Slashdot Mirror
$338M Patent Ruling Against Microsoft Overturned
some_guy_88 writes "The $338 million verdict against Microsoft for violating a patent held by Uniloc has now been overturned. 'Ric Richardson ... is the founder of Uniloc, which sued Microsoft in 2003 for violating its patent relating to technology designed to deter software piracy. The company alleged Microsoft earned billions of dollars by using the technology in its Windows XP and Office programs. In April, a Rhode Island jury found Microsoft had violated the patent and told Microsoft to pay the company $388 million, one of the largest patent jury awards in US history. But on Tuesday ... US District Judge William Smith "vacated" the jury's verdict and ruled in favor of Microsoft.' In his ruling, Smith said the jury 'lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis (PDF).'"
"It was never about the money. It was about the ethics of it ... winning a court case is not winning the lottery."
I bet the $388 million had nothing to do with it.
This is the actual patent description:
A registration system allows digital data or software to run in a use mode on a platform if and only if an appropriate licensing procedure has been followed. Preferably, the system detects when part of the platform on which the digital data has been loaded has changed in part or in entirety, as compared with the platform parameters, when the software or digital data to be protected was last booted or run. The system relies on a portion of digital data or code which is integral to the digital data to be protected by the system. This integral portion is termed the code portion and may include an algorithm that generates a registration number unique to an intending licensee of the digital data based on information supplied by the licensee which characterizes the licensee. The algorithm in the code portion is duplicated at a remote location on a platform under the control of the licensor or its agents, and communication between the intending licensee and the licensor or its agent is required so that a matching registration number can be generated at the remote location for subsequent communication to the intending licensee as a permit to licensed operation of the digital data in a use mode. The code portion can be identical for all copies of the digital data. The algorithm provides a registration number which can be "unique" if the details provided by the intending licenses upon which the algorithm relies when executed upon the platform are themselves "unique."
Sounds like the usual serial key algorithm with an online check, used in many online games too.
Free Gary McKinnon.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Must have cost MS less than 388 Million, I guess. I "love" it when a judge vacates a jury by basically saying: "They're idiots."
Translation = it's cheaper to bribe one judge than 12 jurors.
I joke! I joke!
kinda...
For Microsoft!
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
He said the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues". But the traditional jury selection process rejects people with critical thinking skills - engineers in particular. So why didn't he say to start over with a qualified jury, rather than change the decision to his own? This suggests that ALL trials with highly technical issues will be decided by a judge alone - and we know they aren't always up on such things either.
How do you get a jury of peers when the 2 parties are a convicted monopolist and a patent troll?
Finally some sense. It is just ridiculous to put such cases in front of a jury.
Having a jury for trials of a "personal" nature (theft, assault, etc) is very important, to prevent the kind of bias that comes from having just one type of person (rich educated judges) making moral calls. But trials about complicated financial and technical issues? Most lay people are completely unequipped to deal with this, and generally uninterested; better to leave those to professionals. Particularly if judges are just going to overthrow jury verdicts they don't find satisfactory anyway.
I always have mixed feelings when I hear that a judge vacated a verdict.
On the one hand, a lot of people are idiots, and I imagine that it's not that unusual to get seven idiots on a given jury at the same time. I kind of like the thought that there's a "fail safe" that has veto power over a bad jury.
On the other, I don't like the thought that one person has absolute power over the process like that. One guy (or gal) can basically overrule everything a jury deliberates on. I've known judges that are idiots, too, and when I see something like this, I can't help but wonder why we even bother to have the trial.
In the end, I suppose I lean more towards taking the power to vacate verdicts or awards from judges. After all, that's what the appeals process is there for, to be that fail safe, and to be honest, I think the odds are more likely that you'd get one idiot judge than seven idiot jurors if I'm the one in the courtroom. Plus, jurors are more likely to account for the human element in such cases than a judge who looks at everything in terms of the black-and-white letter of the law; they're more likely to come up with a right (i.e. moral and ethical) decision, even if it isn't the Right (i.e. legally correct) decision.
And it's not just because it's Microsoft. I'd feel the same way if this happened in the Jamie Thomas case and the judge had smacked down the RIAA. In theory, it shouldn't make a difference, but in reality, I always try to imagine how I'd feel if the tables were turned and the same thing happened.
where the loser is wealthy.
