Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Court Rules Microsoft Violated IP Rights

Posted by kdawson on from the shut-down-the-pirated-versions-and-that-would-really-hurt dept.

angry tapir writes "A Beijing court has ruled that Microsoft violated a Chinese company's intellectual property rights in a case over fonts used in past Windows operating systems. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Windows that use the Chinese fonts, including Windows XP. Microsoft plans to appeal the case. Microsoft originally licensed Zhongyi's intellectual property more than a decade ago for use in the Chinese version of Windows 95, according to Zhongyi. Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95, but that Microsoft continued to use the intellectual property in eight versions of Windows from Windows 98 to Windows XP. Vista and Windows 7 are not involved."

44 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. A bit late? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shouldn't Zhongyi have reacted a bit sooner?

    1. Re:A bit late? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming they knew. Just because the newer versions of windows have Chinese character support doesn't mean the company automatically knows its their font being used.

      The designers assumed Microsoft must have a license, and the rest of the company thought they were using someone elses font.

    2. Re:A bit late? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how is it a big deal then? If the fonts are so indistinguishable should they even be copyrighted?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:A bit late? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would contend that most fonts are indistinguishable from at least a half dozen other fonts.

      The guys over in the mac lab would probably disagree.

      I can't distinguish between all the supposed shades of blue in a large box of crayons either (or at least not without a side by side comparison).

      That's what I was getting at. Fonts can be very similar and the suits who would know about the licensing likely wouldn't know one from another without a side by side comparison. The designers would know their font at a glance but likely wouldn't know the licensing terms.

    4. Re:A bit late? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It's a troll case period"

      It may or may not have been a submarine case. I have already given an example as to exactly how they could have missed it. There are other scenerios.

      But it is not a troll case. Troll cases are brought by companies that do not produce anything and make their money off litigation. This is a company that produces graphics that is suing because another company improperly used their IP.

      Even if they did submarine it to let more damages accrue it still remains that they have legitimate IP, which Microsoft was aware of, and Microsoft used it without their permission.

    5. Re:A bit late? by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Without seeing the actual documents it's hard to tell.

      And you can't see the actual documents because they're in Chinese and the fonts are copyright?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:A bit late? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the fonts are so indistinguishable should they even be copyrighted?

      In the United States, you can't copyright a font, at least, not exactly. You can copyright the name and code you used to create a font but you have no legal recourse if someone buys a copy of your font, prints it out, traces it exactly, creates an identical font and sells it under a different name. That's why you can find so many versions of what looks like the same font, often with similar names. Geneva and Helvetica (Helvetica being a name sometimes applied to Switzerland) comes immediately to mind. Futura and Avant Garde are the same, even if the names are not so obviously similar.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    7. Re:A bit late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The legal part is correct, but the examples are wrong. Geneva is not a clone of Helvetica, and Avant Garde is not a clone of Futura.

      The former two are members of the same typographic family (the neo-grotesques), and Helvetica did much to popularize that family, becoming at one point the most popular typeface in the world. Geneva is a separate creation in the same style. The names are similar because Helvetica cemented the neo-grotesques' association with Switzerland; many later neo-grotesques were names with Swiss themes. If you want a Helvetica clone, take Arial; it has almost the same letterforms and exactly the same metrics, and was in fact designed to substitute directly for Helvetica.

      Avant Garde and Futura are likewise both in the geometric family, and Futura was likewise an early and popular example, but other than that, they are distinct. Futura has in fact been cloned as Twentieth Century, and Avant Garde as Century Gothic; both of the latter are virtually identical to the originals.

      Seriously, look at these typefaces at a decent size; they're similar in the same way that, say, Star Wars and Star Trek are.

    8. Re:A bit late? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      In any case, I would have thought Microsoft could simply use the defence that it never sells Windows in that country, since the Chinese prefer to pirate it. ;-)

  2. It fascinates me... by ifwm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It fascinates me that China thinks they can simultaneously not give a shit about IP in every day practice, yet still think a ruling like this will have credibility.

    1. Re:It fascinates me... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I had that same thought. The Chinese have as much standing to complain about IP violations as the United States has to lecture on fiscal responsibility.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:It fascinates me... by mike260 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty easy to make the same argument but with the opposite emphasis, no?

    3. Re:It fascinates me... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the case is legit and the rest of the world has IP agreements with them (pretty sure they do) then this should be upheld.

      The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    4. Re:It fascinates me... by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't disagree with the premise of your argument. Companies should be held accountable for their actions.

      That said, I'd really like to see a bar graph with two values on it, one for the amount of IP theft perpetrated by US-based companies, and one for IP theft perpetrated by Chinese firms. I imagine in might look something like this.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    5. Re:It fascinates me... by englishknnigits · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very clever, using a strawman fallacy to disprove something by wrongly claiming the other argument is a strawman. He made the obvious point that China ignores other countries IP but now seems to care about its own. That would be comparable to the US having horrible fiscal responsibility and then caring about other countries fiscal responsibility. They are the same in that they are both hypocritical, get it?

