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

What does this mean for end users of ...

[sabre86]

"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

I'll take a shot....

[Otter]

Decision here. I'm not sure I follow it, but since my understanding could hardly be worth less than the submitter's, here's a shot at summarizing it:

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.

Re:WTF?

[Spazmania]

Patents are a little different than copyright. You infringe a copyright by copying the work. You infringe a patent using the patent -- in the sense that you use a physical device which implements the patent. Accordingly, manufacture of the device occurs when the components are combined into a physical form capable of using the patent.

Re:ScuttleMonkey knows not what he says.

[ronanbear]

Had AT&T won this would have strengthened software patents and increased damages across the board. That's because companies sued in the US for a software patent infringement could have damages set based on their worldwide sales, many (even the majority) in areas where software patents aren't valid.

It would be punishing companies for infringements that don't exist. If I use software in Ireland and the maker gets sued in the US they shouldn't be charged for patent violations that aren't violations here. If the software was legally sold here and didn't violate locally recognised patents then the maker didn't do anything wrong (except for directly exporting).

In the long run this will be good for Linux. It also has implications for other judgements such as the EOLAS case, I think.