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."

14 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, that would be ironic... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Yes, that would be ironic... by Facetious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
  2. Re:TFA is lacking info... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  3. Re:This sums it up... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  4. Take sides? by igaborf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.)

  5. Re:One can dream by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  6. Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0 by asc99c · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:One can dream by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. Re:TFA is lacking info... by tommi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

  9. The summary is incorrect by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  10. As for a jury interpreting the patent... by Madball · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  11. Re:One can dream by Daengbo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Put identity in the browser.
  12. Re:It's also been proven bogus in court by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  13. Re:One can dream by mea37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.