Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Rules Against Microsoft In i4i Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the done-and-done dept.

CWmike writes "The US Supreme Court has let stand a $300 million patent infringement ruling against Microsoft, granting a victory Thursday to i4i (PDF), which filed the lawsuit back in 2007. The legal battle already forced Microsoft to modify certain functionality in its Word application in 2009, when the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled in favor of Toronto-based i4i and told Microsoft to stop selling Word in the US. At issue was an i4i patent that covers technology that lets users manipulate the architecture and content of a document, which i4i alleged Microsoft infringed upon by letting Word users create custom XML documents. Microsoft removed the feature. 'This case raised an important issue of law which the Supreme Court itself had questioned in an earlier decision and which we believed needed resolution. While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation,' Microsoft said in a statement."

37 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. So... by errandum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the patent hoggers got what they deserved.

    The whole patent system needs a revamp but it is to protect us from companies like Microsoft, Apple and whatnot. They are the ones stiffing innovation.

  2. And the band marches on... by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know it's popular to portray Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but this totally sucks. While you all are laughing at the irony, keep in mind that this is only going to convince big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Cisco, etc. that they need to hunker down even more in developing extensive patent portfolios and vigorously defending them. It's the only way to survive as a business these days, to have enough goods to establish a mutually assured destruction scenario if someone sues you. Unfortunately, it also looks like patent trolls are going to be encouraged from now on. As a society, we've completely missed the narrow window of opportunity we had to change the system to prevent this kind of abuse. I guess we were too busy watching Snooki, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, I hope it was worth it.

    This system is so hideously broken, so apparently messed up with no will or way to change it, that it sometimes makes me want to get out of the IT industry altogether.

    1. Re:And the band marches on... by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agreed with you completely until right here:

      As a society, we've completely missed the narrow window of opportunity we had to change the system to prevent this kind of abuse.

      Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe that software patents are doomed. The major corporations all have little to nothing to gain from them and waste time and resources acquiring them defensively.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:And the band marches on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I agree, I'm not sure this case specifically was the venue to change that. It appears that the case revolved around whether a patent can be found invalid by "preponderance of the evidence" or by "clear and convincing evidence". The Court held "Section 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence".

      That the burden of proving a patent invalid falls on the party claiming it is invalid sounds good to me; otherwise small-time patent owners would never be able to go to court and prove (over and over) that all their patents are valid against a deep-pocketed adversary.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-290.pdf

    3. Re:And the band marches on... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know it's popular to portray Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but this totally sucks.

      While it totally sucks, Microsoft is the Evil Empire. to wit, from the summary:

      While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation,' Microsoft said in a statement."

      So when you say:

      this is only going to convince big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Cisco, etc. that they need to hunker down even more in developing extensive patent portfolios and vigorously defending them.

      You actually miss the point about why Microsoft is evil. Instead of talking about how software patents are ridiculous, they publicly announce their intention to manipulate the system such that big corporations like them will be able to crush small players (of ill repute or not) like i4i. Got to love that name, huh? Of course, you have to do a little translation. "prevent abuse of the patent system" means "avoid Microsoft and its ilk being harmed by the patent system" and "true innovation" means "strong market position". To Microsoft, it is only justified to wield such a portfolio if you actually use the patents, because they do. There is at least a certain logic to this position.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:And the band marches on... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's a huge mix of emotions. Microsoft hatred. Hating patents. Awareness that this hurts every company that ever uses XML. Realizing that this hurts every company that ever uses XML, and thus could be the end of XML! There's too much hate. Let the world move on, and dance!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:And the band marches on... by future+assassin · · Score: 2

      Patent trolls? I though i4i had a legitimate case here and have real products.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    6. Re:And the band marches on... by c · · Score: 2

      > this is only going to convince big companies like Microsoft, Apple,
      > Google, Amazon, Cisco, etc. that they need to hunker down even
      > more in developing extensive patent portfolios and vigorously defending them.

      That's a strategy which only really works against someone who builds a product which might infringe on one of their patents. It doesn't do much to prevent exposure to patent trolls, or companies who discover they can make more money from lawsuits than actually building products.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    7. Re:And the band marches on... by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this is such a brain dead obvious thing to do that the fact that it is patented and worth 300 million dollars is fucking ridiculous!

