Microsoft Ordered To Pay $388 Million In Patent Case

jeffmeden writes "BusinessWeek reports today that Microsoft suffered a loss in federal court Monday. The judge rendering the verdict ordered Microsoft to pay $388 Million in damages for violating a patent held by Uniloc, a California maker of software that prevents people from illegally installing software on multiple computers. Uniloc claims Microsoft's Windows XP and some Office programs infringe on a related patent they hold. It's hard to take sides on this one, but one thing is certain: should the verdict hold up, it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million."

Comments

One can dream

[WgT2]

...should the verdict hold up it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.

Yeah, but don't count on it.

XP has been around for a loooong time for a Microsoft OS. I'm sure they've made more than $388 million off of it... seeing as how they've been holding on to several billion in cash for several years now.

This doesn't even consider Office sales.

Re:One can dream

[Opportunist]

OP talks about $388m being made extra due to copy protection. I.e. $388m they would not have made if they did without it. And I highly doubt that.

Has copy protection ever kept anyone from copying? At best, the "casual copier". Who has in this case even a free alternative, if he can't figure out how to torrent a version that works.

Re:One can dream

[msormune]

That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.

So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.

Re:One can dream

[pegdhcp]

Is there a copy protection in XP? Although I am using legitimate XP(you know, game producers, they would newer learn...) at home and Linux at work, from what I see in the market I was not aware there was a copy protection aside from crappy product code control and crappier MS Update tricks they pull. I do not think neither of these "methods" deserve a Patent. So, although I cannot believe what I am writing but, if this is the whole matter, then the following claim by M$ is right.

We believe that we do not infringe, that the patent is invalid and that this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported

Re:One can dream

[darthvader100]

XP forces you to activate your copy of windows within 30 days or cuts you off.

If you do it via phone, the program gives you a number to type into your phone, and the phone program gives you a number to type into XP(based on your PC, and the time)

Leave the code for too long, and it wont work. Change 2 components of your PC and it may require reactivation

Too many people trying to activate the same copy of XP? stop providing keys for it...

Re:One can dream

[KGIII]

Bingo, got it in one. Additionally, I don't think Microsoft has to worry much about this one. By the time the appeals are exhausted, concessions made, and lawyers paid the company may well be defunct or have been purchased outright by Microsoft. They're about the only ones left with any money.

Re:One can dream

[timeOday]

So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.

So, at what point did that marginal additional argument against pirates earn Microsoft $388M?

Re:One can dream

[Meski]

XP tries to force you ...

Re:One can dream

[QuantumG]

WTF is an illegal copy?

Show me the law that makes installing a purchased copy of Microsoft Office on more than one computer illegal.

There isn't one, that's why they need technological measures and scare tactics to enforce it.

Re:One can dream

[Opportunist]

There is none yet. The pressure to push copyright law into the criminal code is heavy, and some countries are actually giving in already.

Re:One can dream

[msormune]

Good point there... I should have stated that I meant the actual breaking of the copy protection is illegal (well, it's illegal here in Finland, at least), not the copy.

Re:One can dream

[onceuponatime]

Microsoft could try Sarkozy's approach and offer to pay them one Euro in compensation. That's what the biggest hippocrates do.

Re:One can dream

[QuantumG]

I believe that even breaking copy protection isn't illegal.. distributing tools and publishing techniques may be in some places. Here in Australia, it's only illegal if you're charging people for the tools.

Re:One can dream

[Mathness]

It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.

Or just wanted a legal backup of a product already purchased.

Re:One can dream

[Anpheus]

I think even the most uneducated juries (perhaps I'm being too generous) would understand the difference between making a backup and installing 1 copy on ten different computers, and making ten backups of the original disc and keeping them safe.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

Um, pretty sure that breaking copyright is illegal. It's not criminal but it's illegal. Copyright law is, well, law. And breaking the law is illegal, by definition. So yeah.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

XP forces you to activate your copy of windows within 30 days or cuts you off.

It does? ...oh, you must have downloaded the home version. Get the pro one, MS knows better than to piss off big companies by making them do that shit; one big (10,000 desktops+) company switching away from MS is going to cost them a buttload more than a few home users getting a few more features.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

No, the biggest Hippocrates founded modern medicine.

Re:One can dream

[Daengbo]

I'm happy that as a Free Software user, I don't have to click through EULAs to use software. That, and I don't have to worry about this copy protection mechanism the suit was over

I'm willing to bet that the companies which provide my software won't have to worry about being sued over ths patent, either. That's one less to worry about for them.

Re:One can dream

[NerdyLove]

Some versions of Professional do this also. Corporate (volume-licensing) versions do not require activation.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Product_activation_and_verification

Re:One can dream

[techprophet]

In the U.S. at least, breaking copyright is illegal. But that's not the discussion point. The discussion point is copy protection. Breaking copy protection is by no means illegal.

Re:One can dream

[jonbryce]

Yes there is. You have to activate within 30 days or you can't use the software.

There are patches around that get round that, but if you run Windows Update, then from time to time, the patched copy of the relevant file will get updated with a real one, and then it will discover that you don't have a legit copy, and you can't use the software until you find another patch.

Alternatively it means you can't run Windows Update, and your computer gets left open to all the security exploits that it might otherwise fix.

Re:One can dream

[Colonel Korn]

That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.

So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.

Good idea, but it's not true in Microsoft's case. They haven't ever sued any individual end users for installing a cracked XP, so the idea of proving intent is moot. They have gone after mass producers, but in that case intent is already clear and the lock hasn't been broken yet, per se.

Re:One can dream

[filthpickle]

you guys need to search for better XP torrents. :)

Re:One can dream

[Ilgaz]

Imagine billions wasted in corporate image, support calls, downtime and even people lost to OS X or Linux which doesn't need such things.

I recently mistyped a Vista ultimate license and just while owner leaving for airport, I could barely notice a small font ''This copy of Vista will stop working in 3 days if not activated with valid serial''. I ended up holding laptop and reading the serial again trying to figure what letter I typed wrong.

People always assume OS X or iLife doesn't need activation or serial because it is assumed that it is a Mac owner will install it. Completely wrong. You don't get OS X major version upgrades free or being mac hw owner doesn't entitle you for anything. It is just clever Apple doing a magnificent PR image trick and also saving user and itself from serial number mess.

There are Windows switchers who lost their original OS X box and looking for OS X serial numbers at home or internet. Believe or not. When they actually figure there is no such thing, they say ''It seems I made the right choice by switching''.

Re:One can dream

[WCguru42]

They're about the only ones left with any money.

But I read a week ago that Microsoft wanted bailout money due to lackluster sales of Vista.

Re:One can dream

[Shagg]

Um, pretty sure that breaking copyright is illegal.

True. Good thing this has nothing to do with breaking copyright.

Re:One can dream

[wild_berry]

Your DMCA has anti-circumvention provisions, which mean that attempting to get around technology used to stop copying, i.e. copy-protection, is illegal.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

This is what I was responding to:

WTF is an illegal copy?

I was simply illuminating the fact that a copy of a product that was made contrary to copyright law could be referred to as an "illegal copy". Of course I'm not a lawyer yada yada so it may not be strictly correct technical usage but it's definitely valid common usage.

Re:One can dream

[Pharmboy]

Click-wrap has been held up in court.

Citation needed.

A cat can walk across the keyboard or mouse and "click ok", and no one can prove otherwise, so I doubt it would hold up in the SCOTUS.

Re:One can dream

[Tawnos]

That's why you read kdawson articles only for the humor. Facts are to be found elsewhere.

Re:One can dream

[Zordak]

Show me the law that makes installing a purchased copy of Microsoft Office on more than one computer illegal.

Ummmm... How about Title 17 of the United States Code? 17 U.S.C. s.106 grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. Section 501 says violating any of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (including section 106) is a copyright infringement. Installing a copy of Microsoft Office on your hard drive is making a copy of the program (in fact, even just loading it into RAM is making a copy), so you can only do that with a license from Microsoft. Microsoft granted you a license to install it on one computer. So installing it on more than one computer is an infringement of their copyright.

And no, section 117 won't save you here. That only permits additional copies for archival purposes, or copying into RAM as an essential step in running the program. It doesn't grant you the right to install on more than one computer.

Re:One can dream

[Zordak]

17 U.S.C. s.117 knows the difference too.

Re:One can dream

[Zordak]

Google ProCD from the 7th Circuit. A lot of other cases cite to it. And while copyright is federal, meaning these cases will often be in federal court, contract law is state law, meaning SCOTUS would be bound to follow the law of the state.

Re:One can dream

[mea37]

Section 117 may not save you WRT putting the program on two hard systems' hard drives (though it does make your comment about "making a copy into RAM" incorrect). Since typical programs these days will not function from the installation CD, I'd argue that section 117 also means I don't need a license to install the program on a single computer. (The theme at which I'm driving is, I don't think I need an EULA at all to use a program I acquire legally. But that's probably a broader topic.)

