Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Sides With Microsoft Over AT&T
The Supreme Court today sided with Microsoft in another important patent case filed by AT&T. The case centered around whether selling Windows overseas infringed on AT&T's patents that are in Windows. Microsoft argued [PDF] that the copies being sold in Asia were "...not technically supplied from the United States because overseas manufacturers of its computers made copies of the software from a master disk and installed those copies into the operating system. Microsoft said it could not be considered a supplier since the copies, not the original software, were in the computers built abroad." Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?
...seems to get passed around a lot.
That makes absolutely no sense. Surely I misunderstood this:
You can wash your hands of patent infringement by hiding behind a redistribution license!?
That sounds like a loophole big enough for a 18-wheeler to drive through!
Xesdeeni
...for the copy then they are the supplier.
that if I steal one copy of Windows, and make 1,000,000 copies of it, that I am only liable for the one copy? After all, since Microsoft only produced one copy. I am only depriving them of the use of one copy. The lawyers are going to have a field day with this decision.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?
A lawsuit from AT&T hurts Microsoft's bottom line and thus this ruling is ok. Pirating overseas in Asia also hurts Microsoft's bottom line and thus this ruling wouldn't be applied.
Glad we have that cleared up.
That the Asian OEM code is substantially different than what is sold in the US.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
But this has nothing to do with "pirated copies", because software piracy is a matter of copyright law, not patent law, and there are numerous treaties governing the protection of copyrights internationally that still apply.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Are they claiming that IP in Windows doesnt matter when the software is being pirated, and that the Asian versions of Windows aren't really made by them, but a copy? Thought Windows made/supported a full Asian version.
There have been two separate significant rulings by the Supreme Court. One is Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (the subject of this article) and the other is KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (the subject of the article you linked to).
HTH
The first rule of pirating software is... don't talk about pirating software.
I know it's not fashionable to RTFA, but come on. Just because the summaries contain the words "patent" and "Supreme Court," that does not automatically mean they are the same. These are completely different stories.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
"patented software?"
So if I make a copy of, say, Linux that has a "patent-infringing" software in it, am I liable for violating the patent, or is the author of the software? Or are both of us, if we're in the US?
--sabre86
It's even WORSE- Microsoft is arguing that software isn't patentable because software and hardware are different. Well, maybe that's better- but basically, they're arguing no patent infringement because the source code wasn't on the disk.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Different story
The issue is whether the US patent held by AT&T applies to copies of Windows that are installed on foreign-built computers. The ruling is that OS installs from a master disk made in the US don't qualify as US-made export goods themselves, and therefore aren't subject to US patents.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
ITS A DIFFERENT STORY
The real question this brings up is if someone pirates this same overseas master disk and distributes those copies, doesn't it follow that MS has no recourse, that the only ones being infringed are the overseas distrbutors and not MS?
And the answer is OF COURSE NOT, do not expect the law to follow common sense or have any sort of internal consistency. If it did, who would employ all the lawyers?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You cannot enforce patents on algorithms/idea themselves, just devices/actions that implement them - this has been true since the beginning. The Supreme Court has never ruled that software is patentable, just that a device implemented using software is just as patentable as one implemented using hardware. It has long been believed that source code would not be considered a device, but just a description of a device, and is thus no more protected by patent law than a technical spec or published paper. However, programs running on a computer have been ruled to be a device, and therefore in practice sofware is patentable, even though technically it is not.
This case focused in part on the question of whether compiled code is a device - and the answer was no, it too is just a description. In practical terms this means very little for domestic software producers - since you can't run software without a computer, either you or your customer will be breaking the law if one of you does not license the patents, and knowingly selling software that needs patents licenses, without informing your customers about it will get you in bit trouble. Furthermore, even if you do inform your customers, you could have problems depending on the circumstance.
As far as international trade, it has the effect that patent export laws do not apply to software. With a physical device if you build it here and ship it abroad you have to pay patent royalties, but if you send the plans abroad and produce and sell it there, then US patent laws don't apply. Since software is simply a description, as long as the computer (or embedded device) is produced abroad, and the software is installed abroad, you don't have to pay US patent royalties. Of course you do still have to pay patent royalties in the other country if they apply.