    6. Re:It fascinates me... by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why there is an IP case about Chinese fonts, but illegal copies of Windows 98 to Windows XP being sold on the streets of China for $1 a CD each. If Microsoft were a Chinese company, the Chinese government would crack down on the illegal copies, but since Microsoft is a US company, the Chinese government turns a blind eye on the illegal copies of Windows 98 to Windows XP.

      And western owned companies take a similar attitude to human rights. They won't have their people working in sweatshop conditions, as the public outcry would ruin them if legal action didn't first, but they are quite happy to deal with factories in countries further east that are run that way. Governments don't do enough about the issue because it isn't directly affecting their voters and the indirect affect on their economies and lifestyles (at least in the short-to-medium term, certainly on the scale of a political term) through cheaper products is largely positive.

      While China has no good case not to be called hypocritical on IP law enforcement and other issues, other nations have no such claim to even handed fairness in all issues either and the Chinese are likely to see (well, those who can see it, pervasive censorship will reduce the number that can) our calling their government hypocritical as, well, hypocritical....

  3. Hahahahah by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A Chinese company trying to pinch Microsoft for IP theft. That's funny.

    I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I have to wonder what minuscule percentage of Chinese Windows installations are actually using legit copies of Windows. Based on my few years of time in Beijing and being in Chinese GOVERNMENT offices where every copy of the OS and Office that I saw used a pirated license key (yes, every last one), I can't help but get a big belly laugh out of this.

    I'd type this in Chinese, but I fear that would just be piling on. :)

  4. Stop selling to China by Haxzaw · · Score: 4, Funny

    MS should just stop selling Windows in China, it isn't like anybody actually buys it over there anyway.

    1. Re:Stop selling to China by Haxzaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woosh

  5. Do unto others... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In an ideal world, yes. Each case on its merits and all that but. But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it.

    Rough justice has a certain poetic appeal, don't you think?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Do unto others... by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it.

      In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge, which I think is not the analogy you were shooting for. Maybe try something with cars?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    2. Re:Do unto others... by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do unto others is fine and dandy. Somehow I doubt ignoring IP recognition treaties is something any western nation wants done unto them.

    3. Re:Do unto others... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do unto others is fine and dandy. Somehow I doubt ignoring IP recognition treaties is something any western nation wants done unto them.

      Unless I'm severely mistaken about what you're saying, it's already been done on to them.

      --
      $ make available
    4. Re:Do unto others... by Archr5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it IS "done unto them" on a regular and consistent basis in China.

      the Counterfeiting industry in China pulls in 16 billion dollars a year and the government has done almost nothing about it. Now that they want to be involved in the WTO they're making some superficial efforts to "crack down" but so far it's been a pretty pitiful effort.

      The real problem is, Hardware manufacturers in the US and other countries have been enablers of this behavior for almost as long as it has existed. Some of the hardware in Ipod's is made by a knock off Chinese company that stole patents from Hitachi. Most of the world allows Norinco to sell arms and ordnance to supply their military and civilian populace despite the vast majority of Norinco's products being direct copies of American and Russian designs.

      These American companies can not expect China to take our complaints about their violation of Intellectual Property seriously if we continue to reap the benefits of cheap knockoff parts in our products increasing our profit margins.

    5. Re:Do unto others... by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a fervent supporter of self-defense rights. But let's revisit the quote he was referring to. "But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it."

      I live in Colorado, where we have the "make my day" law. One of the strongest self-defense statutes anywhere, ever. (This is for context, I'm well aware that it doesn't apply to a mugger.)

      But I would fully expect to be prosecuted (and very possibly convicted) if I kicked a mugger to death!

      Now, this, of course, depends on the details of the incident. If it were a "one in a million shot", then, as the OP says, so be it. But I don't think that's the intent here.

      -Peter

    6. Re:Do unto others... by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "He kept getting up and coming after me!"

      Lacking witness testimony to the contrary, it'd be hard to prove that the "victim" (deceased ex-criminal) didn't bring his own unlamented death on himself. If the basic standard of self-defense is "you're entitled to defend yourself as long as the threat exists", you may not get to stop until the assailant isn't moving any more. And death by that kind of blunt-force trauma may not be instantaneous: one well-place kick to the upper abdomen could leave dead-boy with ruptured internal organs (spleen, etc.) and internal bleeding, and still able (and mad enough) to get up and come at you again.

      Now, a dead guy with 17 mortal stab wounds... that's a bit harder to finesse, self-defense-wise. Unless he's a zombie.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Do unto others... by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

      Zombie vs Zombie action: "Aww man, you trashed my hoodie".

    8. Re:Do unto others... by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China is doing in a way what the US did about 200 or so years ago. (Most of) Europe had signed the Berne convention on copyrights; the US which was busy building up their own industry didn't.

      China is now building up their own industry - allowing them to look very closely to how it's done elsewhere helps a lot. That includes copying industrial designs and related infringements.