      When it comes to monopolizing ideas, the most brain dead obvious ones are the most valuable, because everybody uses them.

  3. Judge's don't understand technolog by PickyH3D · · Score: 2

    I guess we should all be patenting the obvious use cases of all standards.

    Same story, different day. What a joke. i4i should go around suing every company using XML with predefined tags.

    1. Re:Judge's don't understand technolog by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess we should all be patenting the obvious use cases of all standards.

      Same story, different day. What a joke. i4i should go around suing every company using XML with predefined tags.

      Yes, this is a joke. Microsoft is using XML to do something XML was designed to do, how can someone patent that?

      It hurts a little to say this, but Microsoft is in the right.

    2. Re:Judge's don't understand technolog by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This specific Supreme Court review didn't really touch on the technology issue, though, just the legal standard of proof, since the question they were reviewing was a pretty narrow one of statutory construction. Section 282 of the patent code specifies that, when a patent is challenged in court:

      1. "A patent shall be presumed valid."

      and

      2. "The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity."

      I disagree with that as a matter of policy, but that's what the Patent Act says, and absent any claim that it's unconstitutional, the only thing the Court was asked to decide here is what "burden" means, legally.

      The Federal Circuit (a lower appeals court) has held for some years now that "burden of establishing invalidity" means that the party bringing a challenge must show "clear and convincing evidence" of the patent's invalidity. Microsoft argued that, for prior art that the patent office had not already considered in its review record, the burden of establishing invalidity should be lower, with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

      I'd prefer the lower burden of proof, but this question isn't really at the heart of why we have a patent mess; at best it's a symptom.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:Judge's don't understand technolog by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      In the absence of any actual details or real explanation, your claims are not very convincing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Judge's don't understand technolog by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      No they're not but then I didn't expect that you actually followed the lawsuit and understood the details of the case.

      You make a lot of assumptions, I'm surprised you took the time to write a reply. Considering that, while there is an obvious attempt at an insult, you don't actually say anything of substance.

  4. Translation: by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    "While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation,' Microsoft said in a statement.""

    If you run that statement through Google translate and select "English to Microsoftese", it translates it to "We'll continue to lobby for laws that allow us to file patent lawsuits against everyone else, but which prevents anyone else from filing them against us."

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Translation: by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here are a couple articles describing some times when Microsoft has sued different companies over patents:

      TomTom:

      http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Linux_subplot_40305732.html
      Salesforce:

      http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/49826-microsoft-sued-over-patents-for-a-change

      Motorola:
      http://www.osnews.com/story/23860/Microsoft_Slaps_Motorola_with_Patent_Lawsuit_over_Android

      Barnes & Noble:

      http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble/

      Just a few of the companies being sued by Microsoft.
      Most companies don't wanna get sued by Microsoft - so they often settle.
      But Microsoft will sue if they don't get their way.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
  5. can't sue those that does not create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mutual Assured Destruction cannot be used to defend against patent trolls. They create no products, therefore cannot possibly infringe on any patents, which means no matter how many patents you have, you can't counter sue them. Their whole business plan consist of buying patent on the cheap, and suing anybody who makes a profit in any area remotely related to the patent.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shame that, if there is any patent reform legislation, it will be written by Microsoft, Apple and whatnot.

  8. Re:Too funny by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation", Microsoft said in a statement.

    Someone needs to let Paul Allen know about MS's change in attitude about patents.

  9. That's a mouth full. Short version - by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We want our cake and eat it too."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  10. Agreed by Benfea · · Score: 2

    While I agree with you that this is a bad decision with negative consequences for the industry, well, you did mention the irony here so I won't have to explain why I am experiencing a twinge of schadenfreude right now.

  11. RTFO by spiritu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken. As it also makes clear, the responsibility for fixing the broken patent system lies entirely with Congress.

    This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.

    Since the broken statute is not unconstitutional - Congress was empowered by the Constitution to act, and it did, poorly - the Court can only point out the flaw and hope the Congress fixes it.

    1. Re:RTFO by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken. As it also makes clear, the responsibility for fixing the broken patent system lies entirely with Congress.

      This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.

