Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost $40 Million 231
SpuriousLogic writes "The judge who banned Microsoft from selling its Word document program in the US due to a patent violation tacked an additional $40 million onto a jury's $200 million verdict because the software maker's lawyers engaged in trial misconduct, court records reveal. In a written ruling, Judge Leonard Davis, of US District Court for Eastern Texas, chastised Microsoft's attorneys for repeatedly misrepresenting the law in presentations to jurors.'Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages,' Davis wrote. The judge cited a particular incident in which a Microsoft lawyer compared plaintiff i4i, Inc. to banks that sought bailout money from the federal government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 'He further persisted in improperly trying to equate i4i's infringement case with the current national banking crisis implying that i4i was a banker seeking a "bailout,"' Davis said."
Anyone got a PACER account? (Score:5, Interesting)
If we could see the court transcript, we'd have more info about why MS were fined x, y, z.
If someone has a PACER account, they could put the transcript on archive.org simply with the RECAP plugin:
* https://www.recapthelaw.org/ [recapthelaw.org]
And then we could have a more complete picture on http://en.swpat.org/wiki/I4i_v._Microsoft [swpat.org]
I read down to... (Score:2, Interesting)
I read down to "eastern district of texas" before figuring out what was going on.
MS complains that patent trolls should get a life and make a product, judge slaps 40 mil on top of the 200 mil product. Time for software providers to stop doing business in ED Texas (or all of Texas, if necessary). I'm not sure what sort of patent they ran into (probably "putting words onto computer" sometimes equally obvious/prior art'd), but how that could equate to a quarter billions is beyond me.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Interesting)
I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
Which part? Equating the patent troll i4i with a banker looking for TARP bailout money sounds a lot like a Wookie Defense to me. It seem that Microsoft's attorneys should have simply stuck with the facts at hand. Does i4i have an implementation of their patent? Have they ever? And, most importantly, was their patent sufficiently obvious to someone skilled in the art? Remember, the USPTO doesn't have the final say in whether or not a patent is enforceable. The courts, however, do.
MIcrosoft's attorneys need to stop playing silly games and start litigating their case.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing which surprises me is that the story doesn't say anything about a direct punishment of the lawyers. It seems like a straightforward case of contempt of court.
Re:Dumb law, dumber jury and dumbest lawyers (Score:1, Interesting)
IANAL, but am I mistaken in beliveing that any arguments made by Microsoft council could be read in another case. Like in a closing argument a lawyer could say "Microsoft said X about patents in this case, but in this old case they said Y."
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Does i4i have an implementation of their patent?
This [i4i.com] seems to be a product which is related to this patent. I don't know, slashdotters seem to be very quick to judge on the behalf of MS, claiming that i4i are patent trolls. I haven't seen any proof that they are, and until I do I'll consider this suit valid. Ironically those just spewing the phrase "patent troll" without providing any proof nor data are what? That's right -- trolls themselves.
Re:Penalize client? (Score:5, Interesting)
why is the client penalized for the behavior or mistakes of the attorney?
Why is the client rewarded for the behavior or successes of the attorney?
Lawyers? Punished? Hahahahah (Score:5, Interesting)
CLEARLY lawyers not only DO NOT get punished, but are REWARDED for behaving in this manner.
The good guys (that would be us the humans, as well as the named other parties in the cases) all lose, and the unethical lawyers win.
Cheers,
Ehud
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Interesting)
I will not feed the trolls... but... it's like a train wreck...
Just because you wouldn't use the product doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can call it Crapware all you like, but if they were making money off it, then that's all that matters. They were granted a patent on it, then Microsoft chose to implement it natively into Word, which invalidated their product. They did this without paying for the privileges. My guess is that some MS developper took it as a given that this was a good idea, and threw it into Word. The execs liked it, and they didn't bother to research whether there was competition or a patent on it.
If you were a developper on some widget for a program, you'd patented the methods and technology, and were making your livelihood off it, you'd be screaming bloody murder. The damages are a little excessive, but this is a company that's been put out of business by a developper with significantly more resources available to them deciding to ignore its patents. That's kind of why patents exist in the first place.
Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Can any law-talking folk explain how the $290 million figure is derived? And if the state of Texas collects tax on this award? Not being conspiratorial, I really don't know much about the follow-the-money aspect of these cases.