      This is though by far from the first copyright case in China. There are many going on - mostly between Chinese companies suing each other for copyright or trademark infringements. And you bet the Chinese care about IP violations if it includes their own IP.

      Sooner or later they will up their standards and come to international levels of enforcement. China has a patent office, and many Chinese companies are patenting their inventions. And those companies will start to demand enforcement.

  6. Hmmmm by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will the capitalist running dog Steve Balmer kowtow to the Chinese after writing a self-criticism?

    Pass the eggrolls.....this is going to get interesting.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  7. Why fight it? by Reason58 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why fight it? It seems like a much cheaper solution would be for Microsoft to pay a fee for each copy of Windows sold in China.

  8. 10+ years? by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95

    It took them over 10 years to notice their fonts were also being used in 98, 2000, xp, vista, and 7???

    1. Re:10+ years? by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      It took them over 10 years to acquire enough legit Windows licenses for their company to not be countersued.

  9. Wow, what a ridiculous statement by ifwm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    I think pointing out the arbitrary nature of law enforcement is ALWAYS relevant to any issue regarding the law.

    There's really no way to argue otherwise.

  10. Not really, andnot insightful at all by ifwm · · Score: 2, Funny

    How is this insightful? He didn't even make a coherent point?

    Are you saying MS doesn't give a shit about IP?

    Why does that matter when they'reneither a sovereign nation nor a court of law, thereby making it impossible for their opinion to be interchangeable with the court of law of a sovereign nation?

    Please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here.

    1. Re:Not really, andnot insightful at all by mike260 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The converse argument to that of OP would be:
      "It fascinates me that Microsoft thinks they can bug China about software theft while simultaneously stealing Chinese IP"

  11. Re:Sothe guy who AGREES get insightful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mental note: I must remember to check the the "Anonymous" box when whinging about moderation of my posts.

  12. The road to future global irrelevance by aussersterne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will be paved with companies that don't think doing business in China is important.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:The road to future global irrelevance by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did you learn nothing from the dot-com bust? A business must earn money. If people pirate your wares and cause loses then what is the point? The Chinese Government pretends to care about copyright and patents while in actuality they care about who pays them the most to do something. By the time one endures all of the corruption, knock-offs, copying, theft, etc that goes on in China it always "just on the verge" of being profitable. Some businesses are profitable in China, but software is not among them right now and probably never will be. The Chinese are the ultimate pragmatists: inward looking, amoral, and opportunistic. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

  13. I'm sure it's not irrelevant and that you're wrong by ifwm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

    No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

    So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

    So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

  14. How are you people so TOTALLY wrong by ifwm · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce.

    Nope, you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing

    "USA is the leading manufacturer in the world with a 2007 industrial output of US$2,696,880 millions. Main industries are petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining."

    Please educate yourself, so you're not making claims like "At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce DESPITE HAVING THE LARGEST MANUFACTURING OUTPUT OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD".

    Although is it fun to repeatedly inform you people who like to pretend you know what you're talking about that you do not, in fact, have ANY idea WTF you are talking about and have just proven so.

  15. Only one thing to do by dododuh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Clearly, Microsoft MUST withdraw WIndows 98, ME, 2000, and XP from the Chinese market, and refund the purchase money paid for said products. This should not cost Microsoft very much; after all, there can't have been more than one legitimate copy of each OS sold in-country. Microsoft would then be well-placed to declare all other copies of the affected products in the PRC illegal, and use the automatic-update feature to download a deactivating code. Microsoft should also apologize profusely to the font-sourcing company for the fact that their fonts would then be completely unused, then sell lots of Windows 7 upgrades. Oh wait, they can't actually sell Windows 7 in China, since they can't afford to pay for it due to the manipulated exchange rate for the Yuan.

  16. Re:Like XP sells well in China anyway... by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It could be that there are a lot of Chinese speaking people that don't live in China. Possibly. And they might use Windows. Statistically, they likely do. :)

  17. Lol @ U by ifwm · · Score: 2, Funny

    "So I think the delay in prosecution was likely reasonable."

    Who cares what you think, you openly lie all thetime, like here for instance

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137984

    The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic

    Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...

    Oh, I DID, here

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137250 [slashdot.org]

    "The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

    No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

    So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

    So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

    And here

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137472 [slashdot.org]

    "As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

    No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.

    "Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."

    It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.

    Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?

    So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."

    Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?

    So, again,why should anyone care what you think when you'll openly lie about something everyone else can see in black and white?

    I mean, you try to flame someone for not getting the point, when YOU YOURSELF COMPLETELY FAIL TO READ THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOU WRONG IN THE VERY THREAD YOU'RE REPLYING TO despite claiming you had?

    Why would anyone care what you think?

  18. Pointless by wye43 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Windows that use the Chinese fonts, including Windows XP

    So now Microsoft cannot sell Windows 95-XP in China. But wait, Microsoft stopped selling those operating system some time ago. Anywhere.