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."
Microsoft... vs... patent trolls.. who do I hate??
If we could see the court transcript, we'd have more info about why MS were fined x, y, z.
If someone has a PACER account, they could put the transcript on archive.org simply with the RECAP plugin:
* https://www.recapthelaw.org/
And then we could have a more complete picture on http://en.swpat.org/wiki/I4i_v._Microsoft
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Its just that this company isnt a patent troll. Its a former close partner to Microsoft.
HTTP/1.1 400
$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?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-biblical-vengeance-of-i4i/article1253054/
Six years ago, an unusual and powerful alliance approached a tiny Toronto software company with a fateful proposition. Microsoft was helping U.S. intelligence sift through relentless mountains of documents relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks but had few means to sort them out. This firm, i4i, had the software that could intuit crucial, revelatory patterns that its own software could not.
It wasn't long before Microsoft recognized the value of the firm's technology, and, as it is now famously alleged, pinched it.
Guessing you missed fact that the company had a product which was rendered obsolete when Microsoft included the product capabilities into Word.
The relevant passage:
"Custom XML" refers to content within the file that is of a different XML format, with a separate "custom schema" to describe that content. The problem with such content is that there is no way for a standard to describe how such data should be interpreted, as it is by definition in a "custom format" and can be any kind of data. That is why "custom XML" is not allowed in ODF documents, and that is one of the reasons why OOXML is such a miserable standard.
And this
Interesting, no? There's one more headline, but only to debunk, Matt Asay's Microsoft's 'Custom XML' patent suit could put ODF at risk. Actually, it doesn't, so far as I know. Custom XML was one of the reasons ODF folks thought the OOXML "standard" was crudely designed, and that it had no place in a standard. It was a big discussion, and basically, to the extent I understood it, the issue was this: that it was a short cut on Microsoft's part, so it wouldn't have to do things in the usual standard way but could just keep things as they were, dumping a lot of processing stuff into the format, where, ODF folks said, it didn't belong. The very name should tell you why.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Does i4i have an implementation of their patent?
This seems to be a product which is related to this patent. I don't know, slashdotters seem to be very quick to judge on the behalf of MS, claiming that i4i are patent trolls. I haven't seen any proof that they are, and until I do I'll consider this suit valid. Ironically those just spewing the phrase "patent troll" without providing any proof nor data are what? That's right -- trolls themselves.
I am the lawn!
We lose.
I RTFA (sorry, I know I shouldn't) before making the comment about contempt of court. The summary is roughly a duplicate of the first half of TFA, but the telling phrase is in the second half:
"All these arguments were persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions," Davis said.
Directly violating a court's instructions is generally contempt.
CLEARLY lawyers not only DO NOT get punished, but are REWARDED for behaving in this manner.
The good guys (that would be us the humans, as well as the named other parties in the cases) all lose, and the unethical lawyers win.
Cheers,
Ehud
I will not feed the trolls... but... it's like a train wreck...
Just because you wouldn't use the product doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can call it Crapware all you like, but if they were making money off it, then that's all that matters. They were granted a patent on it, then Microsoft chose to implement it natively into Word, which invalidated their product. They did this without paying for the privileges. My guess is that some MS developper took it as a given that this was a good idea, and threw it into Word. The execs liked it, and they didn't bother to research whether there was competition or a patent on it.
If you were a developper on some widget for a program, you'd patented the methods and technology, and were making your livelihood off it, you'd be screaming bloody murder. The damages are a little excessive, but this is a company that's been put out of business by a developper with significantly more resources available to them deciding to ignore its patents. That's kind of why patents exist in the first place.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
It's willful infringement, which means they were fully aware of the patent and decided to do it anyway. Before we just dismiss i4i as trolls, maybe we could consider the possibility that they did something innovative and Microsoft flagrantly ripped it off, giving them the finger and saying, "If you don't like it, we'll see you in court." Maybe you don't like software patents, but they are the law. i4i layed down a lot of money to get a patent issued because the current state of the law made that patent valuable. Seriously, everybody on /. seems to assume that every single patent infringement lawsuit is a "patent troll." But patent law is a lot more complicated than that. And I imagine that about nine out of ten people here would have the exact same reaction if Microsoft ripped off their product: let's sue.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Ahhh. So the charges are "felony interference with a business model". Got it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.