Slashdot Log In
Supreme Court Sides With Microsoft Over AT&T
Journal written by trianglman (1024223) and posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Apr 30, 2007 03:41 PM
from the fluent-in-loopholeanese dept.
from the fluent-in-loopholeanese dept.
The Supreme Court today sided with Microsoft in another important patent case filed by AT&T. The case centered around whether selling Windows overseas infringed on AT&T's patents that are in Windows. Microsoft argued [PDF] that the copies being sold in Asia were "...not technically supplied from the United States because overseas manufacturers of its computers made copies of the software from a master disk and installed those copies into the operating system. Microsoft said it could not be considered a supplier since the copies, not the original software, were in the computers built abroad." Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?
Related Stories
[+]
Supreme Court Weakens Patents 331 comments
ajakk writes "The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, overturned the decades old test for determine whether a patent is obvious. The Court ruled that the Court had looked at obviousness in a "narrow, rigid manner." This should allow patents to be more easily invalidated because they are obvious."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can wash your hands of patent infringement by hiding behind a redistribution license!?
That sounds like a loophole big enough for a 18-wheeler to drive through!
Xesdeeni
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, a company operating abroad is responsible for complying with local law, not US law. You can't sue a company in a US court for its behavior overseas. That's the the general rule; there are exceptions.
The law makes an exception for building devices in the US which would infringe a patent if sold in the US but are instead exported -- the patent holder can sue in the US where the device is made. Microsoft argued that the general principle (local law) applies here, not the exception, because the would-be infringing device was actually manufacturered abroad.
The Supreme Court agreed and applied the general rule: if AT&T wants to collect, they'll have to sue in the countries where the infringement occurred.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't make sense. Windows isn't "manufactured" abroad. It's copied abroad. Unless the patents are related to pressing CDs, the "product" being manufactured isn't the disc, it's the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's pretty much what the Supremes decided. It's not subject to US patent law unless components of the infringing device are made in the US. They decided that making a master here and copying it abroad does not constitute infringement in the US.
The decision is also remarkable because Justice Alito compares Windows to a shrimp deveiner.
Note to editors: you can circle around or center on but you can't "center around".
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your post, it doesn't answer the deeper question of where Windows is "manufactured." I'd argue it's manufactured in Redmond.
I wonder
Re: (Score:2)
ScuttleMonkey knows not what he says. (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot enforce patents on algorithms/idea themselves, just devices/actions that implement them - this has been true since the beginning. The Supreme Court has never ruled that software is patentable, just that a device implemented using software is just as patentable as one implemented using hardware. It has long been believed that source code would not be considered a device, but just a description of a device, and is thus no more protected by patent law than a technical spec or published paper. However, programs running on a computer have been ruled to be a device, and therefore in practice sofware is patentable, even though technically it is not.
This case focused in part on the question of whether compiled code is a device - and the answer was no, it too is just a description. In practical terms this means very little for domestic software producers - since you can't run software without a computer, either you or your customer will be breaking the law if one of you does not license the patents, and knowingly selling software that needs patents licenses, without informing your customers about it will get you in bit trouble. Furthermore, even if you do inform your customers, you could have problems depending on the circumstance.
As far as international trade, it has the effect that patent export laws do not apply to software. With a physical device if you build it here and ship it abroad you have to pay patent royalties, but if you send the plans abroad and produce and sell it there, then US patent laws don't apply. Since software is simply a description, as long as the computer (or embedded device) is produced abroad, and the software is installed abroad, you don't have to pay US patent royalties. Of course you do still have to pay patent royalties in the other country if they apply.
Another area that it could have an impact in is open source drivers, especially firmware. You could argue that anyone that uses the software has paid for any required patent licenses when they bought the hardware in question. And since the court ruled that there is no difference between machine language and source code as far as patents go, they are no longer an excuse for providing binary only drivers. (Of course all the companies that are claiming "patent issues", are really probably trying to protect trade secrets).
Parent
Re:ScuttleMonkey knows not what he says. (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be punishing companies for infringements that don't exist. If I use software in Ireland and the maker gets sued in the US they shouldn't be charged for patent violations that aren't violations here. If the software was legally sold here and didn't violate locally recognised patents then the maker didn't do anything wrong (except for directly exporting).
In the long run this will be good for Linux. It also has implications for other judgements such as the EOLAS case, I think.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does software stand then with so many battles over 1-click, table/database, tab and software download patents? All still not defining software as a pa
Re: (Score:2)
So what part of this argument doesn't negate all of the patants that Microsoft has on their software? If you can't be sued because your software isn't a component that was included in a computer, and claim that because the software was copied onto the system and therefore was not included with it, it doesn't constitute a component of the patentable item.
simple.. if MS has a patent in that country they are okay. AT&T doesn't hold a patent for that bit in many of the countries MS sells to. So MS can sell there royalty free and At&T must apply to patent what ever it is MS has used.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It means, for example, if you wrote code for Linux that violated a MS patent and that code was installed on computers only in countries where MS patents were not honored, MS couldn't sue you. As others have pointed out, this ruling has nothing to do with piracy since that's a copyright issue.
