US Gov't Sides Against Microsoft In i4i Patent Case

Julie188 writes "In the ongoing patent infringement case between i4i and Microsoft, i4i has won a powerful ally: the US government itself. The US solicitor general, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, on Friday filed an amicus brief in support of i4i, saying that the US Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury. i4i, which won a $290 million patent judgment against Microsoft, has now accrued 22 amicus briefs in its corner, representing more than 100 companies, organizations and individuals, including venture capitalists, individuals from the military and now, the government. Meanwhile, Microsoft has so far lined up 20 amicus briefs, representing about 60 companies and individuals, including Google, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Red Hat, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 37 law and economics professors. At issue is how much evidence is required to invalidate a patent."

Comments

The most respectable party in those briefs for me

[unity100]

is Electronic Frontier Foundation. Actually, i think u.s. patent office should not be second guessing EFF, since their competence and understanding of these issues far surpass patent offices', leave aside any corporations'.

Why Not?

[WrongSizeGlass]

saying that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury.

Why not? If 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of Jury Duty can see the obviousness of some patents why not let them have their shot? Here on /. we almost always second-guess the USPTO.

Re:Why Not?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I would prefer to negate the need for second-guessing the USPTO at all, as would, apparently, everybody who actually makes things for a living.

It's got to be getting harder and harder to claim that the patent system exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", when regardless of why it was created it clearly now exists to line otherwise uninvolved parties' pockets off of the capital friction.

Re:Why Not?

[Altanar]

"smart enough to get out of Jury Duty'"... Please, enough with the ancient comedy routine. There are many people, myself included, who don't try to weasel out of their civic duty. I guess it's better this way, though. I really don't want someone who cares so little about the legal system to decide my fate if I were ever arrested for something.

Re:Why Not?

[PopeRatzo]

It's got to be getting harder and harder to claim that the patent system exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

Does anyone bother to still claim that? It seems like the people who have been attacking the real intent of intellectual property, people like the patent trolls and just about every big corporation and the RIAA and MPAA and Sony and Disney, etc etc are dropping a lot of the pretense and are getting a lot more comfortable just letting the evil show through. Because they can.

It starting to seem like a lot of the really really bad actors in our world who have maybe kept a low profile over the past decades or at least spent a lot of money on public relations and image management are starting to just figure "what the hell" and are letting it all hang out. I'm seeing it in the political sector, the financial sector, the corporate sector. Look at the huge "Fuck You" that's implicit in AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile. They're saying to the Justice Department: "Don't even think about stopping us because we're bigger than you". Look at the Koch Brothers and their no-bid takeover of Wisconsin public utilities via the teabagger government. Look at the health insurance companies and their 50% increases in premiums, claiming it's because of health care reform even though the meaningful part of health care reform is still a year away. Look at Sony. Look at the banks and the mortgage servicing scandals. foreclosure scandals and newly announced $5 ATM fees. Look at the oil companies. It's like they feel like there's no longer any need to spend money and effort to appear like their benign because their power puts them out of our reach. Maybe they're right.

The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[blair1q]

There's no agency in government that should be accorded the singular privilege of not having to be second-guessed by a jury.

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[mordors9]

It's a brave new world.

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[mangu]

TFA says "The amicus brief from the U.S. solicitor general says that the USPTO can be trusted to be the expert, over a jury".

I had always thought the correct procedure was for experts from both sides to present their opinions in court and let the jury sort it out. It seems that the US government now believes their experts are above juries, courts, and all that shit.

What matters to them is that "the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents." Raising the expected value of everything seems to be the golden rule today. I have an absolute right to all the profit I expect. Sigh...

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[blair1q]

What he's saying, in reality, is that he thinks the preponderance standard does not make correct decisions. Which means he questions the validity of all civil litigation.

What the fuck is someone with that attitude doing arguing this nation's business before the Supreme Court?

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[h4rr4r]

Speaking truthfully?

I was not aware one had to agree with something to be well versed in it.

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[517714]

I suspect that is one amicus brief that won't have any traction. Imagine trying to convince a court that a Federal agency should have final say instead of a court.

Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit

[sconeu]

Great.

So the PTO issues all patents and says, "Let the courts sort it out."

The Solicitor General says, "Don't let the courts sort it out."

I hope that MS kicks the us.gov's ass on this one, and I am no MS fan.

And the winner is...

[olsmeister]

the lawyers.

Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for

[PopeRatzo]

Lots of money can (and often does) fundamentally alter the practices of many non-profits.

Tell you what: it won't be hard to figure it out if the EFF ever sells out. But until then, until we see one single shred of evidence that the EFF is anything but what we all know them to be, which is a highly-reputable organization dedicated to keeping technology and culture as free as possible (free in more than one sense) who has looked out for the best interests of every single one of us here on Slashdot (except maybe a few of those people who have just registered here as part of New Media Strategies' (and other companies of that type) ongoing attack on online communities) - until we get the merest hint that they're not doing a great job and are not exactly what they say they are, then we should assume that any comment here trying to spread FUD about the EFF is probably part of one of those corporate astroturfing outfits (like New Media Strategies and Reputation Defender and others like them).

I'm glad I read this. It's a reminder to send a little chunk of my income tax refund to the EFF for the great work that they continue to do.

Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for

[PopeRatzo]

Hey look! It's one a them New Media Strategies types. He's here to make it seem like EFF is the one doing something wrong.

Now I wonder, who would benefit from spreading FUD about the Electronic Freedom Foundation? Anybody care to start a little list?

I think it's time that we got real familiar with New Media Strategies and Reputation Defender and other online astroturfing units. Because if we don't figure out a way to thwart their dirty business, which is basically a much uglier and much more insidious version of spam, except with the intent to harm, the internet is going to become completely worthless as a place to get even the most basic information. I mean, we know not to believe everything we read at Wikipedia, but this is raising the stakes to a whole new level of bullshit. Everyone who runs a social media site has a responsibility to figure out how to keep these new mil-spec astroturfers out of the pool if they hope to exist into the future. And every one of us has a responsibility to out and thwart these new blastroturfers because there is value in the variety of online communities, including Slashdot. If you didn't think so, you wouldn't be reading this.

Shouldn't be second guessed by a jury?

[Opportunist]

If 12 people "of virtues true" are good enough to decide over life and death of a person, they are more than capable to decide over some insignificant patents.