Microsoft Ordered To Pay $388 Million In Patent Case 233
jeffmeden writes "BusinessWeek reports today that Microsoft suffered a loss in federal court Monday. The judge rendering the verdict ordered Microsoft to pay $388 Million in damages for violating a patent held by Uniloc, a California maker of software that prevents people from illegally installing software on multiple computers. Uniloc claims Microsoft's Windows XP and some Office programs infringe on a related patent they hold. It's hard to take sides on this one, but one thing is certain: should the verdict hold up, it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million."
One can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but don't count on it.
XP has been around for a loooong time for a Microsoft OS. I'm sure they've made more than $388 million off of it... seeing as how they've been holding on to several billion in cash for several years now.
This doesn't even consider Office sales.
Re:One can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
OP talks about $388m being made extra due to copy protection. I.e. $388m they would not have made if they did without it. And I highly doubt that.
Has copy protection ever kept anyone from copying? At best, the "casual copier". Who has in this case even a free alternative, if he can't figure out how to torrent a version that works.
Re:One can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.
So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo, got it in one. Additionally, I don't think Microsoft has to worry much about this one. By the time the appeals are exhausted, concessions made, and lawyers paid the company may well be defunct or have been purchased outright by Microsoft. They're about the only ones left with any money.
Re:One can dream (Score:4, Funny)
They're about the only ones left with any money.
But I read a week ago that Microsoft wanted bailout money due to lackluster sales of Vista.
Re:One can dream (Score:5, Funny)
That's why you read kdawson articles only for the humor. Facts are to be found elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One can dream (Score:4, Interesting)
So, at what point did that marginal additional argument against pirates earn Microsoft $388M?
Re:One can dream (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF is an illegal copy?
Show me the law that makes installing a purchased copy of Microsoft Office on more than one computer illegal.
There isn't one, that's why they need technological measures and scare tactics to enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is none yet. The pressure to push copyright law into the criminal code is heavy, and some countries are actually giving in already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that even breaking copy protection isn't illegal.. distributing tools and publishing techniques may be in some places. Here in Australia, it's only illegal if you're charging people for the tools.
Re:Breaking Copy protection (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the country.
First couple lines of Wiki's entry on DMCA
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, pretty sure that breaking copyright is illegal.
True. Good thing this has nothing to do with breaking copyright.
Re:One can dream (Score:4, Informative)
Show me the law that makes installing a purchased copy of Microsoft Office on more than one computer illegal.
Ummmm... How about Title 17 of the United States Code? 17 U.S.C. s.106 grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. Section 501 says violating any of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (including section 106) is a copyright infringement. Installing a copy of Microsoft Office on your hard drive is making a copy of the program (in fact, even just loading it into RAM is making a copy), so you can only do that with a license from Microsoft. Microsoft granted you a license to install it on one computer. So installing it on more than one computer is an infringement of their copyright.
And no, section 117 won't save you here. That only permits additional copies for archival purposes, or copying into RAM as an essential step in running the program. It doesn't grant you the right to install on more than one computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Section 117 may not save you WRT putting the program on two hard systems' hard drives (though it does make your comment about "making a copy into RAM" incorrect). Since typical programs these days will not function from the installation CD, I'd argue that section 117 also means I don't need a license to install the program on a single computer. (The theme at which I'm driving is, I don't think I need an EULA at all to use a program I acquire legally. But that's probably a broader topic.)
Given how section
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no fucking consideration.. how can it possibly be a legal contract. For fuck sake, even if you're willing to accept that pressing a button is signing a contract, there's not even dual signing. Click wrap licensing is like the retarded urban myth form of legal nonsense that dominates the software industry. No-one would try this shit in any other industry because it's so fuckin' petty.
Re: (Score:2)
Some courts have already accepted that pressing a button is equivalent to signing, at least in some jurisdictions. Furthermore, you don't have to sign a contract to be found to agree with the contract. The contract doesn't even have to be in writing, to be legal. If a software company has gone to the trouble of writing a EULA, and then writing a wrapper around that EULA that limits access to their software, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they intended to be bound by that contract.
Click-wrap licens
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're talking GPL, that's not an EULA, it's a *distribution* license. GPL specifically states you do not need to agree to it to use the software.
BSD isn't an EULA either.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.
So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.
Good idea, but it's not true in Microsoft's case. They haven't ever sued any individual end users for installing a cracked XP, so the idea of proving intent is moot. They have gone after mass producers, but in that case intent is already clear and the lock hasn't been broken yet, per se.