Given how section 107 has been applied to other media, it might make installation to multiple computers ok so long as those computers are under a single user's control. Yes, I'm aware that MS would argue otherwise.

Re:One can dream

[davolfman]

Contract law?

Re:One can dream

[PReDiToR]

Don't be hypercritical!

Or am I being a hypocrite now?

Re:One can dream

[RightSaidFred99]

Of course it does, don't be daft. You have a license to install the software on X machines (say in this case 1). When you install it on 2 machines, you do not have a license to _copy_ the software to the second machine.

Re:One can dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Violating a contract can make an action illegal, and all you have to do is check your contract (ie, license agreement) to see if you are authorized to engage in that particular conduct.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

Or am I being a hypocrite now?

I doubt it, isn't being hypercritical the *job* of a P. R. Editor? ;)

Re:One can dream

[ergo98]

That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.

This is patently (har har) ridiculously.

Copy protection is for exactly what the GP stated it was for -- blocking casual copying. It makes it a bit of a hassle to copy illegally (though there are numerous examples where it's much less hassle getting a cracked copy, and this is where copy protection loses its already mislaid way), or it adds additional risk that many aren't willing to undertake. That crack software might install trojans, or that cracked copy might come pre-compromised.

To the submitters query, I would imagine that even low-level activation type copy protection has been dramatically successful for Microsoft, especially in the corporate space. While it used to be common to buy the single copy of Office and it happens to get installed on many PCs, activation pretty much eliminated that, and really who is going to risk a crack on the corporate network?

And to your flawed analogy, the lock on your front door is again to make the thief's work less convenient and more fraught with risk. Instead of simply walking in, they have to search for entrypoints and then enter in a way that is dramatically more likely to alert a neighbor (like breaking glass or forcing in.)

Re:One can dream

[rts008]

Alternatively it means you can't run Windows Update, and your computer gets left open to all the security exploits that it might otherwise fix.

Firefox and WindizUpdate fix this handily. No problem.

Re:One can dream

[Tubal-Cain]

So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.

My DVD backups disagree with you. Now my discs can sit in a dark corner of a cabinet while I use and abuse the duplicates.

Re:One can dream

[networkBoy]

But the other half of those click-wraps indicate that if you don't agree to the terms of the license then you should click cancel and return the product. I don't know of any retailers that refund money on open software, so wouldn't that constitute the vendor not upholding their end of the bargain, thus voiding said contract? I went through this once and ultimately was unable to get a refund. The packaging was too vague to know if the software met my needs, and it wasn't until I placed the CD in my machine that I could access the CHM help files (that were not available on-line). At this point it became clear that the product was unusable, so I did not install it and tried to return it. The store said "it's been opened, it's yours", the manufacturer said "get your refund from the store, we can't cut you a check". IMHO that means that the EULA stating I could return it was void.
-nB

Re:One can dream

[david_thornley]

Sure, my house locks aren't perfect. They will stop the casual browser, and make sure that the average burglar doesn't get through the door just by unlocking it. However, they're by no means impossible to pick, and an expert might well unlock them with a pick as fast as I can with a key (the key sticks sometimes).

Thing is, most burglars aren't expert locksmiths. The few who are can get away with a lot, but they can't make a computer program they can pass out so a script kiddie with no skill can pick my lock. Therefore, discouraging most burglars has real value.

In software and copy protection, you're dealing with the experts every time. If it takes heroic effort to crack your copy protection, somebody is likely to do it once, and then everybody can get a copy quickly and easily. It may be worthwhile to stop casual copying, but unless you can make the copy protection really unbreakable (which is essentially impossible), everybody can get copies anyway.

Re:One can dream

[imemyself]

Corporate versions of Vista require activation :( (though it can be a multi-activation key or with a local server). This is one of the reasons businesses are hesitant to move to Vista.

Re:One can dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Portugal those licenses have no value, once you purchase a original copy of a piece of software (and it has to be really software because if the supplier consider it to be a service this law doesn't apply) you can install it on any number of computers you wish.
The only problem is that authorities don't enforce this policy on suppliers so if you have a problem you have to spend money to throw them in court.

Re:One can dream

[KGIII]

I think the only money they wanted was for a bridge that they were actually going to fund all of (and it is "spade ready" FWIW) but found that they could get potentially get some help. They'd still be paying the majority towards said bridge which would benefit the entire area. I can't really say as I blame them for doing so and I believe (I'm not certain) that the funds would actually be requested by the city and granted to the city for said project and Microsoft, instead of footing the entire bill, would be paying the remainder needed to complete the project.

That makes me curious about contact verbiage - I wonder who gets screwed with the overages when the project costs ten times more than it should as seems to be all too common with these types of projects. I imagine it'd be Microsoft given that they did the initial funding and all that for the bridge as I understand.

Re:One can dream

[Khyber]

This is why you ignore that court ruling, deny the bench trial and take it to a jury trial - bypass judges who are too stupid to understand technology and educate the lower people to get them to make the right decision.

Re:One can dream

[fractoid]

Oh, I thought it was because a brand new workstation runs about as well as a celery 400 trying to run Office 2k. :(

Sorry, but I haven't seen *anything* bog a computer down like Outlook 2007. And I've seen a lot of badly coded games.

Re:One can dream

[WCguru42]

Or a week ago was April 1 and whoosh.

Re:One can dream

[msormune]

Yes, but the idea is still the same: For each case, you must have a single person or a few to commit the break in or copy protection breach. In each case, there's a specific person or a group that did it. That's the whole point. And that's really illegal: the breach, and not the actual copying in most parts of the globe.

And you should see the tools burglars have :) They have come a long way from a crowbar and simple lock picks. For most modern locks there are specific tools that open the lock pretty fast. Without the tools, it can be very hard.

Re:One can dream

[Zordak]

That's kind of a different issue though. You're talking about your ability to not agree to the contract. I absolutely agree that if you read the contract, say "Decline," and don't install, you can't be bound by it, and you should be entitled to a refund of your purchase price. Perhaps some day we'll get there. But I was talking about being held to the EULA after you click "I Agree" and install the software. In that case, most cases have held that you've agreed to whatever it says.

Re:One can dream

[networkBoy]

I completely understand you point, but in effect I'm saying that if it's not a two way street, then neither direction should be allowed to be binding. That simple.

(of course I realize that just because it's right/just/fair/unjust/mean/unfair has no bearing on the illegal/legal aspects).
-nB

Re:One can dream

[retchdog]

You have it backwards. Breaching the contract is (probably) illegal, though it doesn't fall in the category of a crime. It's (probably) a civil violation nonetheless.

Thanks anyway, u illiterate fuckwit. Die in a fire.

Re:One can dream

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, you're from Australia. That's why you're so annoying.

Re:One can dream

[david_thornley]

Suppose the idea is the same. Once a master hacker breaks copy protection, anybody who wants a copy gets one. When a master burgler opens my front door, every front door in the world springs open and cannot be closed. I think the ideas are different.

Re:One can dream

[Mista2]

I've only installed my copy of windows 2008 server on one "Computer", it just happens to be running VMWare ESX3i as it's primary OS 8)

Re:One can dream

[rtb61]

Which brings an interesting point to this patent suit. All M$ really needed to do was prove in court that it's method for preventing people from installing software upon mutiple computers doesn't work and as such does not infringe the patent which covers actually preventing it from happening rather than temporarily slowing down the process.

M$ should have no problem at all in demonstrating that windows is coded so poorly, pretty much in line with it unwarranty, that the software is not pretty much not really capable of doing anything in the legal sence ;D.

Yes, that would be ironic...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.

XP was released in 2001. 400 million copies were in use by 2006. Assuming a paltry $1 profit on every copy sold (it's way higher, but just for the sake of argument), they have already broken even 3 years ago.

That doesn't even include the Office cash cow.

Sorry, it is actually anti-ironic. Anironic. The opposite of ironic. Cinori. Aronic.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[afidel]

You're missing the point, nowhere near 100% of Office or Windows sales can be attributed to the anti-piracy measures built into their activation systems. In fact I would suggest that the number is near zero as pirated copies of Windows and Office releases are available for download before the product even launches for all who care to pirate them. So now Microsoft has the cost of developing the activation system, the cost of maintaining the activation servers, the cost of implementing Genuine Advantage, and now the cost of this judgement. All because some PHB honestly believes that Microsofts paltry activation systems significantly contribute to revenue retention and growth. Much of the software industry has been infected with the notion since before the days of MS DOS despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[jimicus]

You're mis-counting.

Your numbers would hold up if you assume that every single person on Earth who uses XP (except, presumably, the person who purchased the first copy) had pirated their copy from this first person.