Another area that it could have an impact in is open source drivers, especially firmware. You could argue that anyone that uses the software has paid for any required patent licenses when they bought the hardware in question. And since the court ruled that there is no difference between machine language and source code as far as patents go, they are no longer an excuse for providing binary only drivers. (Of course all the companies that are claiming "patent issues", are really probably trying to protect trade secrets). Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows? If those copies are in in the US they still apply, but in say China, they wouldn't. Note that copyright still applies.
Does this mean that if we buy one of those pirated disks from China, it's perfectly legal?
Did Microsoft just shoot itself in the foot? Well I guess it doesn't matter when they actually prefer that you pirate from them.
Uh, in the digital world, if MS gets paid ...for the copy then they are the supplier.
The issue is "who is the manufacturer" - Microsoft, or the guys who built the box and loaded the software onto it.
The patents cover the final system. (That's because you can't patent the software itself, only the total system using the software.) The software is a component of the system, like a chip full of AND gates, a capacitor, or even a complex integrated circuit that was designed specifically to perform the patented functionality.
If you look at the documentation that comes with your typical chip, you'll see a manufacturers disclaimer of patent liability. Essentially "If you use this chip to do something patented, getting a license from the patent holder, fighting his suit, or paying the judgement is your problem."
Microsoft just wants to be in the same position as a chip manufacturer with respect to the computerized-device manufacturer who builds a final product that incorporates their software and somebody else's chips.
The supreme court just said that Microsoft gets the same deal as Intel, AMD, Broadcom, etc.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
OK, so Microsoft gets the court to agree that the infringment is not against US patents from a US manufacturer, but (for example) a Chinese manufacturer against (???) a Chinese patent. Thus requiring AT&T to file against the Chinese manufacturer in a Chinese court.
Somewhat makes sense, but I would think it would be common sense that the "manufacturer" of a software product was the developer, not the facility where discs are copied. If it was this easy, we could get our product certified as being manufactured in Europe and avoid all those nasty import duties.
If I got it correctly, AT&T may still try to enforce their patents under local law by suing the manufacturers. They also can sue them in the US because they are selling devices that infringe AT&T patents to the US.
Again, if I got it correctly, local manufacturers can sue Microsoft for selling them goods without disclosing potential liabilities.
This is one for the diplomats to untangle. Hope they enjoy it.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
It seems like this ruling directly applies (against Microsoft's favor) in the case of Microsoft's innuendos of patent infringement by Linux. From Microsoft's arguments in the case, object code and source code cannot be patented because it is not on a physical machine that performs the patented operations nor can it be directly installed on such a machine without going through an intermediate step (linking) in the foreign country. Thus, any open source project that provides the object or source code over the Internet but not the binary installer is completely shielded from any patent infringement claims by Microsoft because they are distributing non-installable data that doesn't constitute a patentable invention. I can't wait for Groklaw et al. to jump all over this fumble by Microsoft (as some are already discussing http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704301 21005424/). Seriously, besides saving some pocket change, can anyone understand what Microsoft was thinking here?
The Microsoft v. AT&T ruling got mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the article of the previous story and quite a bit of the Slashdot discussion was either about the Microsoft case or both patent cases, although they did get mixed up a few times.
Let's clarify something. Section 271 of the Patent Act defines many different types of infringing acts. Section 271(a) defines infringement as the making, using, selling, or importing (the most common types of infringement). Section 271(f)(1) defines another type of infringing act, namely, exporting "components" of a patented invention.
Section 271(f)(1) states:
Section 271(f)(1) was created to close a loophole in patent laws that allowed companies to manufacture the "patented invention" by manufacturing the components of the invention and then shipping the components overseas to be assembled and sold. Because the individual components did not infringe to the "patented invention," these companies were not infringers.
Section 271(f)(1) was an attempt to close that loophole, and provides that infringement does occur when one "suppl[ies] ... from the United States," for "combination" abroad, a patented invention's "components."
In Microsoft, the SC addressed Section 271(f)(1), and specifically the term "component." The Supreme Court held that "component" means "component," or a part of the whole which is combined to form the final product. The master disks exported by Microsoft were not "components" because the disks themselves where not combined with the "whole." Instead, the disks where used to make software, which then became part of the whole. The Supreme Court analogized the master disks to tools. Tools are used to make a "component" but they are not "components." Section 271(f)(1) only applies to "components" and not to tools for making components. Thus, Microsoft did not infringe (as defined by 271(f)(1)). The opinion is limited to section 271(f)(1), and likely will not affect "normal" infringing activities.
Swing and a miss! The summary isn't even close to accurate.