Re:One can dream (Score:4, Insightful)
I think even the most uneducated juries (perhaps I'm being too generous) would understand the difference between making a backup and installing 1 copy on ten different computers, and making ten backups of the original disc and keeping them safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the idea is still the same: For each case, you must have a single person or a few to commit the break in or copy protection breach. In each case, there's a specific person or a group that did it. That's the whole point. And that's really illegal: the breach, and not the actual copying in most parts of the globe.
And you should see the tools burglars have :) They have come a long way from a crowbar and simple lock picks. For most modern locks there are specific tools that open the lock pretty fast.
Re: (Score:2)
We believe that we do not infringe, that the patent is invalid and that this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is. You have to activate within 30 days or you can't use the software.
There are patches around that get round that, but if you run Windows Update, then from time to time, the patched copy of the relevant file will get updated with a real one, and then it will discover that you don't have a legit copy, and you can't use the software until you find another patch.
Alternatively it means you can't run Windows Update, and your computer gets left open to all the security exploits that it might otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
XP forces you to activate your copy of windows within 30 days or cuts you off.
It does? ...oh, you must have downloaded the home version. Get the pro one, MS knows better than to piss off big companies by making them do that shit; one big (10,000 desktops+) company switching away from MS is going to cost them a buttload more than a few home users getting a few more features.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine billions wasted in corporate image, support calls, downtime and even people lost to OS X or Linux which doesn't need such things.
I recently mistyped a Vista ultimate license and just while owner leaving for airport, I could barely notice a small font ''This copy of Vista will stop working in 3 days if not activated with valid serial''. I ended up holding laptop and reading the serial again trying to figure what letter I typed wrong.
People always assume OS X or iLife doesn't need activation or serial
Re:One can dream (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:2, Interesting)
it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.
XP was released in 2001. 400 million copies were in use by 2006. Assuming a paltry $1 profit on every copy sold (it's way higher, but just for the sake of argument), they have already broken even 3 years ago.
That doesn't even include the Office cash cow.
Sorry, it is actually anti-ironic. Anironic. The opposite of ironic. Cinori. Aronic.
Re:Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on... $388M is like a parking ticket to Microsoft. They're only appealing the decision to dissuade the hundreds of other would-be claimants from filing the thousands of pending 9+ digit suits against them. They employ more lawyers than programmers ffs!
Now more than ever, their shareholders are screaming for them to make more money, not better software! What is M$ better at, making money, or good software?
That explains the software... (Score:2)
...They employ more lawyers than programmers ffs!
Well, at least that helps explain their track record of software quality.
Now more than ever, their shareholders are screaming for them to make more money, not better software! What is M$ better at, making money, or good software?
Your Honor, in the case of Money vs. Quality, I bring forth Exhibit A, a computer that is running Windows ME...
'Nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very large parking ticket, more than 2 percent of their net income in 2008.
Re:Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
Not even close [wikipedia.org]. 1/2 the size of Exxon, smaller than Walmart or Procter & Gamble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
Exxon (XOM): 112.9B (Q4 09)
walmart (WMT): 65.2B (Q1 09)
Procter & Gamble (PG): 62.4B (Q4 08)
MicroSoft(MSFT): 34.4B (Q4 08)
AT&T (AT): 96.3B(Q4 08--higher equity dispite lower cap)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): 42.5B (Q4 08-ditto)
General Electric (GE): 104.6B (Q4 08 ditto)
Numbers from Google finance, most recent Q available.
Re:Yes, that would be ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft are the richest corporation on the planet (to my knowledge) but their income is fading. They are losing money hand over fist for all sorts of reasons.
What are you talking about? Last year, MSFT's total revenue was $60 billion, compared to $51 billion for FY07. Gross profit was $48.8 billion versus $40.4 billion. And, net income was $17.7 billion versus $14 billion. Their income is not fading. And, they aren't losing money hand over fist.
Re: (Score:2)
Their cash mountain has just about vanished though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their cash mountain has just about vanished though.
Are you talking about the $20 billion they currently have in the bank? Because, that seems like quite a mountain to me. Yes, it has gone down, but they're buying back billions of shares of their own stock. It's not like they're losing the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft also has Exxon-Mobil grade corporate credit. Not generally the sign of a failing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Its easy to say they are losing money. Q4 2008 net cashflow: $-2bn. Part of that loss was down to financing and investing activities.