      Since the broken statute is not unconstitutional - Congress was empowered by the Constitution to act, and it did, poorly - the Court can only point out the flaw and hope the Congress fixes it.

      Not really. The Supreme Court were the ones who first came up with this interpretation, in a decision back in 1934. It was then applied for 20 years until Congress thought it was such a good idea that they expressly put it into the statute. It's been statutory law for the past 60 years.
      So to say the Supreme Court is now saying "yeah, the statute, which comes from a decision we had 80 years ago which we're currently affirming, is totally wrong and broken" is just incorrect.

    2. Re:RTFO by nyri · · Score: 2

      I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken.

      You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-290.ZS.html

      This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.

      Well there is more to it. I find this concurrence by Breyer interesting. It gives a layman such as myself a clear picture what they ruled:

      I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately because, given the technical but important nature of the invalidity question, I believe it worth emphasizing that in this area of law as in others the evidentiary standard of proof applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law. [...] Thus a factfinder must use the “clear and convincing” standard where there are disputes about, say, when a product was first sold or whether a prior art reference had been published.

      Many claims of invalidity rest, however, not upon factual disputes, but upon how the law applies to facts as given. Do the given facts show that the product was previously “in public use”? 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Do they show that the invention was “nove[l]” and that it was “non-obvious”? 102, 103. Do they show that the patent ap-plicant described his claims properly? 112. Where the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal questions—what these subsidiary legal standards mean or how they apply to the facts as given—today’s strict standard of proof has no application. [...]

      Courts can help to keep the application of today’s “clear and convincing” standard within its proper legal bounds by separating factual and legal aspects of an invalidity claim, say, by using instructions based on case-specific circumstances that help the jury make the distinction or by using interrogatories and special verdicts to make clear which specific factual findings underlie the jury’s conclusions. [...]. By isolating the facts (determined with help of the “clear and convincing” standard), courts can thereby assure the proper interpretation or application of the correct legal standard (without use of the “clear and convincing” standard). By preventing the “clear and convincing” standard from roaming outside its fact-related reservation, courts can increase the likelihood that discoveries or inventions will not receive legal protection where none is due.

    3. Re:RTFO by petsounds · · Score: 2

      Here's the passage in question, for those too lazy to look at the FPDF:

      c) This Court is in no position to judge the comparative force of the parties’ policy arguments as to the wisdom of the clear-and- convincing-evidence standard that Congress adopted. Congress specified the applicable standard of proof in 1952 when it codified the common-law presumption of patent validity. During the nearly 30 years that the Federal Circuit has interpreted 282 as the Court does today, Congress has often amended 282 and other patent laws, but apparently has never considered any proposal to lower the standard of proof. Indeed, Congress has left the Federal Circuit’s interpreta- tion in place despite ongoing criticism, both from within the Federal Government and without. Accordingly, any recalibration of the stan- dard of proof remains in Congress’ hands.

      You have some replies stating that the Supreme Court should clean up the mess they started, but our system doesn't work that way. The Supreme Court can only apply a test of constitutionality to existing Congressional laws. They can't just outright invalidate or change laws they think are broken, even if the rationale for the law began with the Court. That's why this opinion states that Congress must clean up its own mess. All the Court can do in this case is wag its collective finger at Congress.

  12. Re:Too funny by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    I think most of the big software vendors are starting to really believe this. MS has been advocating for patent reform in more than just lawsuit defenses. They're paying lobbyists to say the same thing. That doesn't mean they won't keep filing patents, and filing lawsuits based on those patents, until the day any reform takes place though. There's a difference between seeing something needs to change, or even advocating for those changes, and letting the currently unchanged rule bite you in the ass. No corporation is going to take a moral stand on the issue in a way that opens it up to potential liability or disallows potential profit. All the big players (except maybe Oracle), seem to be realizing that the current system doesn't favor them, it favors the patent trolls.

    Say whatever bad things you want about MS, Apple, Google, and the like, but all of them are in essentially the same boat. They actually make real products, that they release and sell. Whether those products are pure software or software and hardware synergies, they are real products which really make money one way or another. Patent trolls don't make anything, they just patents stuff and wait around for someone to do something similar so they can sue. The patent portfolio based "mutually assured destruction" pacts that keep the big players off each other's backs simply don't work on the trolls, and it's going to start costing the big boys more and more money. So now they have a good reason to change the system they've been abusing for the last decade.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  13. Re:Too funny by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So now they have a good reason to change the system they've been abusing for the last decade.

