up, can we get that judge to take over the blatantly abusive SCO vs IBM case, and wind it up this weekend?

Enough already with the MS witch-hunt.

[Browzer]

The "evil" genius who created this "evil" company, does more good with the "loot", than most people or even states are able to comprehend. Too bad the evil genius is not petty enough to direct some of his funds going to some real causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_ Foundation to put all these nickel-and-dime companies out of business/misery once a for all.

And just in case you wonder, I am also a non-MS products user.

Re:Enough already with the MS witch-hunt.

[Venik]

I think you are failing to see the problem here. We are talking about Microsoft's patchy business ethics; not about Bill's admirable charity work. These are two completely different subjects. I think the biggest problem most people have with Microsoft is the company's lack of innovation set against the background of its more than ample resources. We are talking about the world's leading software developer with a multi-billion budget. And the crap it produces.

Re:Enough already with the MS witch-hunt.

[Browzer]

And he made his money doing what! Sell lemonade?

Too bad...

[Bones3D_mac]

... this won't stop the practice of product activation using the internet. The whole process makes it a pain in the ass to migrate to new hardware and, it could eventually render the software you paid for today unusable tomorrow once these companies decide to cut support for it. I'm just waiting for the day large numbers of people find their software suddenly refusing to run because the activation server never responds, or fails to recognize the software/serial number due to the older versions' databases being dumped as obsolete data.

Re:Too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Already happened to me, sort of. My copy of Anthony Hamilton's Coming From Where I'm From (Sony/Columbia) included a bunch of (DRM'd, duh) digitial music files in order to discourage ripping. When inserted into the computer, a Macromedia launcher of some sort would run, acquire licenses and then allow you to copy the files to your hard drive. When I slipped it into a computer a few months ago, though, the software couldn't obtain a response from the server and hadn't been written to countenance that eventuality. Result? Hang.

That's with music, which can be trivially obtained from filesharing networks. It's bound to happen with software, too, sooner or later.

Re:Too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what cracks are for...

Buy the software. Activate legally. Download crack for when product is no longer supported

Judge still clueless

[Locutus]

$25m is like $0.25 to Microsoft. If he thinks it'll even matter to MSFT then he's not aware of Microsofts monopoly position and their profit levels. If he'd asked around, he would have known that $125 - $250 is the standard payoff for stealing someones tech. Playing 'games' in court is also SOP for these guys. And payoffs are probably even built into their budgets. You know, the Payola Dept. IMO.

LoB

fines don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Only jail time for top crooks works, and even then just marginally. MS execs (whomever issues orders) haven't had to serve one day in jail yet for massive fraud, thievery, coercion, etc. over and over again. Time to switch to criminal prosecutions-same with the music and movie cartel crooks. Fines just shaft the shareholders and the consumers. There isn't a penny that has come out of high level execs pockets yet.

Gates is no saint....

[krell]

Bill Gates is no saint, and should not be treated like one. Using your logic, he could speed through a red light and squash Granny in the crosswalk. The cops stop him and sure enough "Sorry, did not know it was you Mr. Gates. Good work in Africa! You can go along now. Don't worry about a ticket or anything at all."

Re:Gates is no saint....

[Browzer]

Gates, probably wouldn't squash the granny because he wouldn't go speeding through red lights because he can afford a driver (or even 100 drivers), and instead of avoiding grannies crossing the street, use the time to think what other world-wide causes are worthy of his loot.

Re:Gates is no saint....

[Anonymous Coward]

straw man.

Re:Gates is no saint....

[Anonymous Coward]

i would be honored if bill gates ran over my grandma

Re:Gates is no saint....

[Cythrawl]

He probably uses a driver now since his arrest in 1977. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/gatesmug1.ht ml maybe he squashed some grannies then as the details of it are now lost.. ;)

Re:Gates is no saint....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he drives himself to work.