Well, if they hadn't bought back $9 billion of their own stock, they would have had a net cashflow of +$7 billion. So, they're not losing money; they're buying back stock, something that has nothing to do with the strength (or lack thereof) of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, isn't it, that despite the more or less continuous stock buyback program for the past 10 years, the price of their stock has remained stagnant? I've often wondered about that...
Re: (Score:2)
I think people have discounted the buyback because, well... what else were they going to do with all that money. If you know the buyback is coming, it gets priced in almost right away. Also, I think MSFT trades less like a tech company, and more like a utility. Instead of focusing on growth, they have to grow their margins, which is tougher.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
By pretty soon you mean some 20 quarters away (5 years).
Of course, I don't want them disrupting everything all around all this time, but MS is quite a hard bully to defeat.
Re: (Score:2)
And so: why is its market capitalization at $172bn now, while it was at $300bn one year ago?
Two reasons:
The first is growth. MSFT isn't growing as fast as it once was. It's a mature company, and cannot sustain the rate of growth it once did. But, just because it isn't growing as quickly, does not mean that it is not growing and making money.
The second is that there simply isn't enough money in the stock market to sustain their previous stock price. The entire market is down 50% And, bear in mind that market cap is only very, very, loosely correlated with the strength of the underlying corporation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're mis-counting.
Your numbers would hold up if you assume that every single person on Earth who uses XP (except, presumably, the person who purchased the first copy) had pirated their copy from this first person.
The set of numbers you want is people who:
EXTRA copies (Score:2)
The argument is that the EXTRA copies sold because of the copy protection might not be worth it.
EXTRA, not TOTAL.
Comprehensive reading, you fail it.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer will be a resounding YES.
$388 million is about three days profit for Microsoft, as the person who wrote the headline ought to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but it's a huge slice of their profits, easily more than half.
XP and Office have been around for many years, do you think $388m will worry them? Not even slightly (assuming they pay up, which they won't until several rounds of appeals, counter-lawsuits and bribery).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, good point, because if there was no copy protection on Windows or Office, then EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE PIRATED IT! Fucking brilliant.
$388M or $38M? (Score:3, Informative)
PC World has the figure at $38 million, which one is right? News item here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162832/microsoft_loses_antipiracy_patent_case.html [pcworld.com]
Re:$388M or $38M? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
cleverly... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft will find a way to pay them with copies of Windows XP.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
which are worth $30/ea now.
Re: (Score:2)
which are worth $30/ea now.
Actually if you look at some of the prices of netbooks with XP HOME on against the same ones with Linux the price of XP drops to zero dollars or less.
Re:cleverly... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the purchase of copies of Windows XP.
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
> Microsoft will find a way to pay them with coupons toward the upgrade of installed XP copies to Vista.
Here you go.
Karma (Score:4, Funny)
This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around..
Re: (Score:2)
Serves the bastards right for saber-rattling about people infringing on their patents, and dabbling in the world of patent trolling. Troll gets trolled, now THAT'S a headline.
Re:Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around.
This is slashdot, so an article in which someone does something generally accepted as bad but does it to Microsoft - and to their DRM, no less! - causes some kind of minor implosion.
Argghh.... Don't.... know... how ... to feel...
It doesn't matter two shits what this means to Microsoft, and it doesn't matter two shits what this means to DRM. This is definitely not a situation in which two wrongs somehow magic up a right.
This is just another story about why patents are damaging innovation in the USA, and on a global scale. But don't think that innovation enjoys being held back like this. If this situation is not fixed, we'll suffer - at most - a few more years of this BS, before the rest of the world moves on without the US.
Don't think it can't happen. If anything the current financial situation makes it more likely. Who's got the time or money to sit around being scared of the US Patent Office?
Re:Karma (Score:5, Funny)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does create a warm fuzzy feeling to know someone who wrongs others gets a little of it back. I don't approve of software patents, don't get me wrong, but it is kind of funny that Microsoft spent all that time rumbling about patent infringement and then get slapped with a massive patent infringement bill.
For some reason, I just had a mental image of Marie Antoinette being drowned in a vat of cake-mix...
Re: (Score:2)
$300 million is peanuts to MS, it's more like chucking a stale cupcake at Marie Antoinette.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
January 22, 2009 â" Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $16.63 billion for the second quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, a 2% increase over the same period of the prior year.
