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 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

[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

[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.

And the winner is...

[olsmeister]

the lawyers.

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.