The set of numbers you want is people who:

• Planned or attempted to pirate XP but was put off by the anti-piracy measures and instead went and purchased a legitimate copy (including those who were sold an illegal copy in good faith by a dishonest supplier).
• Purchased a legitimate copy which was incorrectly marked as pirated and when Microsoft told them to suck it up and buy another copy, they did so

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[dontmakemethink]

Oh come on... $388M is like a parking ticket to Microsoft. They're only appealing the decision to dissuade the hundreds of other would-be claimants from filing the thousands of pending 9+ digit suits against them. They employ more lawyers than programmers ffs!

Now more than ever, their shareholders are screaming for them to make more money, not better software! What is M$ better at, making money, or good software?

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[infinitelink]

I think you're missing the point. Most people aren't just sub-literature (technologically) compared to Slashdotters; most people don't even seem to understand when the tiniest thing goes wrong that they can Google an answer or go to "help" on the menubar or through the Start--> avenue. Most people seem not even to understand when a browser doesn't pop-up a window regarding a download that they should check their download folder (such that at work someone keeps clicking links furiously so that we find a ton of copies), if they even realize what a folder is. People are idiots when it comes to technology: Microsoft doesn't just understand this, but unlike linux crowds, they don't mock you for it. Also knowing this, the barest appearance of activation schemes is enough to deter most people, and that's the point.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[AnalPerfume]

Microsoft are the richest corporation on the planet (to my knowledge) but their income is fading. They are losing money hand over fist for all sorts of reasons. Their monopolies in various sectors are being challenged by competitors, their influence is ebbing away like a cut they can't stem the blood flow from.

For many years they've been able to demand a high Windows fee on pre-installed PCs, with hardware costs falling so much, then netbooks they can't demand such a high price.

Yes they have a lot of money now, but don't assume a fine like this is just small change to them. It'll hurt because their ability to recoup it quickly is diminished.

They have shareholder dissent, with people demanding better returns, so an almost $400m fine going OUT is not good for the shareholders who want that $400m going IN to the company.

Personally I'm waiting on the class action suit against Microsoft in every country on the planet for damage due to botnets / malware / spam. That one would REALLY hurt them.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Microsoft are the richest corporation on the planet (to my knowledge)

Not even close. 1/2 the size of Exxon, smaller than Walmart or Procter & Gamble.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[johnsonav]

Microsoft are the richest corporation on the planet (to my knowledge) but their income is fading. They are losing money hand over fist for all sorts of reasons.

What are you talking about? Last year, MSFT's total revenue was $60 billion, compared to $51 billion for FY07. Gross profit was $48.8 billion versus $40.4 billion. And, net income was $17.7 billion versus $14 billion. Their income is not fading. And, they aren't losing money hand over fist.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[melikamp]

This is a very large parking ticket, more than 2 percent of their net income in 2008.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[gbjbaanb]

Its easy to say they are losing money. Q4 2008 net cashflow: $-2bn. Part of that loss was down to financing and investing activities. If they portfolio's like the rest of ours, next quarter will be a lot more lost than that!

So if you lose 2bn one quarter, maybe 3bn next quarter... pretty soon you're going to be down to your last billion in the bank. That's how companies go bankrupt, unless they can pull round their expenditures to cover this (and persuade everyone to upgrade to Win7: analysts expect MS to gather £1.5bn in revenue from Win7 sales), they could be on a downward trend over the next few years. Remember, no-one gives a hoot what you did in the past, financials are entirely focussed on your future prospects.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[jonbryce]

Their cash mountain has just about vanished though.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[westlake]

Their income is not fading. And, they aren't losing money hand over fist.

Microsoft also has Exxon-Mobil grade corporate credit. Not generally the sign of a failing business.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[johnsonav]

Its easy to say they are losing money. Q4 2008 net cashflow: $-2bn. Part of that loss was down to financing and investing activities.

Well, if they hadn't bought back $9 billion of their own stock, they would have had a net cashflow of +$7 billion. So, they're not losing money; they're buying back stock, something that has nothing to do with the strength (or lack thereof) of their business.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[marcosdumay]

"So if you lose 2bn one quarter, maybe 3bn next quarter... pretty soon you're going to be down to your last billion in the bank."

By pretty soon you mean some 20 quarters away (5 years).

Of course, I don't want them disrupting everything all around all this time, but MS is quite a hard bully to defeat.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[johnsonav]

Their cash mountain has just about vanished though.

Are you talking about the $20 billion they currently have in the bank? Because, that seems like quite a mountain to me. Yes, it has gone down, but they're buying back billions of shares of their own stock. It's not like they're losing the money.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[AnalPerfume]

I stand corrected, I should have said "one of the richest". Several years ago I thought they were the richest, maybe I was mistaken then, or maybe karma has caught up with them to some degree. The point is still valid however.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

And so: why is its market capitalization at $172bn now, while it was at $300bn one year ago?*

* from wikipedia

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[sgtrock]

Odd, isn't it, that despite the more or less continuous stock buyback program for the past 10 years, the price of their stock has remained stagnant? I've often wondered about that...

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[johnsonav]

And so: why is its market capitalization at $172bn now, while it was at $300bn one year ago?

Two reasons:

The first is growth. MSFT isn't growing as fast as it once was. It's a mature company, and cannot sustain the rate of growth it once did. But, just because it isn't growing as quickly, does not mean that it is not growing and making money.

The second is that there simply isn't enough money in the stock market to sustain their previous stock price. The entire market is down 50% And, bear in mind that market cap is only very, very, loosely correlated with the strength of the underlying corporation.

Microsoft's market cap has nothing to do with its profitability (what I was originally commenting on). Microsoft continues to make money. Look at its balance sheet.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[mgblst]

Yes, good point, because if there was no copy protection on Windows or Office, then EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE PIRATED IT! Fucking brilliant.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[johnsonav]

I think people have discounted the buyback because, well... what else were they going to do with all that money. If you know the buyback is coming, it gets priced in almost right away. Also, I think MSFT trades less like a tech company, and more like a utility. Instead of focusing on growth, they have to grow their margins, which is tougher.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Weeksauce]

That cash mountain that you're referring to actually belongs to the shareholders. Shareholder expect them to pay dividends based on said cash mountain in the future. The reason this mountain has been reduced is exactly because of that, they are paying that cash back to the shareholders in the form of share repurchases and dividend payments. The comapny doesn't own the money, the shareholders do.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[SnarfQuest]

Isn't Microsoft's calling it "Genuine Advantage" similiar to calling being strapped into an electric chair "Life Enhancement"?

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[quickOnTheUptake]

Your list appears to be using market cap. If you look at total equity (a better metric of current richness) the numbers are even stronger. Just as examples:
Exxon (XOM): 112.9B (Q4 09)
walmart (WMT): 65.2B (Q1 09)
Procter & Gamble (PG): 62.4B (Q4 08)
MicroSoft(MSFT): 34.4B (Q4 08)
AT&T (AT): 96.3B(Q4 08--higher equity dispite lower cap)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): 42.5B (Q4 08-ditto)
General Electric (GE): 104.6B (Q4 08 ditto)
Numbers from Google finance, most recent Q available.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[AnalPerfume]

Corporations look at growth from the previous year, greed demands that they make more this year than last; otherwise they are failing. They have been able to ream vast amounts of cash due to their monopolies and lobbying. This can't continue indefinitely. In part because some people are sick of their exploitation and are turning away from them, in part because they don't have the money to keep handing over to Microsoft for new versions of software they don't need. The recession in general means people in all sectors are having to question their expenses and make changes in spending they previously wouldn't have even considered. Microsoft licenses are one extravagant expense if your needs can be met with free software. If that wasn't enough, like any company Microsoft have had a lot of time to build a reputation and has gained many disgruntled ex-customers who now would like to see it fail.

Even allowing for no negative self inflicted Microsoft damage to their profit levels, the recession alone will make it impossible for them to reach their targets for several years to come. They will have several years of "missed last years profits by X%". Shareholders don't care how the money is made, all they want is a return on their investment. Shareholders turn a blind eye to a lot of practices as long as the money rolls in. The bright side in this for Microsoft is that while the recession continues, most companies will also miss their targets. Long term is the key.

The recession will force a lot of people to find cheaper or free alternatives to expensive licenses. This alone will draw many to Linux / FOSS software. After that upheaval and retraining, after seeing that it can do what they need, how many will be receptive to a Microsoft sales rep offering them more upheaval with a multi-million dollar price tag attached to change back? They will lose customers to both Linux and bankruptcy during the recession. They long term question surrounding Microsoft is how many they can win back afterwards, and how many they can convince to just hold off in the meantime.

