Slashdot Mirror
$358 Million Patent Judgment Against Microsoft Overturned
eldavojohn writes "Last year, Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent hundreds of millions of dollars for patent infringement. Well, that award has just been overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saving Microsoft a considerable sum. But Microsoft isn't in the clear yet; the appellate court said that they did infringe on Alcatel-Lucent patents, but that those infringements did not warrant $358 million in damages. The case needs to be retried."
It wasn't 358M, rather it was 748M.
Epic win for M$.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Patently
The more stuff I read about patent litigation the less I understand why the corporations don't come to the conclusion that it doesn't do them any good. Patent law reformed reasonably, everyone would benefit (and, presumably, profit).
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Every time the bastards get slapped with an as ginormous as ridiculous patent infringement judgement as this, I hope they see the light and start opposing software patents.
Hey, a boy can dream.
It's 'funny' how a consumer can rack up a fine of a couple of million for sharing a few MP3's, to "send out a clear signal to copyright infringers". But for a repeat offender like Microsoft a fine of a few million (which is peanuts really) is somehow too high. It's great how the American justice system has its priorities straight like that. (Not only the American justice system btw, huzzah for lobbyists).
How do we get someone to put this and Jamie Thomas verdict together and look at things in perspective?
358 million $ > bribe.
I fail to grasp the concept of a multi-billion $ company (extorting money all the time) not having to pay 358 million $, but an X thousand $ (with 0 X 20) a year person having to pay 19,2 million $.
There must be less than 20 people working at Microshit^H^H^Hoft...
Is it just me or is this world really fubar?!
The case needs to be retried , so a great win for the lawyers on both sides.
Cruise TT
... I've got karma to lose, but when the EU take a couple of months to review the buyout of Sun by Oracle to assess the impact on competition, it's evil protectionism, but when a US court of appeal overturn the damages awarded by a lower court to a rightful holder of a patent, it's just sheer justice done to a strategic company. It absolutely doesn't matter in the latter case that the victim is EU based and the offender is an already convicted US based monopolist with a track record of shoddy behaviours as long as the road 66.
Are you actually trying to make sense ? .. you got to stop that shit , and i mean now :)
Dang it dude
Please update the post to clarify:
The damage award was tossed as unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, it's possible that on retrial, A/L will justify the subject award. Or produce evidence supporting more. Most likely, of course, is that the evidence will only support a lower award. But this decision was not substantive other than saying that the appellate court didn't think the evidence supported the award. There can well be new evidence (in theory) on the next round. And, again, anything can happen then. Saying now, though, that A/L's damages can't possibly be $358m is an over-simplification that is not quite correct.
As they say, time will tell. This one isn't over yet.
The patent in question is this one:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4763356.html
This is non-obvious?
Every day there are thousands of office workers who show clients where to enter information on paper forms, why is ok to replace the office worker with a computer and the paper form with a touch-screen form then call it novel?
Reducing the award in a case like this makes sense. Part of the problem with software patents (actually patents in general whenever you have complex devices) is that it's easy to step into the territory of several of them.
The "free-market" answer to this case would be that Microsoft should have licensed the patent from Alcatel. Assuming that Microsoft could have even figured out its product would be found infringing (it is not necessarily obvious in patent cases), Outlook probably involves hundreds of potentially patented features. If Microsoft were really to try and license each one, their licensing fees would quickly outpace any profit they could ever hope to make from Outlook. Everyone is going to say "Oh, just give me 8% of your profits, it's not that much", but when you have a hundred patents to license and everyone wants 8%, guess what, that doesn't work.
Patent holders often don't have any idea how much their patent is really worth, but since they have the power to simply deny people the use of it at any price, they tend to overestimate its value. Then, if a company like MS decides to ignore the patent (either out of ignorance, confusion, or strategy), they risk a whopping award.
