Supreme Court Sides With Microsoft Over AT&T 122
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?
Re:First Dup! (Score:3, Informative)
HTH
Re:Sensors Detect Bullshit, Captain (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Re:WTF? (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".
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.
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.
Re:First Dup! (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.
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: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.