People will always look out for themselves first. Do Microsoft shareholders really believe the CEO of a small business is going to favor giving Microsoft money than investing that same money into his own company to keep it afloat? Are they really that arrogant? They will do everything to save their business, customers and their jobs. If that means being forced to cut ties with an expensive software license, then so be it.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[dontmakemethink]

If you check their quarterly reports for '09, I'm betting sales are down. Regardless, their stockholders are losing money in other investments. There has never been this much pressure for productivity.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Facetious]

That $20B was $60B just a very few years ago. I do agree with you that they aren't losing money. I kind of wish they would. Bastards.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Facetious]

For a long time Microsoft was a growth stock, and their P/E of 30 reflected that. Investors really expected that to continue as their server "products" displaced Unix, foreign markets began to flourish, and embedded products opened up to them. I personally believe that their stock has stayed put for so long simply because all three of these growth strategies were stymied, most often by Linux and/or other F/OSS.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[gbjbaanb]

traditionally companies return money to shareholders in the form of dividends, it makes them attractive to long-term holders like pension funds, and is good for tax in some cases. However, recently it has become fashionable for the buy-back instead. Companies think it'll increase their share price and that's all that matters (to their executive's bonuses, naturally).

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[BitZtream]

Shhhhh, you'll agitate the fanboys!

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Raenex]

That cash mountain that you're referring to actually belongs to the shareholders.

I thought it belonged to the top executives who find ways to funnel the money to themselves.

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at that wikipedia page, you'll see that it actually was #1 in 2003

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[janwedekind]

Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it? They are using stock options to pay their employees. They are then buying back stock to prevent devaluation of the shares. This has enabled them to save a lot of money on salaries and taxes. Also see this article: Why Microsoft's Stock Options Scare Me

Re:Yes, that would be ironic...

[Mista2]

Microsoft actively sees pirated copies of XP/Vista as more of a competitor than OS X or any desktop Linux.

$388M or $38M?

[amazeofdeath]

PC World has the figure at $38 million, which one is right? News item here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162832/microsoft_loses_antipiracy_patent_case.html

Re:$388M or $38M?

[clarkkent09]

Every other news outlet says $388M: http://news.google.com/news?q=Uniloc so I guess PC World is probably wrong

Re:$388M or $38M?

[Hognoxious]

E&OE

Re:$388M or $38M?

[Anonymous Coward]

Majority vote doesn't necessarily make it right. If you want the truth, go to the source, don't just look at what most people believe.

Re:$388M or $38M?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. In doing research on spam for a paper, I came across a figure of x,000,000 in an article (I don't remember if it was a cost or a volume). Being studious, I checked the source - another article citing x,000,000. So I check that source and find it shows x,000,000 but it cites a paper from the original study. I check the paper and find the actual figure was x00,000. Yes, the first popular publication of the figure got it off by an order of magnitude, and all other popular publications just blindly copied it without checking.

TFA is lacking info...

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any evidence that they stole the code from this software? What exactly is Uniloc doing with this patent? does it even matter anymore?

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[Alain Williams]

That is not the point. It would be if this was about copyright, with a patent you can infringe it if you never heard of it, your programmers came up with the idea and coded it -- it just needs for someone to have submitted a patent application before the idea was published somewhere.

This is why software patents are dreadful -- it simply rewards the guy who filed the patent application first. This is especially true with patents about simple ideas or those that are obvious to someone asked to solve a particular problem -- most software patents fall into this group.

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[BiggerIsBetter]

Imagine if the GOF patented their design patterns. :-)

We'd be fucked.

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[tommi]

Text from the actual patent:

Systems and methods are provided for auditing and selectively restricting software usage based on, for example, software copy counts or execution counts. In one embodiment, the method comprises verifying whether the serial number for a software installed on a computing device corresponds to one of recognized serial numbers, and calculating a copy count (or software execution count) for the serial number. In response to the copy count exceeding a defined upper limit, a limited unlock key may be sent to the device. The limited unlock key may allow the software to be executed on the device for a defined time period, a defined number of executions, and/or with at least one feature of the software disabled.

This sounds to me like a really general way of copy protection, yep another rotten software patent in my books.

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[pbhj]

Which bit of the patent, could you at least mention the number of the patent you mean?

All patents include an abstract (in the UK this is often amended by the Patent Examiner as it's a searching tool not a strict part of the patent) and the body of the patent often includes extremely broad preamble.

The claims, as granted, are the vital part for interpretation of the scope of the monopoly - if you haven't got the granted claims you've no idea of the generality or otherwise of the protected "invention".

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[theantipop]

For the love of god, quote the claims not the description. The claims are the only legally pertinent language in a patent. You might still have a point (and probably do), but pointing to what looks like the summary of the description and saying "see I told you so" means nothing. Slashdot readers need a patent law 101 course.

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[Mista2]

I always wondered if someone had ever filed a patnet on the process of using some form aof mechanical switch, or button, that when pressed sends a code to a computing device that can be used as some form or input to a system. The data could then be stored and manipulated on some way, and results stored in memory, displayed on an output device or used in another operation.

Seems like many of the software patents MS have sued over. Method to describe shortening long filenames to 8 characters - ring a bell TomTom?

I think there is liek a Mutually Assured Distruction effect with patents. SO many of the big boys hold so many patents for just about everything, that is the unleased the lawyers all of the major companyes would just implode under the debt owed to the lawyers.
 

Re:TFA is lacking info...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot readers need a patent law 101 course.

If the patent description is so useless then why have it? More PTO BS.

EXTRA copies

[SmallFurryCreature]

The argument is that the EXTRA copies sold because of the copy protection might not be worth it.

EXTRA, not TOTAL.

Comprehensive reading, you fail it.

Re:EXTRA copies

[Joce640k]

The answer will be a resounding YES.

$388 million is about three days profit for Microsoft, as the person who wrote the headline ought to know.

cleverly...

[catmistake]

Microsoft will find a way to pay them with copies of Windows XP.

Re:cleverly...

[initialE]

which are worth $30/ea now.

Re:cleverly...

[Quothz]

Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the purchase of copies of Windows XP.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:cleverly...

[melikamp]

> Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the upgrade of installed XP copies to Vista.

Here you go.

Re:cleverly...

[donaldm]

which are worth $30/ea now.

Actually if you look at some of the prices of netbooks with XP HOME on against the same ones with Linux the price of XP drops to zero dollars or less.

Re:cleverly...

[FrankNputer]

Microsoft will find a way to make them pay - with copies of Windows Vista! Fixed that again for ya!

Re:cleverly...

[Ironica]

> Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the upgrade of installed Vista copies to XP .

Here you go.

FTFY.

Re:cleverly...

[melikamp]

ROFL

Re:cleverly...

[catmistake]

Well done. I thank you.

Karma

[NfoCipher]

This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around..

Re:Karma

[NoobixCube]

Serves the bastards right for saber-rattling about people infringing on their patents, and dabbling in the world of patent trolling. Troll gets trolled, now THAT'S a headline.

Re:Karma

[wild_quinine]

This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around.

This is slashdot, so an article in which someone does something generally accepted as bad but does it to Microsoft - and to their DRM, no less! - causes some kind of minor implosion.

Argghh.... Don't.... know... how ... to feel...

It doesn't matter two shits what this means to Microsoft, and it doesn't matter two shits what this means to DRM. This is definitely not a situation in which two wrongs somehow magic up a right.

This is just another story about why patents are damaging innovation in the USA, and on a global scale. But don't think that innovation enjoys being held back like this. If this situation is not fixed, we'll suffer - at most - a few more years of this BS, before the rest of the world moves on without the US.

Don't think it can't happen. If anything the current financial situation makes it more likely. Who's got the time or money to sit around being scared of the US Patent Office?

Re:Karma

[NoobixCube]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does create a warm fuzzy feeling to know someone who wrongs others gets a little of it back. I don't approve of software patents, don't get me wrong, but it is kind of funny that Microsoft spent all that time rumbling about patent infringement and then get slapped with a massive patent infringement bill.

For some reason, I just had a mental image of Marie Antoinette being drowned in a vat of cake-mix...

Re:Karma

[Clover_Kicker]

$300 million is peanuts to MS, it's more like chucking a stale cupcake at Marie Antoinette.

Re:Karma

[cyber-vandal]

Sort of like hating fraudsters but having a good feeling about fraudsters being scammed themselves

Re:Karma

[firmamentalfalcon]

Patents are there to encourage innovation. What's the use of trying to think of new ideas when your competitor can just copy them once you're done. No company would have research divisions as they can just easily use the research of other companies. Research gives no solid benefit to a company if it can be easily copied so there would be minimal research.

It is only when these patents are abused that people get angry. Patenting trivial things sometimes give you a monopoly because it is very difficult to get around trivial things.

Re:Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever thought they might go after TomTom to pay for this case?

Re:Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

You already have companies moving their R&D departments away from the US and other countries that have approved software patents.