Enough robber-baron worship

[spun]

Please, you act as if that money would not have existed if Billy hadn't of pulled it out of his ass. If Microsoft had never of existed, others would have stepped in. Perhaps there could have been real competition and we would all be better off. Perhaps we would all be just a little richer, with software that works better, if this man had never built his little empire on theft, coercion and deceit. So now that he's essentially stolen so much money that it doesn't matter how much he gives away, we're supposed to respect him for giving some to charity? When he never should have had that much to begin with? You know, Mafia dons occassionally give money to charity too.

Re:Enough robber-baron worship

[mcmonkey]

I have mods points, but I couldn't find -1 Bitter

Re:Enough robber-baron worship

[spun]

It's not bitterness. It's a desire to live in a just world. There are plenty of people out there who have done something really positive with their lives. I just don't like to see Bill Gates confused for one. I also don't like the illogical line of reasoning that ignores opportunity cost. I'm more upset at the system that created Bill Gates than I am at Bill Gates himself. Sycophantic hero worship is part of that system.

Re:Enough robber-baron worship

[Browzer]

There are plenty of institutions/states that have been around for much much longer than Gates has been around, and I don't see them step in. The Catholic Church (most likely richer than Gates) is a good example, which has been around for centuries, goes to Africa and preaches about abstinence rather than donate money to HIV research, or provide condoms.

"...Perhaps we would all be just a little richer, with software that works better, if this man had never built his little empire on theft, coercion and deceit. So now that he's essentially stolen so much money that it doesn't matter how much he gives away..."

Considering the "little richer" part it almost sounds like you are just a tiny-winsy bit jealous.

Re:Enough robber-baron worship

[spun]

You aren't getting my meaning. I'm talking about the opportunity cost of Bill Gates wealth. Because this obscene level of personal wealth was concentrated solely in his hands, it was not available to others. Because his company played dirty, the opportunity to innovate was denied others. The free market doesn't operate efficiently without real competition. Bill Gates dirty tricks have kept the free market from working correctly in the software industry, harming us all. Without him, the world would probably be a better place, and more wealth would have been generated overall. Just because he gave a good percentage of his wealth away does not mean that he didn't screw over the world in accumulating it in the first place.

I'm not a materially oriented person. Bill Gates wealth only interests me in the abstract sense, in that I think I could probably do a better job than he of using it to make the world a better place. But go ahead and worship the man if you like, and impugn the motives of someone you don't even know, if that's what gets you off.

Re:Enough robber-baron worship

[cyber-dragon.net]

Seeing how many sys/network admins are on this board I find this statement hard to believe. Fixing Windows issues is a whole industry. Do you really think they would need so many of us at our salaries if everything worked perfectly the first time? :)

Wanted: Old school judge

[Anonymous Coward]

In sum, Davis wrote that the court was "greatly disturbed by the repeated instances where Defendants actions go beyond what can be dismissed as a mere appearance of impropriety and collectively appear to represent a pattern which is of disappointment to the Court and a disservice to legitimate advocacy."

Oddly enough, MS and others probably do this all of the time. This judge threw the flag while others assume that type of conduct is business as usual, no big deal. In the appeals process, MS will eventually find an old school judge that accepts this practice as normal and will not raise the issue and as almost always appears to happen, the one with the bigger pocket and connections will win.

Theft?

[krell]

I'm not sure there was ever any actual theft involved. Unauthorized / unapproved / disliked duplication? Yeah, sure. But theft?

New software from MS:

[Burlap]

I can see it now...


NEW Microsoft Ethics 2.0! It's fully featured with an all new "don't lie" format, and add those little extra touches with the "don't steal things" toolbar.

And to make your ethical decisions simpler... use Clippy, the Ethics 2.0 help agent!

Unheard of

[cybrzndane]

The defendants are trying to mislead the court!

if you do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you do it... you don't talk about it... msft talks about it...

Microsoft small business?

[Teun]

You ever read that Steve or Bill?

Did you miss that this article is directed at the leadership of small businesses?

Bill and Steve have nothing to do with it.

