Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$338M Patent Ruling Against Microsoft Overturned

Posted by Soulskill on from the courts-just-like-making-work-for-themselves dept.

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).'"

4 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Patent by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

    1. Re:Patent by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the actual patent description:

      No, it isn't. That's the abstract. The description is 20 pages long.

    2. Re:Patent by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

      You say "usual" but it's only usual TODAY.
      It was not usual back in the 80s when it was invented.
      Quoting the article:

      "Once users buy the software, they get a registration key that unlocks the full featured version of the software. Uniloc claimed Richardson showed a copy of his software to Microsoft in 1993 but Microsoft did not license it, instead developing its own almost identical version and incorporating it into its products from 1997 or 1998."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Patent by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The abstract should be enough and should not make every CIS graduate in the room say "Oh, I can do that. Let me show you how". The abstract should give the patent examiner some good reason to read the rest of the patent rather than summarily rejecting it.

      And if the patent examiner does that, they're breaking the law and should be fired. The abstract is a short, 150-word maximum statement that briefly identifies the patent's subject matter. For example, if the patent is titled "Bridge", the abstract lets you figure out if you're dealing with a network bridge, a PCI bridge, a suspension bridge, a wheatstone bridge, a dental bridge, etc. It has no legal weight whatsoever, and is only used to help identify which patents you should read more carefully because they might relate to your search.