Uh, in the digital world, if MS gets paid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't MS just blow their argument? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they're telling me that if I use Windows in China, AT&T can come sue me because MS won't back up their product? So why not just go with Linux to begin with?
Issue was "who's the manufacturer" (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is "who is the manufacturer" - Microsoft, or the guys who built the box and loaded the software onto it.
The patents cover the final system. (That's because you can't patent the software itself, only the total system using the software.) The software is a component of the system, like a chip full of AND gates, a capacitor, or even a complex integrated circuit that was designed specifically to perform the patented functionality.
If you look at the documentation that comes with your typical chip, you'll see a manufacturers disclaimer of patent liability. Essentially "If you use this chip to do something patented, getting a license from the patent holder, fighting his suit, or paying the judgement is your problem."
Microsoft just wants to be in the same position as a chip manufacturer with respect to the computerized-device manufacturer who builds a final product that incorporates their software and somebody else's chips.
The supreme court just said that Microsoft gets the same deal as Intel, AMD, Broadcom, etc.
Parent
Does this mean..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean..... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This only applies to other countries.
2. It only applies to the AT&T patents inside the software.
It seems that the OEMs are nominally responsible for securing AT&T's patents in those countries before distributing the software. So if you're in Asia pirating copies of Windows, both Microsoft and AT&T will be suing you.
If you're in the US, only Microsoft will sue you, and part of the money they take out of your hide should go to AT&T.
So AT&T should, theoretically, be going after these OEMs; Microsoft isn't on the hook to pay them. But it's a lot easier for AT&T to pursue Microsoft than a bunch of Microsoft's OEMs.
Parent
Of course it doesn't apply. (Score:2)
A lawsuit from AT&T hurts Microsoft's bottom line and thus this ruling is ok. Pirating overseas in Asia also hurts Microsoft's bottom line and thus this ruling wouldn't be applied.
Glad we have that cleared up.
I think Microsoft needs to prove (Score:2)
Piracy has nothing to do with patents (Score:5, Insightful)
But this has nothing to do with "pirated copies", because software piracy is a matter of copyright law, not patent law, and there are numerous treaties governing the protection of copyrights internationally that still apply.
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing about this is that it gives the anti-patent lobby in the US a powerful weapon to use when talking to their elected r
Re: (Score:2)
Sensors Detect Bullshit, Captain (Score:2)
Schwab
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sensors Detect Bullshit, Captain (Score:5, Informative)
You might remember that this was the Supreme Court case where the Freedom Software Law Center (Eben Moglen's organisation) did write an Amicus Curiæ Brief [slashdot.org] technically in support of Microsoft. The SFLC wanted the Court to decide that software isn't a (patentable) component altogether. Sadly, the Court did not follow that logic. (It was a long shot, and worth the try.)
Instead, it held that software in the abstract isn't a component. It's not the method but the apparatus capable of executing the method that can be patented.
Such an apparatus is, in pratice, a computer on which said software is installed.
The contended software was a speech encoding and compression algorithm included in a version of Windows sold to foreign manufacturers.
The Court held that since the actual copying of the Windows software on the computer was done outside the United States (Düsseldorf or Tokyo, if I recall), the United States patent law does not apply. The fact that the software (on the master disk) was created inside the United States, and copied from the United States to Düsseldorf or Tokyo, is considered irrelevant.
So basically, the Court held that software patents are unenforceable under US patent law as long as you don't load the software on any device inside the US.
Parent
Re:Sensors Detect Bullshit, Captain (Score:5, Informative)
Suppose I design a chair that infringes AT&Ts patent in the US (and the patent only applies in the US). If I make the chair in the US, I have to pay the license. If I make the chair in china and import it to the US I have to pay to license.
If I have a chair factory in the US that makes chairs for US use, and another factory in china that makes chairs for Chinese use. Then I don't have pay licensing on the Chinese chairs, because the patent doesn't apply where they are produced or sold. This isn't controversial, and is how patent laws work. You only have to license patents in the countries you make/sell the products affected by them.
Now, of course for me to set up a chair factory in china I have to send them blueprints and a prototype for the chair. This is of course, perfectly legal. Again, no controversy. At most I might pay a royalty on the single unit.
Now in this case, AT&T asserted that distributing windows elsewhere, by having sent a copy of the CD sent there constituted making the product in the US and then distributing it, entitling AT&T to patent royaltys for each copy sold abroad.
MS, asserted it was really more like sending a single blueprint and prototype to the chair factory, for them to produce copies locally, and that AT&T was not entitled to royaltees for each copy of the product made and distributed abroad.
I personally agree with SCOTUS, and side with MS on this. Its consistent with how patent law is normally applied.