MS

[rice_burners_suck]

MS is always causing problems. How is it possible that a "small" company (in comparison to MS) like Apple is able to produce an incredible operating system and entire suites of applications for home, work, and pro, and it is incredibly stable, while MS, with significantly more resources and market share, and a more powerful position in the industry, cannot make something half as good?

Re:MS

[failure-man]

Apple a) gets a lot of code for free, b) has a small hardware set with tightly controlled drivers to support, and c) isn't afraid to break native API compatibility and shove users into a VM when they need to.

Re:MS

[gitreel]

Apple has control over the hardware. They can cater the operating system to the hardware.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is eerily like the pitfalls in "The Mythical Man Month". It argues that adding programmers to a project only makes a project later.

My take is that Microsoft is doing far too many things to do any one thing properly. They were once an OS company. Now they are video games, security, applications, search engines, etc.. They keep grubbing into other businesses because their core business (Office, Windows) has pretty much reached the saturation point. THere's no place for them to grow anymore because they own that space.

a massive pile of decoys

[rs232]

I would be suprised if they didn't try and bury the relevant exhibits in a massive pile of decoys. They are lawyers after all. It's up to the plaintiff to unbury them.

As for the patent it is of course totally uninventive, obvious, there is prior art and any skilled person would have come up the the same thing without reading the method.

A method and apparatus for securing software .. requiring .. a .. password obtained from the.. authorized representative of the software after exchanging registration information.

When are they going to fix that crock known as the US patent system?

Re:a massive pile of decoys

[UnknowingFool]

I would be suprised if they didn't try and bury the relevant exhibits in a massive pile of decoys. They are lawyers after all. It's up to the plaintiff to unbury them.

There's a difference between volunteering damaging evidence and trying to bury it. You don't have to give the opposition additional help, but if you've been ordered to divulge something, you have to do it.

Ethics boards a screen to defend profession

[swb]

They should be cited for contempt, fined some amount that is a multiple of what they billed their client assembling the dishonest materials (ensuring they don't profit from the behavior and in fact lose money), removed from the case and possibly jailed if the behavior was particularly egregious.

Most ethics boards for professions (law, medicine, etc) are just a BS screen to keep their members involved in theiving, drug use, sexual misconduct and other naughty behavior out of jail and not lose their professional certifications. I've known several people with accurate, well-documented complaints (ie, affidavits and materials from other professionals) that have gone before ethics boards that just get swept under the rug.

The legal profession is worse, since they rig the courts and the judicial system so that they can be damned hard to use against them.

not at all.

[krell]

It's not a straw man. It's a good comparison because both situations involve Gates/Microsoft committing a crime.

Thumbing their nose at the law?

[crucini]

These actions by MS are indicative of the collapse of the rule of law in the US.

One datapoint does not make a trend. This is not the first time the courts found against a big company, nor is it the first time legal process has been abused. So where's the collapse? Isn't it rather a chronic problem?

As for your draconian punishments, while I see the emotional appeal, they would be foolish. We expect corporations to zealously pursue profit, and lawyers to zealously represent their clients. When they go over the line they are punished like athletes who commit a foul, not like criminals who kill someone. The goal is not to instill horror, but to keep the balance of incentives on the right side of the line.

Remember, brains and capital are mobile. A company like Microsoft won't set up shop in a country with severe punishments for erring executives. Passing such laws is a recipe for turning a first world nation into a third world nation.

Re:Thumbing their nose at the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

>A company like Microsoft won't set up shop in a country with severe punishments for erring executives.

A startup like Microsoft was at one time won't set up shop in a country with little disincentive to halt intimidation by more established companies.

>Passing such laws is a recipe for turning a first world nation into a third world nation.

Lack of protection for the smaller players is a recipe for turning a first world nation into a third world nation via the hampering of the most significant engine of growth and innovation in our economy.

Description of Justice Kennedy's recent keynote address:

"
First, he said, the law should be binding on government and all its officials as a way of preventing corruption and abuse of power.