How many cases of "computer trespass" have been decided on ridiculous reasoning from the jury and allowed without murmur from the judges WHEN THE DEFENDANT WASN'T RICH?
Privilege used to mean "private law".
Rule of law was supposed to remove that and we would all be equal under it.
But judges vacating juries and judges disallowing nullification and judges disallowing people who know what they are talking about ensures that privilege lives on.
From the judgment "...fair to describe Microsoftâ(TM)s evidence as more or less
conclusory on this point." I.e. that the patent was an obvious modification to
prior work.
I am glad about this. It shows that the patent system is not so broke as some think.
This patent basically is merely the means by which one can type in a license key
after downloading some free-trial software. Much free-trial software has some kind
of typing-in-of-a-license-key, and if Microsoft lost it would mean no one could do
this in their own products without fear of a law suite - a ridiculous situation.
This guy was just gold-digging. Well done to the judge.
Why on earth would you have a jury in complex technical cases like patent cases? I'm pretty sure that In Australia such cases would be heard by a judge only in the Federal Court. Perhaps a lawyer can confirm?
$388M was the original figure that was awarded
$388M minus *cough* court costs *wink*
means that Microsoft are getting $338M back
I'm kidding
I am not stubborn. I am right!
When judges essentially nullify a jury decision, I find it worrisome as it appears to circumvent the system established by the constitution as I understand it. The whole concept of jury nullification then becomes endangered should a judge decide the jury's actions were inappropriate. There should have to be a much more difficult process involved to have a judge overturn a jury's decision.
My feelings are mixed because it is indeed the case that juries are indeed quite stupid people. There was a new story recently describing a situation that has been ongoing for more than 3 years where a young female became pregnant and never informed the father until just prior to giving birth. (She was probably compelled or otherwise pressured to do so due to legal requirements.) The baby was planned to be offered for adoption by one of the girl's relatives. They asked him to sign the documents and he refused and stated he wanted to keep the baby. The adoption agency proceeded with the adoption process anyway which was a mistake for which they paid a rather large settlement to the father in this case. But the father continues his struggle against this illegal adoption. It was at one point decided by a jury that the child would be better off with the adoptive parents and that the needs of the child outweighed the rights of the father.
This is a seriously questionable decision and one that, off hand, I tend to disagree with. A judge also disagreed with the jury and overturned some of the jury's decisions opening the door for the father of the child to claim him and bring him back home. The law, as it turns out, favors the rights of the natural parents and also favors the law and recognized that procedure and law was broken during the adoption process resulting in extreme injustice. The judge also ruled that there was no evidence that this single father was not capable of raising and supporting this child and that the jury's decision was wrong.
I agree with the judge's actions in this case as it seems to match with my own understanding of justice in this case. However, the ability of a judge to overturn a decision by jury still bothers me.
As to the case with Microsoft? I can't say as I agree one way or the other except on one point -- there should be no software patents. And while this is not a strike against software patents directly, it serves as another example of how they are used and abused and why they are simply bad.
For sure I thought Microsoft was going to be forced to pay some ridiculous amount of money for doing something obvious. Now be glad they didn't use this technology to protect a web browser, because those are sacred!
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I rather watch them beat a stupid patent than see anyone stuck with such a stupid verdict. At least this establishes recent precedent for judges overturning lunacy.
Yeah, I know we all hoped it would be the straw that broke the camel's back and Microsoft would say, "wow, this is idiocy and we need to see the light!" This wouldn't have been that straw. This straw would've left them saying, "wow, I'm glad we can afford it! Too bad for our poorer competitors who can't!"
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The judge finds for Microsoft and then on appeal the higher court says "ah no this needed to go to a jury you idiot".
So it goes to a jury, and the same judge then rules the opposite of the jury verdict and finds for Microsoft again.
Surely that's going to make for an interesting appeal...
The jury system was great back when the most complicated thing they had to make judgements on was whether or not a stolen horse had an altered brand - and they all worked with horses.
Today we are asking 12 average joes to make life and death decisions about evidence that even highly trained people would find difficult to follow. The Enron finances, DNA evidence, whether or not some highly technical piece of code is "obvious". This is why juries ignore mountains of technical evidence in favour of bullshit like "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know I don't want Tom, Dick and Harry sitting in judgement on my patent lawsuit.
