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.
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
Problem with software patents is they have never been specific enough. They try to patent a function of how something works. Mechanical patents don't work that way.
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.
Depends on what that "different joint style" is. If I patent a universal joint using steel bearings, you'll fail to get a patent on the same joint style with tungsten carbide bearings, and will likely be found to infringe my patent if you make it that way. However, if your universal joint is wildly different - say, an offset universal joint and mine is axial - then it's different... But that's not what you're seeming to say up there, where the difference is roller bearings vs. ball bearings. If that's the only difference, you aren't going to get a patent on it.
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.
I think you're confused. The court of appeals for the federal circuit ruled that some business model and software patents were invalid, unless they were tied to a "specific machine" or performed a "transformation", in a case called In Re Bilski. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Bilski's appeal, but they'll be doing that next spring. Meanwhile, the appeals court has recently affirmed medical diagnosis patents in Prometheus v. Mayo. It's highly unlikely - in fact, I'll go out on a limb and say absolutely not going to happen - that the Supreme Court will overturn all software patents. All they're going to do is [hopefully] provide a clearer test of what the hell a "specific machine" is and what makes it different from a "general purpose computing device".