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.
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.
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.