Life needs more saving throws.
The idiots who hand out prison sentances for missing a council tax payment but give muggers a slap on the wrist need vacating from their benches (or ideally the gene pool).
That's the legislators fault - not the judges. Sure, the judges have discretion when sentencing, but it has to be within the law. I think it's ridiculous that there are so many folks in jail for life because they got caught a couple of times with a joint. But that's what the legislators wrote in the law to be tough in "The War on Drugs" (TM).
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Was he born and raised in West Philadelphia?
Kinda on topic ...
I was once called to sit on a Jury in a civil case. When asked by the judge if I had any objections to being a juror I honestly told him "I believe there are too many lawsuits in this country." It was like I had the plague. They had me out of there within 30 seconds. What was funny is as I was being lead out of the room the defendants counsel objected to my dismissal. Of course the judge did not agree.
Conservative, mod down for violating
lobbying.
I know I've heard this story before. Over and over. As though there was a company that did that exact thing to companies all the time. And a whole bunch of companies, too. Partnered, then broke the partnership and came out with a clone of the original software. And mostly in the late 80's and through the 90's. Ummm. Umm... who was that?
Bill Gates and his sticky fingers.
If I recall, the file on his arrest has disappeared.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a patent comprising claims to protect an invention under law;
trolling with the patent; and
???
profiting from the trolling.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein profiting enables early retirement.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the trolling is acting like an irresponsible jack-ass.
3. A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed on a processor to perform the following: ...
receiving a patent comprising claims to protect an invention under law;
trolling with the patent; and
???
profiting from the trolling.
Yeeeeaaaah when you have Billions of $$$ you can overturn anything in this fucking world......
This guys particular tale of developing this software, patenting it, going to court against Microsoft over the (now overturned) infringement, and present day life was actually recently covered in an episode of Australian Story. I remember watching it and not coming away particularly impressed with Ric Richardson by the conclusion.
I'll be honest and state I haven't read the patent in its entirety, and so I could be entirely wrong about this, but the impression I got throughout the entire show was that it's just a fairly generic patent that covers what most today would refer to as "Online Product Activation". Microsoft has used such a scheme since Windows XP as most Slashdotters would be aware, but so have countless other software programs and associated corporations for protecting their proprietary applications. To be fair, he did develop this technology quite some time ago before OPA was in any way a standard or at least regular affair, but that doesn't in my view legitimise it. I can't support patenting abstract program technologies.
I'll withold judgement until I actually bother to read or learn about the real contents of the patent in its entirety, but if it is of the generic type, and I distinctly got this impression, then I have to say I'd probably come down on Microsoft's side. Which is tough, as they don't exactly have a pristine past on responsible and ethical usage of software patents, but that doesn't permit me to be hypocritical, and this guy is nothing more than a "patent troll" if the patent is as vague as I've been led to believe.
That, and if you watch the particular episode (I'm unsure if it's available for streaming outside of Australia), you may well find that you pick up a certain vibe about this guy that he is quite patent happy, but I might just be overly biased.
I largely agree with your comment, but I don't agree that the O.J. Simpson reference serves to illustrate your point. The jury in that case understood the evidence against the defendant, but they could not ignore additional evidence that those who were presenting it had manufactured it.
In this Microsoft case, the jury likely did not understand the technical evidence, but it's interesting that they still found against Microsoft, and it's equally interesting that a judge, who likely also didn't understand the evidence, overturned the ruling. Microsoft learns a valuable lesson from this case. Next time, they'll put more effort into gaining the trust of the jury. This is more efficient than gaining the trust of a judge. Likely, neither the judge nor the jury understood the complexity of technical evidence.
The judge "vacated" the jury's decision? How is that legal?
I have never heard of this concept that a judge can tell a jury "you're wrong, I'm finding the defendant guilty"
In fact, a major legal concept, jury nullification relies on the idea that a jury can disobey a judge.
Microsoft applies for patent:
Description: Realignment of Justice, Using Large Sums of Cash.
I think what's going on here in this thread is some posters lack a grasp of the legal issues before them.
It's not what you WANT the constitution to require of the judicial system.
It's not what you WANT juries to be, what purpose you WANT them to serve.