If something doesn't change then those countries will soon start to feel the economic impact of the blunderous decision of allowing software patents.

Not only will companies start more R&D ou side the US but many products will not be available in the US and the US will hence fall behind

Re:Karma

[LordLimecat]

A quick googling and a peek at an MSFT investor relations article brings this up:

January 22, 2009 â" Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $16.63 billion for the second quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, a 2% increase over the same period of the prior year.

A little quick calculation shows that $388 million is slightly less than 2.4% of that--which neatly wipes out that gain on the previous year.

Just because its not devastating to them doesnt mean its insignificant.

Re:Karma

[Hognoxious]

Patents are [supposed to be] for inventions, not ideas.

A carriage that moves without horses is an idea. A working model/prototype, or schematics to construct one, is an invention.

Re:Karma

[maxume]

You are using revenue for 3 months which probably isn't the best figure (they have to spend some of the increase in revenues in order to obtain the revenues). If you compare the $388 million to the quarterly income, it is a bit more than 9%, compared to annual income, it is closer to 2.5%.

I wonder if a patent system that was locked to development cost (say, you get to recover up to 50 times your development cost and then the patent expires) would be more sane. It doesn't seem like this patent could have cost much more than a few hundred thousand dollars (at the absurd top), so how does it serve society to reward them with hundreds of millions of dollars (ultimately, this money is coming from Microsoft's customers...)?

Re:Karma

[mgblst]

Yes, we hate fucking Microsoft, it has been like that for a while. We cheer when something shit happens to them. If you are really having problems with this then go somewhere else.

Re:Karma

[ascari]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does create a warm fuzzy feeling to know someone who wrongs others gets a little of it back.

For some reason, I just had a mental image of Marie Antoinette being drowned in a vat of cake-mix...

No, if I have my math right it's more like two wrongs = (right/388,000,000). Microsoft's official comment: "Mmm, cake."

Re:Karma

[wild_quinine]

Yes, we hate fucking Microsoft, it has been like that for a while. We cheer when something shit happens to them. If you are really having problems with this then go somewhere else.

Unfortunately for all its problems /. is still one of the more intelligent places on the web. You wouldn't think so, but go to yahoo answers or something, and we'll see you, sobbing, later that day.

I don't mind people being generally negative about MS. I can understand it. I don't have firm loyalties one way or another - maybe I should.

But I will say this: cheering on something evil in every victory against your favourite bugbear is stupid, short sighted, and self-defeating. That kind of nonsense shouldn't be welcome here, because it lowers the intellectual standard. We should always look to the good.

Re:Karma

[Prof.Phreak]

Two wrongs don't make a right...

But three lefts do! :-)

Re:Karma

[bkaul]

A carriage that moves without horses is an idea. A working model/prototype, or schematics to construct one, is an invention.

Mostly correct ... a particular invention is necessary as opposed to a general concept, but a working model/prototype and/or schematics are not what makes a valid invention.

In the case of a general concept/idea, it's really only the problem to be solved that's being described, not the invention of how to solve it, so there [should be] nothing to patent. What's necessary for a patent is that a novel way to solve the problem is invented. It must be described in principle, but there need not be a working model or prototype. Heck, it doesn't really even have to even be feasible to build one, though the patent is rather worthless if the invention can't be built, as its only purpose is to prevent others from building it without permission.

Re:Karma

[Plunky]

I wonder if a patent system that was locked to development cost (say, you get to recover up to 50 times your development cost and then the patent expires) would be more sane.

I don't think any such scheme would ever work, because companies would end up subcontracting the work out to a wholly owned subsiduary at massive rates and claiming to make a continual loss.

Re:Karma

[maxume]

I'm not real confident it would work, but that situation could easily be dealt with by requiring reasonable documentation of expenses (reasonable meaning, in part, that you don't get to charge yourself $1,000,000 per ounce for gold, or $5,000 for a person-hour) and only issuing patents to entities that developed them.

I'm not real concerned about the consequences of making the filing process somewhat burdensome, especially because some guy is his garage would be able to document actual time and materials fairly easily, but would have a hard time ginning up documentation for enormous dollar values.

Re:Karma

[BitZtream]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does create a warm fuzzy feeling to know someone who wrongs others gets a little of it back.

You know, I agree completely. However from the looks of the other front page story about Saddam and SouthPark, it would appear that very few other people feel the same way unless they feel they are part of the group that has been wronged.

Slashdot is an interesting place where its wrong to do almost everything, unless its being done to someone who is against OSS/Linux/GPL, then its completely acceptable to seek revenge.

Rather amusing, but still very sad.

Re:Karma

[Hognoxious]

It must be described in principle

That may be true in theory, but which is easier - to write out a description of how (for example) a 4 stroke diesel engine works, or to draw diagram(s)? Which is less ambiguous?

Online Activation DRM

[El_Muerte_TDS]

So, who's next? SecuROM, Valve, ... basically every DRM that uses online activation?

Re:Online Activation DRM

[furby076]

basically every DRM that uses online activation?

Blizzard imo. This judge is a moron who set very bad precedent - and now that they have precedent they can sue any company that uses this kind of registration. I see Adobe in the newspaper in the near future.

Re:Online Activation DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully this'll make people think about using LESS of this activation crap?

The judge must be in error ...

[AHuxley]

Microsoft researchers can show the fine should be decrease by 3-3000 times.
( from http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/08/1733206 )

This sums it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

"jury verdict"

I wonder if anyone in the jury had even the foggiest idea of what the patent was actually about?

Re:This sums it up...

[clarkkent09]

Off topic but interesting article by Richard Dawkins on trial by jury in general:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml

Re:This sums it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good arguments, compounded by the fact that in many jurisdictions participating in the jury system if you get picked is compulsory, so you get 12 people anxious to quickly agree on a verdict so they can get the hell out of there.

Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0

[N Monkey]

"jury verdict"

I wonder if anyone in the jury had even the foggiest idea of what the patent was actually about?

That strikes me as a real problem in the US system. How can a jury of average people really understand the intricacies of technology? If it takes a bright person 3 or 4 years to do a degree in the patent's subject area, what chance has the jury got to understand all these things in the time of a court case?

AFAIU, in some other regions these things are at least looked at by a board of people with some "skill in the art". Surely that must be a better way.

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this off-topic? MS bullied TomTom and got their way... nice to see them getting their due without being able to take revenge on Linux again.

Take sides?

[igaborf]

It's not hard to take sides at all. Software patents are bad. Period.

The only possible silver lining to this is that it helps demonstrate the badness of software patents.

(OK, seeing Microsoft discomfited is a little nice side effect, too.)

Re:Take sides?

[argent]

It's not hard to take sides at all. Software patents are bad. Period.

Indeed, I agree with Microsoft on this: "We are very disappointed in the jury verdict. We believe that we do not infringe, that the patent is invalid and that this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported," Microsoft spokesman David Bowermaster said in a statement. But of course that's because ALL such patents, including Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system, are invalid.

Re:Take sides?

[mjrauhal]

Exactly, software patents are bad, period.

Therefore, every time a major pro-software patent lobbier gets significantly bitten by them, it's good, because it deincentivizes said lobbying.

There may be an uncomfortable PR side effect, though, in that the lobbier can then say "look, we're on the giving end also". However, as the patent system slowly makes things more and more difficult even to the pro-patent lobby, I believe this slight PR effect is outweighed by said disincentive.

(Of course, the disincentive doesn't apply to lawyers, who are a major driving force of the lobbying in many a company too, but at least it'll make the lawyers' job of convincing the rest of the company that swpats are a good thing a bit harder, with the ship sinking from the weight of all the unproductive lawsuits.)

Re:Take sides?

[Elektroschock]

Software patents are trivial because what they protect is not scarce.

Microsoft gets the paycheck for what it resisted so violently, even with lobbyists in third nations: sane patent reform.

Read this IPwatch article to get an idea what is going on in the Microsoft community. Phelps says:

What we've tried to do with "Burning the Ships" is take IP questions out of the realm of arcane debate among lawyers and show real people, in the midst of a highly dramatic internal struggle at Microsoft, learning how to deploy IP for tangible business benefit. As one reader put it, the book is a "thoroughly entertaining and informative canâ(TM)t-wait-to-get-to-the-next-page read."

Marshall Phelps wants to turn Microsoft into a kind of patent troll, or as they call it "open innovation".

IPW: A basic lesson in the book could be interpreted as, 'We were getting hurt by others who had patents, so we used our market power to require partners to agree not to enforce their patents until we had enough of our own patents to start enforcing them the way we didnâ(TM)t want others to do to us.' Can you address that?

PHELPS: Remember, this was back before software patents were a fact of life. MS was just getting a real head of steam but wasnâ(TM)t at all sure patenting was the way to go.

So either Microsoft kicks its bastards out or it simply deserves to suffer from these fines of a rotten patent system.

