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

[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

[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

[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: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.

Online Activation DRM

[El_Muerte_TDS]

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

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?

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: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: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.

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: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.