Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alcatel Awarded $367 Million in MS Patent Case

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the new-business-models dept.

eldavojohn writes "For violating two Alcatel-Lucent patents in its Windows user interface, Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $367 Million Friday. From the article, 'Microsoft, which will seek to have the verdict overturned, said Alcatel-Lucent was seeking $1.5 billion in damages related to the four patents named in the case. Microsoft said the jury found that Microsoft did not infringe on Alcatel's video decoding technology patent. The fourth patent in the lawsuit was asserted only against Dell Inc, which was found not to have infringed, according to Microsoft.'"

19 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. patents are really not the way by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the sooner we can get rid of patents the better, even if it is ms on the receiving end of the big patent stick it still brings me no joy.

    The patent system long ago stopped serving its original purpose and it needs to be abolished or overhauled asap. Software patents ought to be done away with completely.

    --
    MP3 Search Engine
    1. Re:patents are really not the way by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 2, Informative

      To the best of my knowledge source code is protected by copyright. Obviously changing variable should not be enough to circumvent this, but whether it in reality is enough or not I don't know.

    2. Re:patents are really not the way by ddrichardson · · Score: 2

      Only the threat of huge financial hits (like $367m) stop (or dont in this case) stop people from stealing code.

      I fear you may have proven the case against software patents there yourself.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    3. Re:patents are really not the way by HardcoreWizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're mixing copyright law and patent law. And I don't see MS getting stopped. They probably earn more by ignoring patents, and just paying up when they get sued. The independent developer would get destroyed by a case like this though. It's rather depressing and extremely counterproductive. Let the ideas be free for gods sake, and copyright the implementations if you feel like it!

    4. Re:patents are really not the way by pallmall1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...companies that make money from code need to protect it somehow...
      Or change the way they make money.

      Candlemakers weren't able to patent light. Software patents block the true potential of human communication and knowledge, and serve no benefit to society. They are the ultimate totalitarian construct, serving only to raise barriers to advances in utilization of technologies such as solid state electronic devices (which, by the way, are already patented).

      Just as the candlemakers' market dwindled when the light bulb came along, so should the market for those companies who think that their precious "ip" has any more value than the time it takes to code it originally. If the code is useful, the coder can make more money by making it better, if there is a market desire to do so. Or, they can make it better just because they want to write good code. If a coder doesn't think they are getting enough money, they can stop coding, find another job, or start a company and work for themselves. They can also copyright the code if they think it's that elegant.

      Computer code enables a new form of literacy and communication never even dreamed of before in human history. Software patents are a nightmare, helping bring to life Orwell's picture* of the future. If the world doesn't wake up now it may be too late to prevent it. There's a lot more at stake than a few coders' or lawyers' business plans.

      *

      "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always do not forget this, Winston always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face . . . for ever". (Part III, Chapter III)
      --bold added
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    5. Re:patents are really not the way by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      But if the coders make their money by making their original code better, what's to stop others from stealing it again and selling it cheaper still. Thus the original coder never makes any money.

      I still think it is sad that the inventor of one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, the television, made very little money on it since the corporations just waited out the patents.

    6. Re:patents are really not the way by clampolo · · Score: 2

      The scariest thing is that a jury is deciding these cases. After filing a patent and having the lawyer rewrite it into Patentese I could barely understand it myself. How can 12 average joes decide a technical matter like a patent trial?

    7. Re:patents are really not the way by I!heartU · · Score: 2

      You brand your product with a trademark, and promote the brand. Everyone else is just a copy, you get the nod for coming up with it. Also you have marketing lead time in this case. Why does having a good idea preclude you from having competition? Isn't the consumer better served by it?

    8. Re:patents are really not the way by HardcoreWizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then make your implementation better. If you patent your idea, but you're a crappy programmer or only intend to support a single platform, why shouldn't more talented or ambitious people have a chance to use your idea? Or maybe even improve it! That's innovation. I can't really acknowledge the concept of "owning intelligence".