A little quick calculation shows that $388 million is slightly less than 2.4% of that--which neatly wipes out that gain on the previous year.
Just because its not devastating to them doesnt mean its insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like hating fraudsters but having a good feeling about fraudsters being scammed [419eater.com] themselves
Re:Karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are [supposed to be] for inventions, not ideas.
A carriage that moves without horses is an idea. A working model/prototype, or schematics to construct one, is an invention.
Or ... (Score:2)
This is what they get for suing TomTom. What goes around..
He who lives by the sword ...
Online Activation DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
So, who's next? SecuROM, Valve, ... basically every DRM that uses online activation?
Re: (Score:2)
basically every DRM that uses online activation?
Blizzard imo. This judge is a moron who set very bad precedent - and now that they have precedent they can sue any company that uses this kind of registration. I see Adobe in the newspaper in the near future.
The judge must be in error ... (Score:3, Funny)
( from http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/08/1733206 [slashdot.org] )
Take sides? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not hard to take sides at all. Software patents are bad. Period.
The only possible silver lining to this is that it helps demonstrate the badness of software patents.
(OK, seeing Microsoft discomfited is a little nice side effect, too.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not hard to take sides at all. Software patents are bad. Period.
Indeed, I agree with Microsoft on this: "We are very disappointed in the jury verdict. We believe that we do not infringe, that the patent is invalid and that this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported," Microsoft spokesman David Bowermaster said in a statement. But of course that's because ALL such patents, including Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system, are invalid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Software patents are trivial because what they protect is not scarce.
Microsoft gets the paycheck for what it resisted so violently, even with lobbyists in third nations: sane patent reform.
Read this IPwatch article to get an idea what is going on in the Microsoft community. [ip-watch.org] Phelps says:
What we've tried to do with "Burning the Ships" is take IP questions out of the realm of arcane debate among lawyers and show real people, in the midst of a highly dramatic internal struggle at Microsoft, learning how to deploy IP for tangible business benefit. As one reader put it, the book is a "thoroughly entertaining and informative canâ(TM)t-wait-to-get-to-the-next-page read."
Marshall Phelps wants to turn Microsoft into a kind of patent troll, or as they call it "open innovation".
IPW: A basic lesson in the book could be interpreted as, 'We were getting hurt by others who had patents, so we used our market power to require partners to agree not to enforce their patents until we had enough of our own patents to start enforcing them the way we didnâ(TM)t want others to do to us.' Can you address that?
PHELPS: Remember, this was back before software patents were a fact of life. MS was just getting a real head of steam but wasnâ(TM)t at all sure patenting was the way to go.
So either Microsoft kicks its bastards out or it simply deserves to suffer from these fines of a rotten patent system [princeton.edu].
A
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, software patents are bad, period.
Therefore, every time a major pro-software patent lobbier gets significantly bitten by them, it's good, because it deincentivizes said lobbying.
There may be an uncomfortable PR side effect, though, in that the lobbier can then say "look, we're on the giving end also". However, as the patent system slowly makes things more and more difficult even to the pro-patent lobby, I believe this slight PR effect is outweighed by said disincentive.
(Of course, the disincentive d
Re: (Score:2)
It shows how well software patents work for Microsoft.
Big boys can pay $300 million, and go on to sue someone else -the games continue. If you can't poney up that kind of cash, software development is a risky business.
He who lives by the patents... (Score:5, Funny)
...die by the patents.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, that's an old one. I like the updated version much better:
"He who lives by the sword is shot by someone who doesn't"
WGA (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean I'll have to give up my Windows Genuine Advantage tool? I was enjoying the convenience of the frequent black screens, nag screens and reboots.
The summary is incorrect (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually easy to take sides on this one. Software patents are WRONG, and so I'm on Microsoft's side. For once.
Link to the patent application (Score:2)
As for a jury interpreting the patent... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a 55 platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee 60 unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a plat- 65 form which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID.
Say what?
Hard to take sides? (Score:2)
It's hard to take sides on this one,
What is this more /. fud? Get a story posted on /. by saying "i am confused, I hate patents but I hate MS and this patent hurt MS". If you think patents suck then you should be defending MS in this case - otherwise you are a hippocrit. If you think patents are OK then you can cheer as MS got slammed.
Not knowing the exact nuances of this patent I think it is retarded and so is the judge for allowing a patent on preventing software frmo being installed on multiple computers. Well now this company is goi
Re: (Score:2)
There is no hipocrisy on cheer as MS got slammed by the same tool they created (or loobied toward the creation) in order to slam the small guys.
