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?

Comments

WTF?

[Xesdeeni]

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

Re:WTF?

[Spazmania]

IANAL, but I suspect the ruling has been misrepresented.

Generally, a company operating abroad is responsible for complying with local law, not US law. You can't sue a company in a US court for its behavior overseas. That's the the general rule; there are exceptions.

The law makes an exception for building devices in the US which would infringe a patent if sold in the US but are instead exported -- the patent holder can sue in the US where the device is made. Microsoft argued that the general principle (local law) applies here, not the exception, because the would-be infringing device was actually manufacturered abroad.

The Supreme Court agreed and applied the general rule: if AT&T wants to collect, they'll have to sue in the countries where the infringement occurred.

Re:WTF?

[TeraBill]

Right, but wasn't this reported a while back and the statement was made that MS had earlier argued in court that they should be allowed to count all of the individual copies sold overseas for deductions on their taxes. And now they are arguing the other side for the purposes of the AT&T patent infringement case. I just think that they should have to choose a side for the argument. If they claim for the purposes of US tax accounting that all of the copies sold originate here, then that holds for the AT&T case. If they are willing to give up the additional deductions and pay the back taxes and penalties, then they can have this ruling. They just shouldn't be able to have both.

But then I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television.

Does this mean.....

[stox]

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.

Re:Does this mean.....

[jfengel]

I don't think so. There are a couple of things going on here:

1. This only applies to other countries.

2. It only applies to the AT&T patents inside the software.

It seems that the OEMs are nominally responsible for securing AT&T's patents in those countries before distributing the software. So if you're in Asia pirating copies of Windows, both Microsoft and AT&T will be suing you.

If you're in the US, only Microsoft will sue you, and part of the money they take out of your hide should go to AT&T.

So AT&T should, theoretically, be going after these OEMs; Microsoft isn't on the hook to pay them. But it's a lot easier for AT&T to pursue Microsoft than a bunch of Microsoft's OEMs. /IANAL

Piracy has nothing to do with patents

[CodeShark]

What it simply means is that the Supreme Court is being consistent with existing law regarding patents, i.e. the method that M$ uses to export Windows to foreign companies means that certain types of patents don't apply therefore MS can't be sued for using patented code oversees if it obeys certain export rules.

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.

Re:First Dup!

[shystershep]

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.

Issue was "who's the manufacturer"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Didn't MS just blow their argument?

[countach]

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?