    Maybe it was second nature, or just the context of your point, but what you said is corporations changing the system they have been abusing.

    What is tragic to me is that it is not the citizens being represented here. The whole system does not work at all for the consumer or society. We need major reform of the entire copyright/patent/trademark system starting with the fundamentals...... that public domain is the most valuable thing we own and that it needs to be protected first.

    The way corporations want it, and that includes MS (and especially Disney), is that the public domain does not exist at all. They keep pushing for permanent ownership of ideas and expressions without the possibility of being put *back* into the public domain.

  14. Bummer by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it also makes clear, the responsibility for fixing the broken patent system lies entirely with Congress.

    Well, then we are truly and fully fucked.

    1. Re:Bummer by adamchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, maybe this is a good thing. Its good that it happened to the 800 lb gorilla Microsoft instead of the little companies that can't afford to do anything about it. Microsoft has the money and political clout to lobby congress into getting something like this fixed. The little software companies would be rendered completely ineffective at trying to change something. I just hopes this means Microsoft is going to get this fixed

  15. Re:Too funny by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    I meant more "advocating for changing the system they've spent the last decade abusing". Doesn't change your point though. I totally agree. I'm not an anti-IP fanatic, I think the existence of copyright and patents are fine and good for society overall, but several things about he current system clearly need to change. Shorter copyright terms, more controls on what is or isn't patentable, these and many others need to be implemented before posterity loses it's access to our cultural and scientific heritage.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  16. Re:Too funny by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

    What is more like the OP is saying is that the corporations like MS et al have to live within the system as it exists now, even if they want to change it. That means for their survival, they must patent and challenge other patents, since they actually make a product. I believe there is sense in this. I also happen to agree that these business method patents are ridiculous. I also believe that MS should have won this case, and I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS split along party lines again.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  17. Re:Microsoft to fight software patents? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2

    Congratulations, you've simplified a complex situation down to a simple black and white dichotomy which bears little relevance to the original situation. Have you considered founding a popular religion?

  18. Re:Too funny by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

    True, we want to change the system, but could you please wait until we've sued that pesky Android system out of existence...

    Thanks so much,
    Microsoft

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  19. The ruling offered a bit of hope about bad patents by Julie188 · · Score: 2

    As part of the commentary in the ruling, Justice Breyer offered some advice to courts on how they can use facts in court cases about patent infringement. Some patent lawyers think that this may make it easier for juries to overturn a patent. (More in my article here, if you're interested: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060911-microsoft-i4i-patent.html) It's not the same as a ruling that would make it easier for companies to defend against patent infringement suits from bad patents, or if the Bilski case had lead to invalidated "business process" patents altogether ... Yes, the Supreme Court is making it clear that this is up to Congress to fix ... which it really is. But gimme a break ... Members of Congress are a little busy right now arguing over gutting Medicare and scandals involving naughty Twitpics.

    Julie

  20. Re:Does /. consider this good or bad? by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2

    That $100k FDIC should really be $1m to account for inflation in the last 30 years. Little people are really, really screwed.

    First, it has been upped, originally it was $2,500 (1934)
    Second, it is not $100k, but $250k (as of 2008).

    --
    Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
    Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  21. Reasonable decision by Animats · · Score: 2

    This was a reasonable decision. Microsoft was willfully infringing, and their only defense was that some old version of the product which might have contained the patented technology might have been on sale a year before the patent was filed. Microsoft lost on that issue at trial. Microsoft then cooked up a legal theory that they only had to show a preponderance of the evidence to prevail, rather than having to overcome the statutory provision that issued patents are assumed valid. That was a a weak argument; both the plain text of the statute and previous decisions are against it. The Supreme Court slapped it down 8-0. I'm surprised the Court even took the case.

    This isn't a major decision in patent law, like Bilski or Zoltek. It doesn't change policy. Read "Microsoft v. i4i: Supreme Court Affirms Strong Presumption of Patent Validity " on PatentlyO.