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."
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.
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).
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
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.
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...
640M ought to be enough for anybody.
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.
My dream is that the ginormous penalties might somehow result in their ethical behavior.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
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