Second, the law must respect the dignity, quality and rights of every person, and every person should have the right to participate in government "as a way of determining our own destiny. The rule of law must be coupled with the right to improve human existence."

And third, every person should have the right to know what the laws are and be able to invoke them without fear of retribution
"

Re:Thumbing their nose at the law?

[crucini]

Lack of protection for the smaller players is a recipe for turning a first world nation into a third world nation...

Sure, but this story is not an example of lack of protection for the smaller players. Getting an extra $25 million in damages because BIG_CO tried a dirty trick in court sounds more than reasonable. On the other hand, if Steve Ballmer were publicly flogged, I don't think it would send as positive a message to small business as you seem to think. The small businessman is not going to think, "Isn't this great how the government is protecting me by tearing bleeding chunks off Ballmer's back." He's going to think, "If this can happen to Ballmer, it can happen to me. Time to move somewhere sane."

The harm to microsoft ...

[Spiked_Three]

ok let's see, that $140 mil divided by Microsoft's cash on hand =
underflow error

nevermind.

Business method patents are just as bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I read as much of the patent claims as I could stand without taking an anti-depressant. It appears to be more of a business methods patent. Part of the claims include, amazingly enough, phoning the software vendor to get a key for continued activation of the product.

?This is patentable??

Judgment Day

[thorkyl]

A judgment does not mean Payment

MS Will Have GPS Trackers Attached to All Infidels

[Anonymous Coward]

...who dare to challenge their government granted monopoly. These guys involved in the case better not have mistresses or anything else to hide - the MS Security is on them now.

What about throwing chairs at snakes in court??

[jskline]

Well???

Keep it in perspective

[Browzer]

Wake up. (1) All companies/institutions play dirty. (2) Money is an artificial social construct. (3) There are no saints. (4) If the queen had balls, she would be king.

I didn't say he didn't screw anybody, nor did I say he is/was a saint, nor did I say his company was a religious institution. The reality is that his current actions which attempt to make the world a better place are overshadowed by some petty business practices, practiced by anybody who can get away with, especially in a free market environment. For all I know, Gates is atoning for his sins, but that is not the point. The point is that he is doing something about it.

"...that I think I could probably do a better job than he of using it to make the world a better place..."

While you're philosophizing about free market, efficiency, opportunity, and real competition, Gates Foundation donates about $90 every second to some worthy cause, trying to make the world a better place. What are YOU doing to make the world a better place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

"Gödel had a most distinguished coach for his citizenship exam: Albert Einstein, who had earlier earned his own citizenship, but knowing of Gödel's unpredictable behavior, was concerned that his friend might somehow behave erratically during the exam. Einstein accompanied Gödel to the hearing. To everyone's consternation, Gödel suddenly informed the presiding judge that he had discovered a way in which a dictatorship could be legally installed in the United States. Fortunately, the judge, who was apparently a very patient person, took this in good part and awarded Gödel his citizenship. (See [1][2].)"

I wonder what would Godel say about a "free market", and "real competition" in a legal system that could allow for a dictatorship.

Re:Keep it in perspective

[spun]

Grow up. (1) Naturalistic fallacy. Just ebcause something is a certain way does not mean it should or must be that way. (2)I agree. So? (3)Straw Man. I'm not saying anyone is a saint. Some people are better than others. (4) If you were good at debate, you'd be a master debater.

Gates would never have been in a position to do good if he hadn't done evil to get there. If he didn't do that evil, others would have prospered and perhaps contributed more than Gates ever could. We'll never know.

In terms of percentage of income given to charity, I spent over four years of my life working exclusively for charity, 100%. No income, lived on savings. So you can take your straw man, shove him where the sun don't shine and light him on fire for all the good he's doing you in winning points in this debate.

