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).'"
Translation = it's cheaper to bribe one judge than 12 jurors.
I joke! I joke!
kinda...
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.
For balance then we need a system where by we, the public, can vacate a judge on the same grounds...
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).
(And yes, I know this is a US case but jury's and judges do share certain common traits with the UK ... phrases like two short planks act as the link)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
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.
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?
I grew-up in the 70s and played many many games throughout the 80s, and I'm not aware of any program that used this method. They all used a mechanical dongle, or other physical method, to verify a program's validity.
Can you please provide us a list of the games/programs, pre-patent, that allowed for *online* registration using a key? (or else defaulted to a trialware mode)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't know of any copy protection in the late 80's or early 90's that "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". I am no fan of this kind of thing, but it seems novel for the time. Then again, I wasn't working with state of the art software at the time, either :D
--fatboy
Possibly the solution is to have 'a jury of your peers,' you know, the sort of people who will be familiar with the issues at hand. Of course, if you want competent people to actually do jury service rather than trying hard to get out of it, you need to compensate them accordingly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Half the Shareware released in the 1980s had serial registration and most of the games from the late 80s and early 90s also had CRC / copy protection checks.
There is definitely prior art to this patent.
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...
"I can do that, let me show you how" is exactly what patents protect against.
If I invent a new way of making solar panels, I describe it fully in a patent application. Based on the abstract, experts in the field might say "I can do that, let me show you how." The difference is, they didn't think of doing it. (Or they did and found out it wasn't worthwhile.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
"I can do that, let me show you how."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company
"I can do that, let me show you how."
Damned near anything invented before 1700 falls in this category - obvious when someone mentions it, but remains uninvented and unobvious until then.
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.
The Heretic CD used an almost identical scheme to protect encrypted versions of other games.
The activation/decryption process effectively hashed the hard disk contents to come up with a unique serial number, which you converted into a key by calling Id, paying for the game, and getting back the key. If it validated, the program would decrypt the game.