Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost $40 Million
SpuriousLogic writes "The judge who banned Microsoft from selling its Word document program in the US due to a patent violation tacked an additional $40 million onto a jury's $200 million verdict because the software maker's lawyers engaged in trial misconduct, court records reveal. In a written ruling, Judge Leonard Davis, of US District Court for Eastern Texas, chastised Microsoft's attorneys for repeatedly misrepresenting the law in presentations to jurors.'Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages,' Davis wrote. The judge cited a particular incident in which a Microsoft lawyer compared plaintiff i4i, Inc. to banks that sought bailout money from the federal government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 'He further persisted in improperly trying to equate i4i's infringement case with the current national banking crisis implying that i4i was a banker seeking a "bailout,"' Davis said."
On one hand, it's fun to see Microsoft getting punished, on the other, I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
I think Microsoft might have made out better this way anyway. Arguing to invalidate the patent could have hurt them and their practice of patent filing and arguing Bilski could have really blown the lid off of things. In short, they more or less had to defend "software patents" while at the same time finding a legal argument against the plaintiff.
Instead of trying to educate the jury that the whole point of "Extensible" markup language is to extend and customize the files the lawyers were pulling stunts. In the tragedy of errors, I cant decide who to root for.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
$2 million for mp3s, $40 million for a bad argument.
Do these judges send a $10 million bill to toilet paper companies when they have to wipe their backside?
the law is on their side
Extending the "Extensible markup language" seems like a no-brainer. It is in the name of XML!!! And I thought patents had to be non obvious !
Not really sure on which side the law is on that one. That said, explaining this to a judge might prove to be a complex situation.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I don't have points to mod you up, but the judges do need to have their heads and their asses examined.
In this case, I completely disagree.
Microsoft made the argument that a company having a patent but not producing anything shouldn't be able to ask for monetary damages. That is wrong. I can make an invention even though I know clearly that I don't have the money, talent and intention to turn this into a product that can be sold at profit. If I am better at inventing than at marketing it would be ideal to invent things and sell those inventions to others who are better at marketing. The fact that Microsoft uses the invention proves that it is worth money and that damages should be paid.
This is of course completely independent of the question whether the patent should be invalidated, or whether Microsoft is infringing on the patent. It is quite possible that a court outside Texas would have judged in favor of Microsoft, and stupid software patents should be (but are not) invalid, whether they are owned by Microsoft or used to extract money from Microsoft. But that wasn't what the judge complained about: He complained that Microsoft repeatedly told the jury to not award damages for reasons that were not in agreement with the law.
And since they tried to influence a court decision that was about $200 million, making them pay 20 percent for trying to convince the jury to do something that is clearly wrong seems fine.
We lose.
It's not the job of judges to determine the value of a law, only to interpret them.
Patent law doesn't say you have to be using the patented device to sue. It never even hints at it. The judge has no authority to make it say that. Microsoft was fined for pretending the law does say or hint at that.
It's been a long time.