Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Ordered To Pay $388 Million In Patent Case

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pay-up dept.

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."

6 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. One can dream by WgT2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:One can dream by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:One can dream by msormune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Yes, that would be ironic... by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Re:Karma by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  4. Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0 by N+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.