Ah, this is Marshall Phelps. A dark side of IBM import.

Sure, the recent job losses at Microsoft will not affect their "creation of IP". Look at SCO! Developers leave your company and lawyers litigate you to the ground. Great business model.

Re:Take sides?

[Locklin]

It shows how well software patents work for Microsoft.

Big boys can pay $300 million, and go on to sue someone else -the games continue. If you can't poney up that kind of cash, software development is a risky business.

Re:Take sides?

[pbhj]

[...] but at least it'll make the lawyers' job of convincing the rest of the company that swpats are a good thing a bit harder, with the ship sinking from the weight of all the unproductive lawsuits.)

Did you notice that bit at the end of the article (I know, I know!) MS's market value increased by $4 billion in response to the news. I don't think it's going to hurt anyone at MS. Nope, don't know how that works.

Re:Take sides?

[Ironica]

There may be an uncomfortable PR side effect, though, in that the lobbier can then say "look, we're on the giving end also".

That would be easier for them to say if they also said "Ooops, yeah, that was infringement" instead of "What? That patent wasn't a REAL patent!"

They are fsck'ed and shares go up?

[thecarpy]

I do not really get all this crap about stock & shares ... I would certainly not put any money in that company ... Besides, since Microsoft have so harshly defended software patents, they should increase the fine 10 fold! Besides, product activation and GA and all that crap has "significantly" increased Microsoft's revenue stream, get the facts! http://www.klid.dk/statistics/mswin.html check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation .... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then .... wintards!

Re:They are fsck'ed and shares go up?

[AHuxley]

Its change in the fountain to MS

Re:They are fsck'ed and shares go up?

[Anonymous Coward]

check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation .... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then .... wintards!

Or... It's because the figures are 'projected' (i.e. estimated), and do not reflect what actually happened?

Re:They are fsck'ed and shares go up?

[Madball]

I do not really get all this crap about stock & shares ... I would certainly not put any money in that company ... Besides, since Microsoft have so harshly defended software patents, they should increase the fine 10 fold! Besides, product activation and GA and all that crap has "significantly" increased Microsoft's revenue stream, get the facts! http://www.klid.dk/statistics/mswin.html check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation .... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then .... wintards!

I'm sure the stinking pile of ME had nothing to do with that, nor the XP product itself, nor their other products, or anything else--it was simply the product activation that made them all that money. Correlation != causation. Oh, and if you were to buy stock in Microsoft, unless it's an IPO, you're not giving them any money.

Re:They are fsck'ed and shares go up?

[thecarpy]

I have bought a microsoft press book and a microsoft mouse (COM port mouse) many years ago, that's all the money they got and will ever get from me ... BUT, I just think that Microsoft is not something worth investing in because the future is looking gloomy for them, that's what I intended to point out, they are fsck'd and ppl buy shares? WTF??? ;-) they can only fall now and they are ... slowly but surely. That is why I do not get why ppl invest in them ... like investing in titanic while it is sinking ;-) ... wait a few years, that they stabilize, then invest, no way the shares will rise very much in the longer term now ... As for the statistics: If you took the time to read, you would have seen the professional side of things is much more important than the home business, XP and win2k were the same, except that xp had a fisherprice ui. So for businesses, that should not have made a great deal, however, look at the statistics ... they contradict what you say ... how many ppl upgrade from Me to XP pro? thought so, they go for home editions ... look at home editions ... ppl liked Me, preferred 98 - I agree, both lame excuses for an OS ... Me was a lousy attempt by MS to make XP look good, which it never has been! They even tried to hide the DOS foundation in Me, LOL! I liked win2k, lean, mean, sober, no bs or fuss OS and worked with it until 2003 ... then I switched to linux (desk)/MacOS(laptop) at work, which I used at home already since ~1997(linux) and 2001(MacOSX).

He who lives by the patents...

[tangent3]

...die by the patents.

Re:He who lives by the patents...

[MartinSchou]

Nah, that's an old one. I like the updated version much better:
"He who lives by the sword is shot by someone who doesn't"

software patents are bad, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> It's hard to take sides on this one
no, its not.
software patents are evil, no matter what.

its not just the case that companies are running the risks of getting sued,
it is also that many ppl that have ideas never bother realize the ideas because they cannot afford to take the risks that they will by accident infringe on someones patent.

it is a similar issue with countries where you are by law required to put your home address on your webpage (i.e. Germany), i would never launch a web page in Germnay because you never know which nutcases that will disagree with your views (that are expressed on the web page),
or are having problems with how the webpage is working and want to hold you responsible for it.

it all cripples ideas from the little persons, and only people/companies with much money can afford to take legal precautions, and it will lead to less innovative websites.

Re:software patents are bad, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this make sense to market shop then?

Say you're a small upstart developer, but you're uncertain whether restrictive and poorly thought out patents and stupid patent law would affect your product.

So...
Start two separate companies. First company would be in $ForeignSmallCountry which is not part of any restrictive trade agreement and has no or very little patent law affecting software. The company in $ForeignSmallCountry is where you do all your public sales, product right declarations, record keeping, and marketing from. Since sales are done online, $ForeignSmallCountry physical location doesn't matter. But set it up that $ForeignSmallCountry company contracts all their work on actual development and testing to $YourLocation company. The second company in $YourLocation does all the work on making the software. Call it a temp service or outsourcing company even though it's really not. Since $YourLocation company only does work for specifically the remote location, and all the primary records for the contracts for the work done by $YourLocation are in $SmallForeignCountry, make the jurisdiction limits work in your favor.

I'm surprised this kind of thing isn't being done already.

Re:software patents are bad, period.

[furby076]

it is also that many ppl that have ideas never bother realize the ideas because they cannot afford to take the risks that they will by accident infringe on someones patent

This is missing some information and makes your statement seem bigger then it really is. When a person get's sued for patent infringement they have to pay based on the profits they make. So if your invention makes you $100 you do not get sued for $1 million. People who come up with great ideas do not just say "aww f it cause I might get sued". What they can do is apply for a patent themselves. A lot of these submarine patents are people who come up with ideas, sit on it, never develop it and then when a big company creates a similar idea and makes money on it they sue. This is why you see big companies create a ridiculous amount of patents for simple ideas - cya.

it is a similar issue with countries where you are by law required to put your home address on your webpage (i.e. Germany),

Are you sure it is home address and not an address? So if I launched a website I could put a PO box or my business address? Also does it have to be on the website or on the registry for the domain name?

You still failed to read

[Anonymous Coward]

That three days is from ALL MS PRODUCTS.

Not just the ones purchased that would not have been purchased if XP and Office didn't have DRM in it.

Or would EVERYONE have "stolen" both XP and Office (and the XBox, mouse, keyboard....) each and every day?

Thick as a yard of lard, you.

Re:You still failed to read

[Joce640k]

Well, yeah, but it's a huge slice of their profits, easily more than half.

XP and Office have been around for many years, do you think $388m will worry them? Not even slightly (assuming they pay up, which they won't until several rounds of appeals, counter-lawsuits and bribery).

Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0

[asc99c]

You only have to read the comments on Slashdot to see that a lot of people with above average technical literacy massively mis-read the scope of the claims of typical patents. And having done this, they often then pronounce the patent 'obvious' and have a lot of ideas of what could be prior art.

As you say, when an average person looks at it, they could be expected to mis-read the scope of the patent in just the same way, but then not understand the obviousness of the ideas, or know of prior art.

So a lot of it is going to come down to the skills of the lawyers on each side of the argument. I guess this is why fighting patent cases in the court can get so expensive even if the technical side of the argument is often pretty clear to the Slashdot crowd.

Irony abounds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft loses intellectual property suit over intellectual property protection.

A huge slice???

[Anonymous Coward]

If such piracy were a huge slice of their profits, then their profits would have increased by that huge slice upon introduction of this DRM.

No such surge in profits has been seen.

The price hasn't dropped, so even MS don't think that there's been any gain from illicit copies being untenable.

Huge chunk? Couple of percent. Tops. If that (note most of the XP licenses would have been OEM purchases, not retail)

Re:A huge slice???

[Joce640k]

XP and Office are a huge slice of their profits.

Pirates are probably quite big.

This lawsuit? Insignificant.

misreading the patent scope

[Anonymous Coward]

that isn't a problem for slashdotters.

When starting off litigation, the abstract is used to draft the letter. Not the detail of precisely WHY their work violates the patent.

So the owner of the patent misreads the scope of the patent in the hope that the receiver will settle for a smaller sum than the cost of pursuing redress in court.

WGA

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Does this mean I'll have to give up my Windows Genuine Advantage tool? I was enjoying the convenience of the frequent black screens, nag screens and reboots.

