Slashdot Mirror


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."

24 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. The most respectable party in those briefs for me by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'.

  2. Why Not? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why Not? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:Why Not? by Altanar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:Why Not? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh huh, let me tell you a little story bud. my mom did her civic duty, even used up her vacation time to sit on a jury. Afterward she came in looking like a ghost and said "NEVER take a jury trial EVER! ALWAYS take a judge!" when I asked her what happened here is what I was told:

      It was a simple arson case which frankly never should have been brought to trial. The investigator admitted under oath he didn't know WHAT had started the fire, couldn't even say for sure it was arson, the guy had NO motive as he didn't even have enough insurance to cover the place and was gonna have to file bankruptcy and probably lose his home as well, yet the jury voted 11 to 1 to convict Why would they do that with no evidence? "Because he is Italian and Italians are in the mob and burn buildings. Haven't you seen Goodfellas?" That's right children, if my mom hadn't been on the jury that guy would be 10 to 20 thanks to a Joe Pesci performance.

      As for TFA MSFT should have done the smart thing and just bought the company out. It just shows what a shitty leader Ballmer is compared to Gates because once it looked like they had a chance Gates would have just bought them out and called it a day. The last thing MSFT needed was more negative publicity, especially with regards to their Office suite which is what this is about. They should have just bought them out and moved on.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Why Not? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. The Solicitor General is full of Shit by blair1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by mordors9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a brave new world.

    2. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    3. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by blair1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speaking truthfully?

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

    5. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by 517714 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    6. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by ffflala · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      True enough, but despite the article's paraphrasing that's not what the brief from the Solicitor General actually says. The brief says that juries can screw up, and that lowering the standard needed to get claims like this to a jury will create disincentives to both inventing and patenting inventions.

      "The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."

    7. Re:The Solicitor General is full of Shit by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by Curate · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excuse me, they have "Foundation" in their name. They are damn well respectable.

  5. And the winner is... by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the lawyers.

  6. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    EFF is a private organization. Right now you respect them. By morning they could be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company owned by Microsoft. And I'm not saying which morning.

    You were probably trying to be funny, but the EFF is not a private organization the way you are thinking. You cannot just buy out a 501(c)(3) and start controlling it. It's run by a board of directors and a set of bylaws that must be followed. Unless the directors end up disillusioned with the organization or its mission, there's really not much an outside party can do to influence it.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by astrodoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    The patent is essentially over a mapping of architecture and content of a document in XML. It describes using a mapping scheme to map the two together thus separating them from being stored solely in the document. It's essentially a patent that describes nothing whatsoever beyond storing information about a document performing a particular form of hashing. Shouldn't be a patent.

  8. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is a link to the patent here. It was filed in 1994, and thus predates the existence of XML, but not SGML. Of course, to understand any patent, you have to look at the independent claims, and I think the following is probably the claim that most applies to Microsoft word:

    20. A method for producing form a document made up of metacodes and content, a map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content of the document and stored in distinct map storage means, the method comprising:
    (a)reading the content of the document until a metacode is found;
    (b)copying the content and storing the copied content in a mapped content storage;
    (c)noting in the map the found metacode and its position in the content; (d)repeating the process of (a)-(c) until the entire document has been processed; and then (e)providing the document as the content of the document separately from the metacode map of the document.

    It seems pretty clear that this applies to Microsoft word, and essentially anything else that stores documents as XML. Note that the patent actually uses xml shaped tags in its example section (not sure how they thought they were being original, since they clearly copied it from SGML).

    In any case, this is important because it is a clear issue of patents stifling innovation, which means it will take longer to invent cool stuff. If you like cool stuff to be invented, you want this patent to be invalidated (and really, it doesn't hurt Microsoft all that much, they just have to remove the XML from Word).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because somebody has a different opinion than you does not mean that they are being paid to argue against you. It is something that we are seeing around here more and more these days.

    Ah, but if you look at the new breed of astroturfer, it's not about "opinion", it's about misinformation. The comment to which I was responding did not just say "I don't like the EFF" which is an opinion, it was that "the EFF spreads so much FUD" which is simply a lie. You can say a lot of things about the EFF, but "spreading FUD" is not one of them.

    And you say "It is something we are seeing around here more and more these days". But besides "playing the man not the ball" how would you suggest addressing it? We are seeing entire stories and comments threads made unreadable by a first section of over 100 comments alternating anonymous cowards cutting and pasting and newly-minted UIDs dropping in to keep the thread expanded. And there is a marked similarity to the stories that attact these trollbombs. If you go to other sites where technology is discussed, you will see the same attacks in the same manner often on the same stories. I used to believe as you do, that claiming "astroturf" was just a way to marginalize disagreement. But as the companies that are engaged in this organized astroturfing grow, they are hiring people who are less skilled (who are probably making minimum wage) and they're starting to get a little obvious about it.

    I understand what you're saying, but I'm getting a little worried that by the time we come up with a response, it's going to be way too late.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Shouldn't be second guessed by a jury? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:The most respectable party in those briefs for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    these new mil-spec astroturfers

    You may be more right than you intended.

    ...For a defense contractor with ties to the federal government, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA - whose enemies are labor unions, progressive organizations, journalists, and progressive bloggers, a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet. According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All