No, reducing awards in cases like these is a good step. We might not like the fact that it happened to big bad Microsoft, but if it sets a precedent for how the CAFC looks at these types of awards in the case of complex products, it's a good thing.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Just get rid of all immaterial patents altogether, stick back to copyright for software / business methods, and only use patents in the physical world. Patents were never conceived to reward mere ideas, but factual industrial process ; patents are extremely useful to keep track of some non-obvious industrial techniques that would otherwise remain trade secrets, and be forgotten after a while. Their aim is to accrue global human knowledge and benefit mankind. The balance side of the deal is a time-limited exclusivity granted to the inventor. Nowdays, patents have been ripped open and gutted. They work backward. Most process described in the software realm are so fuzzy they don't describe any real secret 'sauce' necessary to make an actual software out of them, they reward ideas, and they're basically granted forever. The best way for the intellectual patent system to put itself out of its misery is to produce so devastating effects that the biggest patents holders (like Microsoft) suffer so much they beg mercy themselves.
What did ol' Billy Spend on legals? HE makes what $100/M each day I heard? So what is a lawsuit that is just 3 days at the office for this guy? I think he got a bit of testosterone after all. That must be the competitive nature of this guy. Who would have thunk? Well all of us! This guy is the definition of a shark. He has done it to everyone in his path.... What a capitalist. This is what happens to a boy who's mommy owns a bank.
Web Design + SEO
At least microsoft on the whole wouldn't...
Take the recent MS Word injunction. Now, we can argue about the validity of the patent in question there, but regardless of that point, everyone *knew* that MS would not have to cease and desist distribution of Word, not because the patent was bs, but because MS is just too resourceful and end the end, perceived as 'too big to fail'.
On the flipside, MS can crush a threatening smaller company even if the patent is flimsier. The smaller company will not have the benefit of as many legal resources to start with, and also would not have people thinking "I can't be the one to screw the largest software company in the US".
As it stands in the software industry, a vast majority of the financial resources are controlled by companies that can abuse their disproportionate share to game the patent system enough to win more than lose and feel confident they will always win more than lose.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
and yet again, it appears the only group to benefit are the f!cking lawyers. How surprising...
If the court determined that the verdict was sound but the penalty was too high, why not simply set a "sentencing hearing" to
determine a more suitable fine. Sending it back to trial means that it's back to square one.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
IANAL, but that's why they call them 'punitive damages'. Punative as in punishing. Punishing as in 'Don't do that again, dummy!" They're designed to make the loser think about what they're doing and change their ways.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
You're missing my point. If you have a complex product that might infringe on 100 patents, and you don't want to infringe and face these penalties, you're supposed to go to each patent holder and negotiate a license.
Not only is that time-consuming and expensive to do; not only might you not be able to track down each patent holder; not only might you miss some patent you might potentially infringe upon; not only might 99 patent holders be willing to license and 1 patent holder be unwilling; but even if everyone is willing to license, if each of the 100 patent holders wants 2% of your profits in royalties (after all, 2% is such a small amount, right?), it's impossible to license those patents and still make a profit.
Furthermore, the person who wants to license is basically at the mercy of the patent holder, since a single holdout can prevent the licensee from going to market, or force them to redesign their product at great cost.
If the CAFC is saying that in determining awards, the award amount should be linked to the importance of the patent to the overall product, this might give a signal to patent holders about the true value of their patents, making them willing to license those patents for more reasonable fees (since they will no longer be able to bank on huge awards if they win an infringement case). It reduces the incentive to simply be a holdout.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
This escaped my list somehow. I'll add it now.
If anyone has others, it's a publicly editable wiki.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Actually, they're meant to make OTHERS think what they're doing. Punishing as in 'Look, everyone, we punished them, but if you do that, we would punish you!'
The same as with jail for murder. It helps noone but the society: 'Look, if you kill, you go to jail! Wanna risk? Think again!'
I saw that someone had a problem, with someone else being anti-american. I love anti americanism, because everything about this country is wrong. I am not trying to attract flames, but I stand proud in my beliefs that anyone who thinks this has turned out to be a great country is an idiot. Take it how you will. Any country that will grant big corporations awards as outrageous as the thomas-rasset and other such cases, yet not punish microsoft in the same outrageous way, has got it all wrong. When the decline of america cometh I will applaud as the people finally re-take control, after a revolution of course. One last thing, we don't even have the right to free speech. Just look at what happened with the skanks in NY thing. I personally think the woman was a skank. --..kixome
It's like having a $10K fine + impounded car + illegal stunt driving charge + 1-week license suspension for speeding, plus getting your car seized by the government and crushed if it had any modifications, but just a short license suspension + small fine for driving around shitfaced drunk.
Wait a minute...DAMN YOU ONTARIO!!!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel