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?

[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?

[JustOK]

They have ethics. Just not ones you like.

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?

[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.

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.

Can chairs be thrown in court?

[alexandreracine]

I bet they can.

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."

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....

[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....

[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....

[jthill]

Another advertisement for home schooling.

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:Everyone has to pay Royalty Eh?

[BodhiCat]

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

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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

[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: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.