  2. Very short article by 26199 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This one has a little more info. Does anyone have a link for the actual patents?

  3. Better article by 26199 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And this one goes on to mention that Microsoft will now proceed to sue Alcatel-Lucent over nine patents.

    That's going to hurt. Patent lawsuits are not a good game to get into if you actually produce something.

  4. patents will end up being ignored by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    it's already happening the developing world. company X seeks unreasonable patent claim, country Y simply says fuck you.

    patents were devised as a way to protect inventors and allow them to make a return on their idea's in exchange for releasing that device into the public domain after a reasonible amount of time (similar to copyright).

    the problem is that right now -anything- is being considered a bloody invention. maybe some kind of system where all the patents logded once a year get assessed in competition with each other, and only the top 1000 best idea's get patent protection or something. that way there is no incentive to try flood the system with crappy obivous patent ideas.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:patents will end up being ignored by cashdot · · Score: 3, Informative

      the problem is that right now -anything- is being considered a bloody invention You are aware, that this is valid only for the US patent system? The US patent system is different (and IMHO worse) than all other patent systems in many ways, like 'first to file', triple damages, non-compliance with the international patent classification system, prior art searcb almost exclusivly within their own patents, ...
  5. Indemnification? by johannesg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since anyone using those patents is now guilty of violation, there is a risk that Alcatel will go after Windows users next. Does *your* organisation have a risk mitigation plan for when the lawsuits start flying? Or will you simply close your eyes and hope that Microsofts "indemnification" is worth more than the pixels it is printed on?

    How does that indemnification work anyway? As far as I can tell, any legal proceedings would be between Alcatel and targeted patent violators - i.e. Microsoft has no standing in such cases. Do they offer to pay for any damages and cost incurred? In that case I guess the risk is acceptable after all...

  6. good news, I suppose by nguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This must mean that Microsoft has started ripping off technology that's less than 20 years out of date. Obviously, there is some progress in Windows-land after all.

  7. Not to sound trite by OakLEE · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's just a jury verdict. Being a patent case, it will be appealed and probably be heard, so I doubt anything is certain about the verdict.

    That said, I think Alcatel-Lucent should be more worried about their current CEO, Patricia Russo. This partial win is about all she can lay claim to besides the 45% slide in ALU's stock and the 70% slide in Lucent's stock prior to the merger. She'll need a couple more of these to make up for her Fiorina-esque management of the company. (To be fair, she's not the sociopathic power monger that Fiorina was. She's just as inept at management.)

    --
    The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  8. In defense of software patents by pieterh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The arguments for and against software patents are old and boring, so I wrote a devil's advocate defense of software patents a few months back.

    In fact most of the arguments for software patents are based on 150-year old arguments that protection from competition is the best way to push innovation.

    The arguments were bogus in 1820 and they are bogus today.

    Innovation does not need protection from competition, it needs as much competition as possible, in the most free market possible.

    Kill software patents!

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:In defense of software patents by pallmall1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taking invention as an example, I'm essentially a nobody, if I come up with a fantastic idea tomorrow that's easy for me to get to market, it's even easier for an established company to copy it and get it there with more inovations before I grab any market share at all. And I won't have the option of selling the idea since someone can just copy it for free.
      There's a difference between an idea and an invention.
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    2. Re:In defense of software patents by HardcoreWizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Patents are not free. At least not in my country. And you have to pay lawyers to research whether or not your invention has been patented in another form first. Don't get me started on the price of an international patent. If we ignore the rest of the patent system and focus on software patents, take this case: You invent a great never-seen-before feature which - if added to existing word processing features - will make an MS Word/OpenOffice Writer killer. You go out and patent it, and then you hire a couple of developers and implement your new word processor. It will not take long before the lawyers from one of the big corporations find another feature in your word processor which they own the patent for. You can now choose between paying them big bucks, or give away your patent. I just can't see how the patent system - in its current form - protects the innovator. It's more like paying protection money to the mafia.