Parent
Moot point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming that they are not exporting patented parts outside of the US for foreign assembly.
The software doesn't violate the patent until the foreign manufacturers load it on a computer. Hence, MS is not exporting a patented part, so they don't violate that particular law.
It's as if I patented a widget made of steel. Can I sue the steel manufacturer for exporting the metal to China
What does this mean for end users of ... (Score:2, Interesting)
So if I make a copy of, say, Linux that has a "patent-infringing" software in it, am I liable for violating the patent, or is the author of the software? Or are both of us, if we're in the US?
--sabre86
Article summary is wrong (Score:2)
I'll take a shot.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is whether the US patent held by AT&T applies to copies of Windows that are installed on foreign-built computers. The ruling is that OS installs from a master disk made in the US don't qualify as US-made export goods themselves, and therefore aren't subject to US patents.
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't Microsoft still get paid for each OEM copy of Windows that is sold, regardless of whether an actual CD was sent for each computer or not? Also, don't computers oversees come with an official copy of the Windows CD? Last I checked, they do here...although, it has been awhile since I've purchased a computer rather than building it myself...
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't this seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of software? I mean, the software isn't the CD, it's the stuff on the CD...every copy of it is identical to the original...the transmission medium should be completely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The Real Question (Score:2)
That's a stupid question. If you are a pirate, why would you even care about the patents?
The real question this brings up is if someone pirates this same overseas master disk and distributes those copies, doesn't it follow that MS has no recourse, that the only ones being infringed are the overseas distrbutors and not MS?
And the answer i
Re: (Score:2)
The real question this brings up is if someone pirates this same overseas master disk and distributes those copies, doesn't it follow that MS has no recourse, that the only ones being infringed are the overseas distrbutors and not MS?
They have no recourse to persue patent compensation but they could persue copy-right violations. Violating a patent is not violating a copyright law. They are no equivalent. Although both are used in similiar ways: temparary monopoly on some ideas.
Stupid summary (Score:2)
Somewhat makes sense, but I would think it would be common sense that the "manufacturer" of a software product was the developer, not the facility where discs are copied. If it was this easy, we could get our product certified as being manuf
One for the diplomats (Score:2)
Again, if I got it correctly, local manufacturers can sue Microsoft for selling them goods without disclosing potential liabilities.
This is one for the diplomats to untangle. Hope they enjoy it.
The SC is interpreting a very specific statute (Score:4, Informative)
Let's clarify something. Section 271 of the Patent Act defines many different types of infringing acts. Section 271(a) defines infringement as the making, using, selling, or importing (the most common types of infringement). Section 271(f)(1) defines another type of infringing act, namely, exporting "components" of a patented invention.
Section 271(f)(1) states:
Section 271(f)(1) was created to close a loophole in patent laws that allowed companies to manufacture the "patented invention" by manufacturing the components of the invention and then shipping the components overseas to be assembled and sold. Because the individual components did not infringe to the "patented invention," these companies were not infringers.
Section 271(f)(1) was an attempt to close that loophole, and provides that infringement does occur when one "suppl[ies] ... from the United States," for "combination" abroad, a patented invention's "components."
In Microsoft, the SC addressed Section 271(f)(1), and specifically the term "component." The Supreme Court held that "component" means "component," or a part of the whole which is combined to form the final product. The master disks exported by Microsoft were not "components" because the disks themselves where not combined with the "whole." Instead, the disks where used to make software, which then became part of the whole. The Supreme Court analogized the master disks to tools. Tools are used to make a "component" but they are not "components." Section 271(f)(1) only applies to "components" and not to tools for making components. Thus, Microsoft did not infringe (as defined by 271(f)(1)). The opinion is limited to section 271(f)(1), and likely will not affect "normal" infringing activities.
Total miss by poster (Score:2)
The case was this: AT&T and Microsoft had a patent dispute. Microsoft accepted the fact that it violated the patent in the US. Question: Does Microsoft owe AT&T damages for patent violations in the US *and* for products shipped outside the US? Or, must AT&T sue MS in those countries also? According to a 1984 law, if you manufacture patented parts for assembly outside the US, you violate the patents in the US.
The court found: Shippi
It's tough to know (Score:2)
Read what laywers are saying about these decisions (Score:5, Informative)
It might be more instructional than reading dozens of comments that start with, "I don't know a thing about law, but... ." It's like marketers talking about programming: "I don't know C# from sharp cheddar, but... ." Here are a few views from lawyers who know patent law:
KSR v. Teleflex:
Microsoft v. AT&T:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
HTH
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just in case anyone is interested in the actual opinions:
The Supreme Court opinion of Microsoft v. AT&T [supremecourtus.gov].
For completeness: The previous story was (mainly) about KSR v. Teleflex [supremecourtus.gov], although it did mention Microsoft v. AT&T as well, in the fifth paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)