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."

16 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. 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.

  6. 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!?
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.