This last bit is just nonsensical, a complete non-sequiter. Was it just an excuse to quote Godel? It barely even qualifies as a straw man. Here's what Godel would say: "Yes, Bill Gates proves my point about how easy it is to become a dictator in America." I'm an anarchist, my friend, and not one of those libertarian types, either. So I speak of the free market and competition not as some end-all, be-all, greatest system in the world, but as the system of rules we all have to fucking play by.

So far, you've done a piss poor job of convincing me that I should be licking Bill Gates twat, and you have exhibited substandard reading comprehension skills. Either that or you are deliberately not understanding my point in order to better convince the feeble minded of your own. So let me try again.

Bill Gates got rich by fucking over the world. Had he not done so, we would likely all be better off. So there would be more money spread amongst more hands, possibly leading to even greater relief of suffering. There would be less poverty, less people in need of his fucking charity. More people, giving more money, to less needy people. So it's not very insightful to just look at Billy's charity and say, "ooh, look at all the good he's done." The question is, does it outweigh the bad? I say no, it doesn't.

Re:Keep it in perspective

[Browzer]

"Gates would never have been in a position to do good if he hadn't done evil to get there."

At least we are starting to agree in what position Gates is.

"In terms of percentage of income given to charity, I spent over four years of my life working exclusively for charity, 100%. No income, lived on savings. So you can take your straw man, shove him where the sun don't shine and light him on fire for all the good he's doing you in winning points in this debate."

Free advise: do some research on people who advise others to shove things. You might learn something about yourself. Have a box of cookies on me, for giving up 4 years of your life. You probably got out of college, couldn't get a job at MS, lived in your parents' basement, and donated a couple of hours over the weekend at the local soup kitchen... good for you, have another cookie. Mention one more good deed and I'll call up Vatican to consider you for canonization.

Don't project your inabilities just because you can't connect the dots. Let me connect Godel's dots for you... what you refer to "as the system of rules we all have to fucking play by", takes place in the same environment where a "dictatorship could be legally installed in the United States." So get off the "free market doesn't operate efficiently without real competition", "system of rules" b.s. It is a doggy-eat-doggy system, an environment where IBM, AT&T and MS evolved. If you can't handle this reality crawl under a rock.

"Bill Gates got rich by fucking over the world. Had he not done so, we would likely all be better off. So there would be more money spread amongst more hands, possibly leading to even greater relief of suffering. There would be less poverty, less people in need of his fucking charity. More people, giving more money, to less needy people. So it's not very insightful to just look at Billy's charity and say, "ooh, look at all the good he's done." The question is, does it outweigh the bad? I say no, it doesn't."

WTF are you talking about? Are you on accutane by any chance?

END

Re:Keep it in perspective

[spun]

I lived on the streets in San Francisco, not my parents basement you condescending fuckwit. I volunteered with Food Not Bombs, Earth First, and the IWW five days a week. You can shove your cookie up your ass. I've made a difference, what have you done you pathetic sack of shit?

You still haven't made a cogent point. You have fuck all for karma here and no friends. We are from roughly the same era, yet I have excellent karma and hundreds of friends. Not that that means anything definite, but it's interesting.

I'm done, debating with you has been a pointless waste of words. Have fun smooching Billy's ass.

Re:Keep it in perspective

[Browzer]

One more doggie biscuit for having hundreds of VIRTUAL friends. As for having excellent karma, I'll submit your name to Vatican for canonization and because you "volunteered with Food Not Bombs, Earth First, and the IWW five days a week" I'll submit your name for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Keep up the good work.

Re:Keep it in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you.

But also remember that Most big companies/corporations are out to screw as much money out of you as possible.

They are outsourcing now more and more...cheaper labour etc etc...Microsoft are doing this too...in Asia...

what this really means is...

[rajafarian]

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears [emphasis mine] to be above a code of ethics.

What it really means is: DON'T GET CAUGHT LYING, CHEATING, BREAKING LAWS, etc.