The fact of the matter is, the judicial action is very legal, however much you WANT it to be otherwise. Look it up. If you can read a programming language grammar, you ought to be able to read the Constitution, and any related legislation otherwise.
Whether you agree with the outcome of the decision doesn't matter.
I'm glad the judicial branch is scarcely accessible by democratic means to the general public, contrary to the dominant opinions I've read in this thread...
This case involved a patent that runs a cumulative series of tests and applies an either/or not rule.
Either it is a Duck or/not...
Microsoft semantically performs a cumulative series of test and applies an either/or rule
Either it is a License or/not
EULA/MD5 notwithstanding the test remains. That test is patented.
The judge just refuses to accept the rule by peer reasoning in favor of the technical inuendi
PIGS will fly shortly...
"bought off"??
*** Don't be dull.***
Uniloc is also SoftAnchor, ( http://www.uniloc.com/softanchor/ ), who had the DRM problem with activations with Football Manager 2009.
Seems the font they used on the Disc couldn't tell if it was an 1 or an I or a L, and whether it was an O or 0.
Also, their activation servers got DDOS'd, too.
http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=81852
http://www.nidzumi.com/2008/11/football-manager-2009-drm-you/
If you patent a universal joint for a car using roller bearings, and I can patent one using ball bearings and a different joint style. Even though my universal joint provides the same function as yours, it does the function differently enough that I don't have to license your design.
Uniloc patented a licensing system. Yes. Microsoft built their own licensing system that provides the same function, but there was no evidence that Microsoft used any part of Uniloc's software to do that function. Therefore, Microsoft didn't violate Uniloc's patent
For many years the Patent courts have upheld business model and software function patents as valid, but the Supreme Court ruled that style invalid last year. The Judge in this case is just apply the time tested rules about mechanical patents in the method that the Supreme Court has instructed them to apply to software.
What's the point of implementing a new idea if MickeySoft is continually allowed to steal it?
There would be more innovation w/o these slothy corporations stealing code, ideas, etc..
There's no incentive to excel. Just join a corporation and do the bare minimum..
Smith said the jury 'lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis
I casually follow these technology IP cases. From what I have seen, most judges don't understand technology, or related technological issues, any better than the jurors.
Technically, they have this in the USA; judges are elected. In practice, this means that judges are subject to the same pressures as the legislature and executive (i.e. needing bribes, uh, campaign contributions, to get reelected) so it doesn't actually solve the
U.S. federal judges are appointed.
Rhode Island District Court Judge William E. Smith was nominated by President George Bush in July 2002 and confirmed by the Senate in November 2002.
Only one federal district judge has ever been convicted of bribery.
Jury Convicts U.S. District Judge in Bribery Case [1991]
The formal impeachment and removal of a federal judge - for any cause - is extraordinarily rare. Impeachment in the United States
Loose talk of bribery has become the geek's all-purpose explanation of judicial decisions that are not to his liking.
I thought a judge's job is to ensure that a trial's process is correct, not to "correct" the decision of a lawful trial by jury. Shouldn't, instead, Microsoft have to have filed an appeal to get the decision changed? A suspicious person might think this was a move intended to create a mistrial...
I don't like Microsoft practices and/or products, but I am happy they won this one.
I hate retards more than I hate Microsoft...
But the traditional jury selection process rejects people with critical thinking skills - engineers in particular.
If you can prove this, fine.
If you can't, don't present it as gospel truth.
The pay is eminently lousy.
The guy who isn't trying to weasel out of this damn well knows what he getting into and is willing to make the commitment.
In a federal civil trial, each side gets three peremptory challenges.
How to frame your challenges for cause when confronted with a randomly selected jury pool - how to frame your challenges in a way that systematically excludes the engineer - is really quite beyond me.
Whether the engineer's critical judgment remains quite so sound outside the narrow bounds of his profession is a question I will leave for another time.
But I have my doubts.
From TFOpinion: Printed on each jewel box of a retail software product is a 25-character alphanumeric string called a Product Key (e.g., MQ9WT-3D8PY-6VF76-GMHVX-DCXFM).
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
From the judgment "...fair to describe MicrosoftÃ(TM)s evidence as more or less conclusory on this point." I.e. that the patent was an obvious modification to prior work.