Re:WGA

[bigdrf]

Because XP is soooo amaazing, I've had to re-install office so many times on the same computer that I had to call microsoft to beg them to allow me to install the software again. I'm glad they finally have to pay up.

The summary is incorrect

[Bryan Ischo]

It's actually easy to take sides on this one. Software patents are WRONG, and so I'm on Microsoft's side. For once.

Re:The summary is incorrect

[Qubit]

Software patents are WRONG, and so I'm on Microsoft's side

While I agree that the Supreme Court should run software patents through with a sword and throw them down their elliptical staircase, it's worth noting that the patent Microsoft was found guilty of infringing is used in Uniloc's "SoftAnchor, which provides copy protection for software and games to prevent the creation, distribution and use of unauthorized copies."

So Microsoft was found guilty of infringing a software patent on a DRM system.

I'm not sure whether I'm happier about the fact that Microsoft lost a court case for implementing DRM or the thought of Microsoft gearing up to use their own legal department to invalidate a software patent. It seems almost surreal...

Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0

[langelgjm]

I read an article a while back arguing something similar, i.e., we should do away with jury trials in patent cases because it's too complex.

It is complex, and there's a lot to be said against the common juror... but on the other hand, would it be better to leave it completely up to specialists? Then you might run into the same problem that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit experienced - a specialized venue for patents gets filled with a bunch of people who really like patents.

While I don't have much faith in my fellow citizen, I also don't have much faith that leaving the law up to a bunch of lawyers and experts will necessarily be better.

Or ...

[KwKSilver]

This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around..

He who lives by the sword ...

Re:Or ...

[RightSaidFred99]

...sues somebody else for X amount of money and pays the asshole who sued them with said X amount of money? Shit, if MS gets money out of TomTom they can use it to pay these trolls.

It's not like this company wouldn't have sued MS if MS hadn't sued TomTom.

Re:Or ...

[quantum bit]

He who lives by the sword ...

...gets shot by those who don't!

Link to the patent application

[Madball]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ As you can see, we can blame an Aussie for this one! Attaaaaaaack.

As for a jury interpreting the patent...

[Madball]

Good luck with that. Here's a snippet of patent (claim 1).

1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a 55 platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee 60 unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a plat- 65 form which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID.

Say what?

Re:As for a jury interpreting the patent...

[chriseyre2000]

So it only works if you know the password (unique id) which can be verified against a server stored password (unique id)? Sounds obvious to me...

That explains the software...

[geekmux]

...They employ more lawyers than programmers ffs!

Well, at least that helps explain their track record of software quality.

Now more than ever, their shareholders are screaming for them to make more money, not better software! What is M$ better at, making money, or good software?

Your Honor, in the case of Money vs. Quality, I bring forth Exhibit A, a computer that is running Windows ME...

'Nuff said.

Hard to take sides?

[furby076]

It's hard to take sides on this one,

What is this more /. fud? Get a story posted on /. by saying "i am confused, I hate patents but I hate MS and this patent hurt MS". If you think patents suck then you should be defending MS in this case - otherwise you are a hippocrit. If you think patents are OK then you can cheer as MS got slammed.

Not knowing the exact nuances of this patent I think it is retarded and so is the judge for allowing a patent on preventing software frmo being installed on multiple computers. Well now this company is going to move onto other companies who do the same thing.

Re:Hard to take sides?

[marcosdumay]

There is no hipocrisy on cheer as MS got slammed by the same tool they created (or loobied toward the creation) in order to slam the small guys.

If there is any hipocrisy anywhere here it is within MS, by violating a software patent.

Re:Hard to take sides?

[furby076]

There is no hipocrisy on cheer as MS got slammed by the same tool they created (or loobied toward the creation) in order to slam the small guys. If there is any hipocrisy anywhere here it is within MS, by violating a software patent.

You are obviously an anti-MS fanatic who can't see reason (that's why you are a fanatic). MS created a tool and someone is sueing them YEARS after the tool had been established - a submarine patent. This is something /. users have stated they hate for many years. Now MS is getting sued by a submarine patent and you are saying "as they should". MS did not do anything hypocritical and you obviously do not know what that word means. What you are attempting to say "they created a tool that I do not like and now they are getting sued for it by a submarine patent, and since they are MS it is a good day". Except this jury set a horrible legal precedent so this company is going to continue to sue companies like Adobe, Blizzard and other companies which restrict registration of licensed software.
You fail.

Re:Hard to take sides?

[canajin56]

The tool he mentions isn't online activation, it is patent trolling. MS loves it. They published the spec for FAT and encouraged everybody to use it, and waited over a decade, mere months before it would expire, before going out and suing everybody because FAT was patented. And I do hope they bury Blizzard next, after Blizzard got a ruling that, contrary to the wording of the Copyright Act, it is illegal for your computer to copy a binary from HD to memory without a license, and therefore if you violate their EULA, running the program is copyright violation.

Re:Hard to take sides?

[furby076]

So what your saying is because MS/Blizzard got "bad rulings" other bad rulings should be made as long as it effects them? There we go - great reasoning at it's best. Instead of improving the system you want it to get worse...then you will complain when some company - which happens to meet your standard - falls victim to those standards you hailed as "good job".

BTW with regards to the Blizzard issue you are referring to people attempting to run WoW independently on their computers - it's Blizzards software they can dictate how to operte it. Don't like it? Don't buy it. I have a rule for people who come to my house - no smoking. If they don't like it they don't have to come to my house. Should the courts rule that I can't dictate what happens in my house?

Re:Hard to take sides?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way the system will be fixed is if the people who created it feel the same pain. Why that isn't obvious to you is beyond explaining.

Re:Hard to take sides?

[furby076]

The only way the system will be fixed is if the people who created it feel the same pain.

False

Why that isn't obvious to you is beyond explaining

Because you're an AC and that drops your credibility by a lot of mod points.

Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0

[furby076]

Defendents get to pick trial by jury or judge. So MS' dumb fault for selecting Jury. Judges dumb fault for not overriding them.

In Related News...

[halber_mensch]

Microsoft is now primed to buy Uniloc to recover its lost $388 million dollars, continue using Uniloc's technology without license, and smite those who dare to obstruct its omnipotence.

It's also been proven bogus in court

[Anonymous Coward]

So where does that leave us?

EULA are contracts of adhesion. They do not prove acceptance and they occur after the deal is closed.

And in any case, they are a civil tort problem. Which isn't an illegal action.

You definitely AREN'T a lawyer.

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[Anonymous Coward]

EULA are contracts of adhesion. They do not prove acceptance and they occur after the deal is closed.

Interesting... Can you cite a case in the US which has held this?

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[QuantumG]

There's no fucking consideration.. how can it possibly be a legal contract. For fuck sake, even if you're willing to accept that pressing a button is signing a contract, there's not even dual signing. Click wrap licensing is like the retarded urban myth form of legal nonsense that dominates the software industry. No-one would try this shit in any other industry because it's so fuckin' petty.

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[m.ducharme]

Some courts have already accepted that pressing a button is equivalent to signing, at least in some jurisdictions. Furthermore, you don't have to sign a contract to be found to agree with the contract. The contract doesn't even have to be in writing, to be legal. If a software company has gone to the trouble of writing a EULA, and then writing a wrapper around that EULA that limits access to their software, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they intended to be bound by that contract.

Click-wrap licensing most resembles an adhesion contract, in which one party dictates the terms of the contract, and the other party either accepts those terms or doesn't buy the product (or otherwise get the benefit of the contract). As unfair as these kinds of contracts may seem, they're common as dirt. Ever get a claim ticket when you park your car in paid parking? Chances are, you just agreed to an adhesion contract. Paid full price for a product without dickering? Adhesion contract. Those warranties that come with your products, that you don't bother reading? Again, adhesion contract.

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[Khyber]

Many California courts have nullified EULAs. Do you read /., digg, or reddit, or do you just come to post nonsense?

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, have you read Pro CD? It's not a myth, FFS. Clickwrap and EULAs are enforceable contracts. I'd expect anyone that knows about the concept of consideration would have read Pro CD.

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[Anonymous Coward]

name one - seriously. This is the first I have heard of it.

Re:It's also been proven bogus in court

[Khyber]

NEXCESS NET is about to lose in arbitration over their EULA, the end result may be total nullification of their EULA.

If things continue the way they are against EA concerning Spore, odds are their entire EULA will be null and void.

I actually participate in the CA court system. I've watched EULAs get knocked down. I just helped a guy in a small claims court concerning his EULA from his Volkwagen Auto Group computer diagnostic software. He doesn't have to abide by the EULA because he was duped into purchasing the software when he didn't need it - the EULA was found individually void for him because of the dubious nature of the sale of the software.

Re:Breaking Copy protection

[TaoPhoenix]

Depends on the country.

First couple lines of Wiki's entry on DMCA

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works

typo in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.

