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.
Translation = it's cheaper to bribe one judge than 12 jurors.
I joke! I joke!
kinda...
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.
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 balance then we need a system where by we, the public, can vacate a judge on the same grounds...
We have one. (cocks gun). Or if you want something less messy, you could hire a private investigator to hack the judge's accounts, find the evidence of bribes from Microsoft, and then have the judge removed and the original verdict restored. There was a similar instance in Pennsylvania, resulting in the freedom of many wrongfully-convicted citizens and a judge who is heading towards jail on bribery/corruption charges.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.