Conclusory doesn't mean "correct". It means "not justified or supported by facts". For example, if I said "you shouldn't be listened to, because you obviously don't have a law degree", that's conclusory. I have no idea if you have a law degree. My argument is essentially just a statement of my beliefs.
Here's the quote you cite, with the immediately preceding sentence and the immediately following one:
Moreover, Microsoft offered no evidence of motivation to modify Hellman, and although Dr. Wallach discussed the technical content of both references, he offered no opinion that the combination of the two, in the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, would satisfy all elements of Claim 19. While this lack of a run-of-the-mill invalidity presentation is not determinative, it is fair to describe Microsoftâ(TM)s evidence as more or less conclusory on this point. The Court thus declines to override the juryâ(TM)s conclusion [that the patent is not obvious].
So, when you come in and cite the judgement to say that the patent was obvious, you're claiming the exact opposite of what the judge said: that the jury said the patent was not obvious and Microsoft offered no evidence or testimony that it was obvious.
In Anglo-Saxon Common law the trial jury is the final arbiter of FACT, the judge instructs on the LAW and what it means given the facts of the case, if, as in this case, the judge tries to overturn a jury verdict, then it is grounds for a mis-trial or appeal.
This looks like an attempted fix. M$ will loose on appeal, if it gets that far.
I SAY AGAIN, the US legal system, Banking System and Democracy needs to be fixed so it is __NO__LONGER__ a playground for the disengenuous and corrupt. The WTO and Patent System, and the Content Copyright people notwithstanding.
Judges manipulate Juries all the time, and before they have their shot Jury Selection makes a mockery of "A Jury of your peers".
Nevertheless, Juries finding of FACT is definitive, and not apealable without the introduction of NEW admisable evidence un-known at the trial of first instance.
Now, judges have wide discretion, in the interest of justice, but that discretion is not un-fettered, and does not run to overturning the result of a jury trial; so he WILL be appealed and stands to be overturned.
That is not a problem, it happens everywhere, the problem is THE TIME IT TAKES. While you fiddle, the Chinese win.
The talk of de-establishing the USD as a reserve currency at G20 is just the beginning.
Open your eyes, stop playing silly games.
The US legal system is in terminal failure, for two reasons,
...
... and then
(a) the result of trials with established law and precedent are uncertain
which is a mark of a third wold country, and discourages investment.
(b) Delay, and Obfuscation have no real downside. You can have an adversarial system or Roman Law (Investigation|Enquiry) but, unless the looser pays the costs, the incentive is to hang it out forever
(c) Justice delayed is Justice denied.
Microsoft to Judge Smith: Psssst. Hey, Buddy! How ya doing? The thing is, there is this $338 million dollar ugly staring us in the face. Sure we may have stolen someone elses software, whatever. The real issue here is: are you happy? I mean, how much does a judge make anyway? Hundred grand a year maybe? You and the wife might have a tiny nest egg maybe half a million to retire on? No beach house in Bora Bora on that! Now listen. If you overturn the $338 million dollar oops, we can ....how to put this.... make it worth your while. It takes a wise man to overturn a jury verdict. A very wise man. And its a lot of work to overturn a verdict like this. Long hours of deliberation and labor. Normally you would not be compensated for all of the effort, but we can make it worth your while. Say, 10%? $38 million can buy a really schmantzy place in Bora Bora, and a really nice boat to get you there. You and the wife. You can retire early too, and have many years to enjoy it. Wisdom judge, is knowing how to live well. Not just getting by, but living well.
FTS: In his ruling, Smith said the jury 'lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis (PDF).'"
However, it's perfectly OK for a clueless judge to rule on issues of which he hasn't the foggiest grasp and 'justice has been done".
What horseshit -- that's what you get for setting up a judiciary with essentially unlimited power to "police" itself. This will not be fixed until the unlikely day when a judge can be charged with "contempt of either party to a suit".
It's for exactly this reason that Roman Polanski fled -- he knew goddamned well the judge renegged on an agreement and there was no way within the system for him to correct the wrong.
Not to defend what he pleaded guilty to (and a plea is always suspect because it's offered only if the prosecution can't prove their charges to a jury), but an individual should not have t roll the dice to escape a false charge or the routine overcharging that DAs do to force a plea bargain.