You mean the fewer copies not sold due to copy protection. Copy protection reduces, not increases, revenue. Microsoft lost twice in this situation. Copy protection patent holders should pay publishers (not get paid) to deploy their malware.

Judges follow law! Fine pales against market cap

[pbhj]

basically every DRM that uses online activation?

Blizzard imo. This judge is a moron who set very bad precedent - and now that they have precedent they can sue any company that uses this kind of registration. I see Adobe in the newspaper in the near future.

If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he.

"Well I find that Microsoft infringed your patent and so this court should award damages in due course .. but I'm not big on capitalism so I'm going to single-handedly overthrow the capitalist system in the USA and find in favour of the defendant, no award of costs.!" [gavel strikes the desk...]

What I don't get is this (from the article):

Shares of Microsoft gained 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $19.19.

According to tradingmarkets.com their market capitalisation is $174 billion, so their value increased $4 billion from the news that they were fined 388 billion for tortuous infringement??? Wtf? That'll teach 'em!

If any further evidence were needed that capitalism is contrary to good order then I think this is at least a good part of it.

what are you smoking?

[way2trivial]

most free software has eula's

it's a lot less restrictive than for commercial software- but they are present.

maybe not some dink single purpose app- but anything with an installer has an agreement at the head of installation.

Re:what are you smoking?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

If you're talking GPL, that's not an EULA, it's a *distribution* license. GPL specifically states you do not need to agree to it to use the software.

BSD isn't an EULA either.

Re:Judges follow law! Fine pales against market ca

[Thraxen]

"If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he."

But that's exactly the point, most tech people would argue that the patent is invalid because it's obvious. Which is exactly what MS tried to argue. Unfortunately we have too many people in the USPO and legal system that are not tech savvy.

Re:Judges follow law! Fine pales against market ca

[RightSaidFred99]

First, it's not a valid patent. Patents on obvious shit are never valid patents.

What I don't get is this (from the article):

Shares of Microsoft gained 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $19.19.

According to tradingmarkets.com their market capitalisation is $174 billion, so their value increased $4 billion from the news that they were fined 388 billion for tortuous infringement??? Wtf? That'll teach 'em! If any further evidence were needed that capitalism is contrary to good order then I think this is at least a good part of it.

You don't understand capitalism, that's all. You think this particular news is what's going to drive MS's stock price because the article mentioned it. This judgment has nothing to do with MS's stock price rising or falling today.

In short, their stock didn't fall "from the news", so you're begging the question.

Multiple Office copies

[David Jao]

Show me the law that makes installing a purchased copy of Microsoft Office on more than one computer illegal.

Office is a bad example because even Microsoft explicitly grants the right to install retail Office on a second laptop.

From the Microsoft Office FAQ:

Can I install my copy of Microsoft Office on two laptops?

Yes, the licensed device may be a portable device. The secondary portable installation right is for use of the primary user of the first installed copy only and must be on a portable device. If you are the primary user of the licensed device, you may install a second copy on another laptop, but the copy of Microsoft Office on that laptop may only be used by you.

I can't blame 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no Microsoft lover but there is something wrong with a world where a software shop needs to employ more lawyers than programmers. The patent is probably utterly trivial, like it was for the spreadsheet/database thing, but you still need lawyers to defend yourself...

Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0

[BitZtream]

Fortunately, in most cases a degree isn't as helpful as common sense. If you removed the lawyers and put the information forth to the jury without a bunch of legalese and bullshit, I have a feeling most of them could make a proper choice.

As far as having a degree, I know FAR more people working with technology that have a degree for their field and are FAR more clueless than the people without them. Having a degree does not mean you have a clue, it means you paid someone for several years to give you a sheet of paper saying you paid them for four years and didn't quit.

Re:Judges follow law! Fine pales against market ca

[pbhj]

No I accept that I ignorantly imagine investors care about a companies actions rather than assuming the stock market falls and rises on the random whim of hot-heads flaunting other peoples money.

Strategies for proving lack of access.

[tepples]

It would be if this was about copyright, with a patent you can infringe it if you never heard of it

Copyright acts much the same way. Even though a finding of copyright infringement does require access, the burden of proof is on the alleged infringer to prove that he never had access to the plaintiff's work. In the case where the plaintiff's work has been published, I've never read about any viable strategies for proving that.

Taking side...

[mathfeel]

Hard to take side?
If you are unadulterated M$ hater, you celebrate.
If you are free software advocates and software-patent hater, you kick and scream.
Was that so hard?

OS X activation

[falconwolf]

People always assume OS X or iLife doesn't need activation or serial because it is assumed that it is a Mac owner will install it. Completely wrong. You don't get OS X major version upgrades free or being mac hw owner doesn't entitle you for anything.

OS X does not need activation, though without hacking it you can't install it on non-Apple hardware. You can even install it on more than one Mac. As for being free, that doesn't really have anything to do with activation.

Falcon

Re:OS X activation

[Ilgaz]

It is not free, that was what I was telling. Also somehow, OS X users seem to choose Family license if they will install it to more than 1 mac, all by their choice. It is not like OS X has anything to check for it.

It is completely opposite of MS and we see who wins consumers heart (and even money).

Microsoft stock price

[falconwolf]

that despite the more or less continuous stock buyback program for the past 10 years, the price of their stock has remained stagnant?

Except MS stock prices haven't remain stagnant. Microsoft's 52 week high was $32.10 and 52 week low was $14.87. On 24 December 1999 it closed at $58.71. Now that doesn't include any stock splits that may have happened.

Falcon

Re:Microsoft stock price

[sgtrock]

So their overall performance is even worse than I realized? Wow.

Re:Microsoft stock price

[falconwolf]

So their overall performance is even worse than I realized? Wow.

The MS stock price has gone down. But back in 1999 I don't think Microsoft paid dividends. The earliest this shows MS paying a dividend was in 2003. Before then MS kept the money. This says MS has consistently increased dividends since. There was also a stock split in 2003. It was a 2 for 1 split and the day before the closing MS stock price was $48.30 and after the closing price was $24.96.

Falcon

patents

[falconwolf]

I wonder if a patent system that was locked to development cost (say, you get to recover up to 50 times your development cost and then the patent expires) would be more sane.

Patents are the problem. At one tyme they may of helped but now they delay progress. However if patents were somehow tied to development costs it wouldn't take long before MS and most other commercial software companies start using Hollywood accounting.

Falcon

Patents are there to encourage innovation.

[falconwolf]

Now they discourage innovation. Nobody knows that if they innovate and create something new someone else won't slap them with a lawsuit and accuse them of infringing on a patent.

No company would have research divisions as they can just easily use the research of other companies.

If no companies did research no company could take it.

Research gives no solid benefit to a company if it can be easily copied so there would be minimal research.

I see at least two problems here. The first is that the inventors have the First mover advantage. Secondly there's still trade secrets.

Falcon

working models for patents

[falconwolf]

What's necessary for a patent is that a novel way to solve the problem is invented. It must be described in principle, but there need not be a working model or prototype.

Patent aplications used to need a working model.

Falcon

market capitalization

[falconwolf]

According to tradingmarkets.com their market capitalisation is $174 billion, so their value increased $4 billion from the news that they were fined 388 billion for tortuous infringement??? Wtf? That'll teach 'em!

This actually happens frequently. In this case analysts may have expected a larger fine. Something like this happened to Apple stock some months back. Analysts expected Apple to report low earning but when they did announce earnings they were higher so the stock market drove up share prices.

Falcon

I do not get why ppl invest in them

[falconwolf]

People invest in businesses to make money and Microsoft still makes money.

Falcon

Re: I think that was nine days ago

[Douglas Goodall]

I don't suppose you read that nine days ago on April 1st?

Muwahahaha

[SL Baur]

Go ahead and mod me down. This is hilarious.

Re: I think that was nine days ago

[WCguru42]

ahem.

OS upgrades

[falconwolf]

It is not free, that was what I was telling.

Neither is Windows though. That I know of only open source operating systems have free upgrades. I was going to say OS X upgrades are cheaper than Windows upgrades but I see Amazon has Windows Vista Home Basic with SP1 Upgrade for $78 which is the same as the Mac OS X v 10.5 Upgrade Kit.

Also somehow, OS X users seem to choose Family license if they will install it to more than 1 mac, all by their choice.

Yea, the OS X Leopard family pack cost less than two Leopards, Amazon shows Leopard for $110 and the Leopard family pack as $134. Now there's nothing, except consciousness, that stops someone from buying the single Leopard license then installing it on a bunch of Macs.

Well, now I know where to buy Snow Leopard if I upgrade, from Amazon instead of Apple. Actually as a paid Apple developer, Apple Developer Connection registered, I get it free.

Falcon

Australian?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]by Uniloc, a California maker of [...]

Isn't Uniloc an Australian company?