$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."

Comments

Cooperation.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

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).

Re:Cooperation.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you. However this will never happen (by way other than the people voting patents out) because all companies need to build the biggest patent porfolio they can just to intimidate other large companies into not suing them. Patents have become weapons of intellectual and economic destruction. IBM has over 50,000 patents, Microsoft has 30,000+ patents. These companies have contract saying they wont sue each other because they could get nothing done. However, they sue the little guys, and the little guys sue them. However the big companies with a load of patents remain in power forever, destroying legitimate competition in the market place. Patent are an invention of the state and are maintained by the state. Patents and copyrights are INEXISTENT in a true free market.

Re:Cooperation.

[KibibyteBrain]

It's all a matter of fear. Companies know that the current system sucks, but they also know it works for them. There is fear that any change to the system might change competitive advantages or have unforeseen consequences. Its amazing that leading research firms are at their heart very conservative.

Re:Cooperation.

[Ihmhi]

All these years, I wondered what the "???" in those lists was for. Now I know!

Too bad they didn't share a few MP3's

[RenHoek]

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).

Re:Too bad they didn't share a few MP3's

[Z_A_Commando]

You're witnessing the difference between patent infringement and copyright infringement. Patents deal with a concept, idea, etc. Copyrights deal with actual products, be they physical (as in a car, processor, or pen) or intellectual (as in a movie, sound recording, etc). You would probably call the latter "imaginary", but regardless, at the current state of law, they are still considered copyrightable property.

Patents don't automatically translate into profits through sale of goods or services. Patents make up products, but there are many patents that don't ever make it to market in a product. Copyrights, on the other hand, deal with an actual product. Copyrights have intrinsic value because the product in question is available for sale or will be available for sale. Copyrights provide an exclusive right to sell, distribute, and produce a product, not an idea. Therefore, infringement of a copyright is much more damaging to the copyright holder than infringement of a patent, at least in theory. Thus the "harsher" penalties.

Keep patent reform separate from copyright reform because they are different things.

The case needs to be retried

[JohnHegarty]

The case needs to be retried , so a great win for the lawyers on both sides.

Mod me flamebait if you like...

[Anne Honime]

... 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.

Re:Mod me flamebait if you like...

[kamapuaa]

.. I've got karma to lose

Wow, you go on Slashdot and make a post that's both anti-US and anti-Microsoft? You really are taking a huge risk with your slashdot karma there!

Re:hold on a minute there buddy :)

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Sorry, I was taking life seriously... [lights up the bong]

No they wouldn't...

[Junta]

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.