Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Espionage Involving a Patent At Microsoft
thefickler writes "Microsoft is taking a former employee, Miki Mullor, to court for securing a job at the company in order to steal information that would help with a patent infringement case he filed against PC makers Dell, HP, and Toshiba (in which Microsoft quickly became enmeshed). And while it appears that Mullor did the wrong thing, some pundits are asking: 'If you believed that your patent had been infringed, wouldn't you be tempted to do the same thing?'"
"You can't steal information." It's intangible. Thank you.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Has the inanity and anti-logic of the patent system finally become so bad that peoples' basic judgement is now impaired. Has the concept of "Intellectual Property" so twisted the fragile mind of the commentators, and public at large, that we now must see it not only as a fundamental right, but as (Paraphrasing DeValera) an institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law and morality.
Personally, no, I don't see that a patent is so important that I should break not only the law, but also the trust and confidence other people have in me, simply to defend my rights to some obvious "invention". I may be a little behind the times here, but I can't say I would be overly tempted, no.
May the Maths Be with you!
I mean I could easily go woo-hoo fighting the man here. I got it in me no doubts. But there is something in legal cases called the Discovery phase and its illegal during a discovery phase to conceal information requested by the court for a case. If he thought Microsoft had information that would have helped his case his lawyers should have asked for such info in the discovery phase and been done with it. The spy cloak and dagger stuff is for the movies and just fucks you over in the real world. If its true he pitched the idea before he was even hired, then don't try to keep working at the same company you are trying to sue. The counter-suit will be coming that is for sure. Easier than firing him. Sue him instead.
ACK
He claims he revealed his patent when joining MS.
MS claim they were allowed to nick his IP rights since he failed to reveal this when he joined the company (although they also tried to licence the technology prior to him joining)
So the wrong thing was viewing some documents he shouldn't have? Not having your IP rights stolen, then.
Yeah, after all, it's not as if Microsoft ever steals other companies (cough Netscape, Corel) ideas or software, or been involved in U.S. or EU patent infringement cases and found guilty. I'm sure they are completely innocent with nothing to hide and would comply with a court order to turn-over information, rather than shred documents.
Yep.
The cops routinely use undercover "spying" in order to catch criminals, such as drug traffickers. I don't see why it's wrong to do the same in order to obtain documents prior to their shredding. It might have been smarter to hire a private P.I. (ala Matlock or Perry Mason) to do the dirty work, but otherwise I think you need to do what's necessary to catch the incriminating documents before they become confetti (or before the drugs get flushed down the toilet).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Are these questions testing whether I'm a Replicant, or a spy, Mr. Holden?"
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
There's no evidence to demonstrate he did these things. So in order for us to assume he's guilty we have to also assume he's precognitive. It also describes it such that Microsoft "found" the evidence. That's got to be inadmissible, right? No chain of custody there it could just as easily be planted by them. Hope the trial has some evidence behind it as there's insufficient to point fingers either way, but more than enough doubt to clear him.
Hm. I've asked myself that question when I first heard how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Belluzzo ran SGI...
I suppose it all depends on what you see as being the "Right Thing". I would suggest that:
Now, in best Groklaw tradition, IANAL, however this seems to me that when it comes to fairness the guy might have been able to get similar information from 'dumpster diving' and certainly seems to have been vindicated. So what we're really seeing here is:
It would not surprise me if they try their old dirty tricks and try to put the US case on hold whilst they visit global MS friendly courtrooms to get some judgements onside in other jurisdictions just as they did with Lindows.
Bastards.
The sequence of events you list sound similar to what happened with Babylon 5 producer J.Michael Straczynski (jms):
- JMS had been speaking to Paramount about licensing his idea (1992).
- Paramount turned down his offer, but kept all his season 1 scripts and bible.
- Paramount subsequently are found to be using aforementioned ideas with a near-clone show called DS9.
This happens all the time in the world of television and movies, and I'm not surprised to hear the same thing happens in other industries too. The problem is that it's nigh-impossible to win a court case unless you have emails & documents..... and that's what Mr. Mullor was trying to obtain.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
Any opinions on whether this is bogus or obvious?
IMHO he did a stupid thing by taking that job. He had to sign employment agreements and contracts and they most likely invalidated his claims. And he certainly copied documents he was not allowed to copy as an employee.
If you've filed a patent, and you're about to sue someone I'm guessing generally actually you wouldn't seek employment at a company that is part of it. You know, what with it firstly being a completely transparent move, and secondly because you wouldn't be able to defend your patent when you're in jail for corporate espionage.
But it wouldn't be corporate espionage. So he downloaded documents at work that he had access to as an employee, but that he wasn't supposed to download. As long as he doesn't pass them on or act on them, he can probably be fired, but not charged with anything. However, if the documents contain evidence of wrongdoing on Microsoft's side, that kind of information is not in any way protected by the law. It's not protected by copyright law (the Unabomber tried to pull a stunt like that, claiming that letters he sent to victims shouldn't have been used to track him down because he was the copyright holder), and not protected as a trade secret (because getting away with a crime is not a competitive advantage protected by the law).
Yeah, common. I know a couple of "juvenile" book authors who pitched a series concept to Aaron Spelling which they called "Beverly Hills High." It was precisely the plot that Spelling subsequently used for the first season of "90210." But he never credited them nor paid them a thing. It was total theft. Nor were they able to find a lawyer who would give them good odds going up against Spelling about it.
That's what's so curious about the studios claiming their creative works should be protected from theft. The studios are in large part run by thieves like Aaron Spelling. Their complaint is akin to that of mobsters bothered by any competition with their rackets.
And in software, Microsoft operates largely on their model. It's not that theft is not in some instances unethical. But theft from someone whose own fortune derives largely from theft? Robin Hood was a good guy.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton