$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).'"

Comments

Translation

[whisper_jeff]

Translation = it's cheaper to bribe one judge than 12 jurors.

I joke! I joke!

kinda...

Re:Translation

[jedidiah]

While that is certainly likely, the jury is there for a reason. They
aren't there just to be ingored later. There is supposed to be a
process in place here and the judge seems to be just ignoring it in
favor of his own personal biases.

This sort of haphazard outcome should bother anyone who ever held a
patent application or is likely to be sued by someone that does.

Re:"cheaper" judge

[Arimus]

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)

Mixed feelings

[KingSkippus]

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.

Re:Jury system doesn't work anymore

[TheRaven64]

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.