The case was this: AT&T and Microsoft had a patent dispute. Microsoft accepted the fact that it violated the patent in the US. Question: Does Microsoft owe AT&T damages for patent violations in the US *and* for products shipped outside the US? Or, must AT&T sue MS in those countries also? According to a 1984 law, if you manufacture patented parts for assembly outside the US, you violate the patents in the US.
The court found: Shipping the master copy of Windows source code outside the US to be mastered abroad doesn't count as patent infringement.
Why? You can't patent an algorithm! Notice that in software patents, you must reference a combination of a "method and a device", or some such language. You have to include something physical in the patent. You can't patent "voice recognition software", you must patent "voice recognition software running on a computer". From the AP article:
"Ginsburg said that neither Windows software nor a computer standing alone without Windows installed infringes AT&T's patent."
Only if MS was shipping both a computer *and* the software, were they shipping a patented part. So, AT&T's damages must be limited to domestic damages. In order to recover damages occurred in, say, France, AT&T must sue MS in France. US law doesn't cover MS's non-US activity, in this case. Kind of makes sense to me.
As others have pointed out, the submitter stupidly mixed up copyrights and patents; pirates are usually sued for violating copyrights. I suppose if I'm a software pirate, and I get sued for patent infringement (for some really stupid reason), the damages awarded to the company would be limited to domestic damages I've done. Of course, they would get more money out of me more quickly if they limited themselves to the copyrights.
So, take home message: If you sell software worldwide, any patent violations you get sued for in the US will most likely have their damages limited to the actions inside the US. For damages from selling abroad, the company which is suing you must file their lawsuit abroad.
"by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?"
The ruling is that US patents don't apply, because the software on a particular machine is not exported from the US, But is a copy made in Asia. Therefore, one would assume local patent laws would apply, instead of US patent laws.
Now that you understand this, the logic of the statement about piracy is absurd
It's tough to know who to root for or against in this case: Microsoft vs. AT&T? Man, that's a hard choice! It's like a choice between Goliath and Goliath.
*** would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows? ***
Umm, this wouldn't be patent infringement you tard, it would be piracy, a criminal offense. Patent infringement is a civil matter.
Just in case anyone is interested in the actual opinions:
The Supreme Court opinion of Microsoft v. AT&T .
For completeness: The previous story was (mainly) about KSR v. Teleflex , although it did mention Microsoft v. AT&T as well, in the fifth paragraph.
From the summary... Microsoft said it could not be considered a supplier since the copies, not the original software, were in the computers built abroad."
Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?
By your interpretation of that logic, wouldn't it also mean that MS's patents don't apply to any copy of Windows on a PC in the US that was not installed from the "original software", which would basically mean EVERY copy of Windows, since it is highly unlikely that the master disk has been placed in EVERY PC ever sold in the US with Windows installed. And of course there are also system restorations to consider that were done with copies made from master disks as well (shipped with PCs or available by request/purchase).
Remember Microsoft doesn't actually sell any software. All they sell is a license to use a give piece of software. I haven't read the EULA recently, but you probably don't even have to have a copy of the software in question to buy a license.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
"Notice that in software patents, you must reference a combination of a "method and a device", or some such language"
Then how were they found to be violating in the US?
I didn't buy my computer from MS.
Now we just need the Supreme Court to fix the DMCA and we're all set. On a related note, check out my new tagline.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
It might be more instructional than reading dozens of comments that start with, "I don't know a thing about law, but... ." It's like marketers talking about programming: "I don't know C# from sharp cheddar, but... ." Here are a few views from lawyers who know patent law:
KSR v. Teleflex:
Microsoft v. AT&T:
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"My child, you have come to me my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me? My son."
-Thulsa Doom
Get on your fucking faggot knees and pray for forgiveness from Thulsa Doom the Great! You deserve nothing but destruction but still you remain only by the mercy of Thulsa Doom.
Repent for your fucking foolishness now, motherfucker, or Thulsa Doom will beat your faggot ass!
THULSA DOOM!
AT&T holds a patent on an apparatus for digitally encoding and compressing recorded speech.
Hot, that means I can write white-room version of an MP3 encoder and distribute it lawfully, I simply cannot install it and use it. (It's an example, ignore the foreign patent implications of MP3 and the DMCA reverse-eng possibilities.)
