Slashdot Mirror


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."

22 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.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:One can dream by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the biggest Hippocrates founded modern medicine.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    5. Re:One can dream by Tawnos · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  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. cleverly... by catmistake · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:cleverly... by Quothz · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Fixed that for ya.

  4. Karma by NfoCipher · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    1. 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?

    2. Re:Karma by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Re:$388M or $38M? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  8. He who lives by the patents... by tangent3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...die by the patents.

  9. 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.

  10. WGA by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  11. Re:Yes, that would be ironic... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Re:Yes, that would be ironic... by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.