If there is any hipocrisy anywhere here it is within MS, by violating a software patent.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no hipocrisy on cheer as MS got slammed by the same tool they created (or loobied toward the creation) in order to slam the small guys. If there is any hipocrisy anywhere here it is within MS, by violating a software patent.
You are obviously an anti-MS fanatic who can't see reason (that's why you are a fanatic). MS created a tool and someone is sueing them YEARS after the tool had been established - a submarine patent. This is something /. users have stated they hate for many years. Now MS is getting sued by a submarine patent and you are saying "as they should". MS did not do anything hypocritical and you obviously do not know what that word means. What you are attempting to say "they created a tool that I do not like and
Re: (Score:2)
In Related News... (Score:2)
Re:TFA is lacking info... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why software patents are dreadful -- it simply rewards the guy who filed the patent application first. This is especially true with patents about simple ideas or those that are obvious to someone asked to solve a particular problem -- most software patents fall into this group.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the GOF patented their design patterns. :-)
We'd be fucked.
Re:TFA is lacking info... (Score:4, Interesting)
Systems and methods are provided for auditing and selectively restricting software usage based on, for example, software copy counts or execution counts. In one embodiment, the method comprises verifying whether the serial number for a software installed on a computing device corresponds to one of recognized serial numbers, and calculating a copy count (or software execution count) for the serial number. In response to the copy count exceeding a defined upper limit, a limited unlock key may be sent to the device. The limited unlock key may allow the software to be executed on the device for a defined time period, a defined number of executions, and/or with at least one feature of the software disabled.
This sounds to me like a really general way of copy protection, yep another rotten software patent in my books.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0 (Score:5, Insightful)
"jury verdict"
I wonder if anyone in the jury had even the foggiest idea of what the patent was actually about?
That strikes me as a real problem in the US system. How can a jury of average people really understand the intricacies of technology? If it takes a bright person 3 or 4 years to do a degree in the patent's subject area, what chance has the jury got to understand all these things in the time of a court case?
AFAIU, in some other regions these things are at least looked at by a board of people with some "skill in the art". Surely that must be a better way.
Re:Jury of average people+patents? a bad mix IMH0 (Score:5, Interesting)
You only have to read the comments on Slashdot to see that a lot of people with above average technical literacy massively mis-read the scope of the claims of typical patents. And having done this, they often then pronounce the patent 'obvious' and have a lot of ideas of what could be prior art.
As you say, when an average person looks at it, they could be expected to mis-read the scope of the patent in just the same way, but then not understand the obviousness of the ideas, or know of prior art.
So a lot of it is going to come down to the skills of the lawyers on each side of the argument. I guess this is why fighting patent cases in the court can get so expensive even if the technical side of the argument is often pretty clear to the Slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
I read an article a while back arguing something similar, i.e., we should do away with jury trials in patent cases because it's too complex.
It is complex, and there's a lot to be said against the common juror... but on the other hand, would it be better to leave it completely up to specialists? Then you might run into the same problem that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit experienced - a specialized venue for patents gets filled with a bunch of people who really like patents.
While I don't have m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This sums it up... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml [ox.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not really get all this crap about stock & shares ... I would certainly not put any money in that company ... Besides, since Microsoft have so harshly defended software patents, they should increase the fine 10 fold!
Besides, product activation and GA and all that crap has "significantly" increased Microsoft's revenue stream, get the facts!
http://www.klid.dk/statistics/mswin.html [www.klid.dk]
check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation .... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then .... wintards!
I'm sure the stinking pile of ME had nothing to do with that, nor the XP product itself, nor their other products, or anything else--it was simply the product activation that made them all that money. Correlation != causation. Oh, and if you were to buy stock in Microsoft, unless it's an IPO, you're not giving them any money.
Re: (Score:2)
it is also that many ppl that have ideas never bother realize the ideas because they cannot afford to take the risks that they will by accident infringe on someones patent
This is missing some information and makes your statement seem bigger then it really is. When a person get's sued for patent infringement they have to pay based on the profits they make. So if your invention makes you $100 you do not get sued for $1 million. People who come up with great ideas do not just say "aww f it cause I might get sued". What they can do is apply for a patent themselves. A lot of these submarine patents are people who come up with ideas, sit on it, never develop it and then when a