On page 3 the court reiterates a precedent from Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp that states it is "not an infringement to make or use a patented product outside of the United States". Nice. Amazon can't go after peeps outside the US over patents (well, duh, but still, good to say it again). On page 5 the court goes over a law Congress made in response to that stopping exports of multiple pieces with no other use than to create an infringing whole. Still nice for US extraterritorials.
Seems the decision and Stevens's dissent focus on whether software is analogous to blueprints or components, hinging on the language of Deepsouth.
-mix
Unlike copyright, patents are only valid in the country that they are registered in. This would apply to MS patents also. They have copyright over the software which is almost global, but any patent would only apply is the countries in which the patent is registered. There may be agreements between countries, but if I patent something in Australia only, it could be built and used in the USA without asking me, but it could not be sold back into Australia.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I cannot help but if the same argument used by Microsoft against AT&T, could also be applied to the "Microsoft Tax"?
Let's see, we have here a company who the US Government broke up some few decades ago because it was a monopoly, which has hence re-merged to form the same monopoly in the Red Corner. In the Blue Corner, we have a company who the US Government has been calling a monopoly for over 10 years and has (with albeit pathetic means) attempted to break up said monopoly into several other companies. It's like Terminator 1 vs Terminator 2, but only Terminator 2 won this time....
I live in the US. I design a widget. I ship the design plans for the widget to China. A factory in China manufactures the widgets.
Where did the manufacturing occur?
Even better analogy:
You design a widget. You patent the widget. I read the patent, copy it, send it to China, and have widgets manufactured. Where does the manufacturing occur?
*WRITING* software isn't manufacture, it's design.
paintball
I have been working through the decisions rendered and what I've found most striking is the phrase "What <patent> taught us..." This is the court back to saying that the purpose of patents is to share knowlege while repecting original invention. I like the language being used.
I thought MS's big argument against Linux was that MS would stand behind their product and its intellectual status.
Now they're telling me that if I use Windows in China, AT&T can come sue me because MS won't back up their product? So why not just go with Linux to begin with?
So that means that SAMBA isn't in violation of any patents relating to Windows protocols as long as the distributions are created outside the US. Granted any patent owned by anyone as long as it is created for copy or production outside the US. Sounds like Microsoft lost more than it gained. I'd say it was a rather stupid move on their part and the ramifications are not fully known yet. But ALAS they'll claim this applies to others and not to them.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
This is just one more absurd result you get when you postulate abstract information as "property". If reductio ad absurdum is probative, then the whole edifice of IP law has more holes and dead ends than an ant's nest.
Oh what a tangled web we weave! This sounds great. Does this mean that you could simply create a "gold disk" of windows (ok, Brass or Zinc would sound better for windows, but the technical term is "gold"), export to Asia and have 100,000,000 copies burned? I don't think that is what the big "M" had in mind, but think about it. You could copy something someone patented in USA (i.e. a software CD, send the plates to stamp the CD over to Asia, then have at it. What do you suppose that would cost? A dollar a piece?? If all you have to do is provide for "foreign assembly", just about anything copied be ripped off. BTW - when does Microsoft have to hand over "Selected" windows code to the EU? probably just the screen saver and mine sweeper. That ought to be interesting, and if they do, and if people download here in USA (for information use only), is that illegal?? hmmmmmm, makes you wonder. I'd like to see how much "yo ho ho" (pirated) code is in windows, wouldn't you. I still claim that windows has code from digital Equip,ment Corporation (DEC) which is now owned by HP (via compaq acquisition). how ironic would that be, the Innovation Company being found to be the pirates we know them to be.
Probably something like "Hey, we won! Yay!". As slashdotters typically like to point out, patents probably neither encourage nor enable innovation in software, and benefit big companies only defensively through a MAD-type strategy. This applies fully to MS, especially since they seem to have no difficulty maintaining their dominant position through non-patent means. Strengthening software patents would hurt MS overall, because it only serves to open them up to patent trolls and lawsuits from smaller "innovative" companies that come up with something 95% obvious, patent it, and sue MS for coming up with the idea.
The FUD over patents on Linux is largely just that, FUD, and this ruling won't substantially impact their ability to make up nonsense. It's all lies, hollow threats, and insinuation anyways. MS has more to lose from the possibility of patent warfare than they do from even modest success of Linux.
Most of the world doesn't have software patents. Thus, AT&T can only sue you for violating their patent if they are in a country that respect software patents in the first place.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.