So called 'inventions'

[Anonymous Coward]

United States Patent 6,044,471
Colvin March 28, 2000
Method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use

Abstract

A method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use include associating a password or series of passwords with each copy of group of authorized software and requiring entry of a first password obtained from the developer or authorized representative of the software after exchanging registration information. The method and apparatus may also subsequently require entry of a second password from the series associated with the software to continue using the software. A password or authorization code series may be associated with each authorized copy or with a group of copies such as those distributed to a particular organization or site. Preferably, subsequent passwords or authorization codes are obtained from an authorized software developer, manufacturer, or distributor which gathers current information from the user to monitor compliance with licensing restrictions. The number and frequency of required password updates may be regular or irregular depending upon the application, user, or software manufacturer. A code which disables the software may be communicated if the manufacturer determines that the user is an unauthorized user.

United States Patent 6,785,825
Colvin August 31, 2004
Method for securing software to decrease software piracy

Abstract

A method for reducing unauthorized software use includes supplying a first code with the software. The first code enables the software on a computer for use by a user for an initial authorization period upon entry by the user. The user is required to contact the representative for retrieval of an additional code. The software is operable during a subsequent authorization period beyond the initial authorization period without further communication with the representative following entry of the additional code. The user provides registration information to the representative prior to retrieval of the additional code. The registration information is compared with previously provided registration information to determine if the user is authorized or unauthorized. The software is disabled following the initial authorization period if the user is unauthorized. The additional code is transferred to at least one of the software, the user, and the computer if the user is authorized.

You are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't hurt Microsoft. It's just money. Microsoft's got gobs of that.

However, it helps the position of both the tiny patent parasites and the big patent gorillas. For this reason it's bad for ALL of us in the long run.

At some point Microsoft's going to turn around and stop being a defendant in patent infringement cases and start being a plaintiff. And the more cash they've paid out in patent judgements since then the easier it will be for them to get away with it...

What's with the moderation?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was modded up to +5, then three mods of overrated.

Who did you piss off today, dude?

Re:What's with the moderation?

[dunng808]

Mmmm, the rich scent of astroturf on a hot August afternoon sent roiling into the air by the power of mod points. What you have witnessed is the "slash" in slashdot. These zombies fail to grasp that modding down "funny" with "overrated" is in the same class as killing kittens.

Re:Ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, ith to the Eatht...

I thought it was service pack 919913

[Ungrounded Lightning]

(giggle)

Funny you should mention LotR and copyright...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So someone can make a book with a world like "Lord of the Rings" (and many have) or a game like Doom or music like (in same genre) Michael Jacksons - they just can't reproduced the original and claim it as theirs.

Funny you should use Lord of the Rings in a copyright example. The first US publication of LotR was in violation of copyright: Somebody ripped off a copy of an early version of the manuscript and took it to a US publisher, purporting to be doing so as an agent of Tolkein.

Those editions are collector's items now.

the key word is ...

[hany]

It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.

IMO, the key word is "appears", so to put emphasis:

"It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics."

If anybody reads that carefully, it should be plain that being above that particular code of ethics is OK as long as thouse bounded by it do not appear to be above it (i.e. they carefully hide acts which are against the code or use some other "PR" tactics).

Who said all?

[jotaeleemeese]

Lobby groups target the people that need targetting. Comittees, ministers, or the big man or woman if necessary.

The corrosive consequences of lobbies in Western democracy (but particularly in the US) are so well documented that pretending there is no problem is what looks like a college-dorm-room mindset.

And sorry to be skeptical, but when you look at the current top echeloens in the US government, all former oil industry executives, and you see that the industry that has beneffited the most during their tenure, is precisely the oil industry, any person with even the slightest of curiosity left on his brain would smell something very fishy.

maybe slightly OT but still usefull?

[hany]

Here's something mayby slightly off-topic byt still usefull to answer your request:

Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

I orgasmed

[Wiseman1024]

I orgasm at patent companies falling in their own trap, yet the experience is not 100% fulfilling as the company who won develops digital restrictions management technologies (i.e. software AIDS). Ideally, both companies should pay millions and software patents should be abolished/overcome.