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."
MvP (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft... vs... patent trolls.. who do I hate??
Re:MvP (Score:5, Funny)
Whoever wins... (Score:5, Insightful)
We lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I liked both those species. You should choose less likable characters.
"Tough call, as it is a Gargamel vs Pikachu kind of fight."
Re:MvP (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft... vs... patent trolls.. who do I hate??
You are perfectly within your rights to hate both. Doing so has the great advantage that you really don't need to aim carefully, should you decide to be sure from orbit...
Re:MvP (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't like software patents, I think i4i are not really patent trolls. From what I've read, they actually have a product that plugs into MS Word that does what their patent says it does. So it's not like they applied for a patent and sat around waiting for everyone to adopt XML. i4i have a product, they patented the "technology," and Microsoft simply implemented the same functionality which threaten their product. Like all great American companies, i4i sued.
Re:MvP (Score:4, Informative)
They may not be patent trolls, but they sure are acting like patent trolls. They applied for a patent on something that has been done for decades, then chose to sue in a district in Texas that is known for automatically allowing all patents and ignoring validity challenges (and thus is the venue of choice for patent trolls). About the only thing not patent troll about them is that they actually had a product at one time. Even still, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Re:MvP (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither. I would follow the traditional rules for choice of venue, and thus would sue in a court near me. Normally, the venue for a lawsuit should be the court nearest to the plaintiff or the court nearest to the defendant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like all great American companies, i4i sued.
i4i is Canadian.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a bully becomes a victim doesn't mean the bully gets changed from being who they are or what they've done.
Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, it's fun to see Microsoft getting punished, on the other, I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
I think Microsoft might have made out better this way anyway. Arguing to invalidate the patent could have hurt them and their practice of patent filing and arguing Bilski could have really blown the lid off of things. In short, they more or less had to defend "software patents" while at the same time finding a legal argument against the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, it's fun to see Microsoft getting punished, on the other, I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
It's an odd feeling to find myself agreeing with Microsoft, but in this particular case, I do. On the other hand...
Arguing to invalidate the patent could have hurt them and their practice of patent filing and arguing Bilski could have really blown the lid off of things. In short, they more or less had to defend "software patents" while at the same time finding a legal argument against the plaintiff.
... if MS chose to defend (or not attack) the validity of software patents in general or this patent in particular, but only claimed that the reason it was invalid is because the patent holder wasn't using it, then they get what they deserve. It's a silly patent and they should have attacked it.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Insightful)
They should be seeking the patent be thrown out because using markup languages to store documents (including formating, notes, whatever, etc.) has been around for something like forty years.
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.
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)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundled technology into Word. The problem is that i4i had a patent on said technology, and that Microsoft knew about the patent [informationweek.com] before deciding to "make it obsolete."
I suggest reading the entire patent [uspto.gov] before trying to summarize. It's significantly more complex than what you described.
We're talking about patents, not copyrights. There's a big difference.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"A computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content
[...]
Current practice suffers from inflexibility. Documents combining structure and content are inflexible because they tie together structure and content into a single unit which must be modified together. The content is locked into on
Re: (Score:2)
I find it ironic that product is designed to work with Word. I can see why they would want to sue though, seeing as how MS just bundled in software that removes the need for their add on. From what I've read, the patent is on something which strips the raw text from the surrounding tags -- meaning I can call "open" on a file stream in C++, read in the data as a string, all without worrying about the tags (because the tags are logically separated already in a different location.) Eitherway, I'm not a fan of copyright, no matter who's getting f'd'n'the'a. (Though, for the record, this is Slashdot -- everyone hates MS. But they hate patent trolls more, hence the response.)
I agree with you completely. It is ridiculous, but so are MS patents, and so are the rest of the existing software patents. Ridiculous or not they are still valid, and I see no reason why MS can defend their patents and others cannot. To me it seems that people just assume that it's a patent troll simply because it's a lawsuit against MS (who god forbid would never do such a thing). I'm not bashing MS in particular, I've said this before and I'll be happy to say it a thousand times more but luckily HTTP sav
Re: (Score:2)
You are extremely gullible.
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.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are, without looking at the patent, using relative position in a text file to determine how to manipulate the text.
That basic idea should not be patentable. It is beyond obvious that that is doable in many languages and I could have something working in a few hours that encompasses that idea. If they want to copyright an implementation of that idea, more power to them. A patent means they have the legal right to prevent me from implementing something like that, which is BS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
without looking at the patent
Without looking at the patent, you haven't a clue what the patent is. You can't just look at the title and think you understand the patent. The scope of a patent is entirely defined by its claims. Until you have spent hours picking apart the claims, the specification, and the file wrapper, you don't know how broad the claims are or whether you could implement them, or what "basic idea" they cover. And if you are able to implement them after you've picked through the patent, that's pretty good evidence t
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Insightful)
It bears repeating so that people will "get it". I'm not a lawyer, but I am an inventor and I've filed Patents and been an expert witness on some infringement litigation in the recent past. While I'm not an expert, I've got some experience in dealing with stuff of this nature.
Folks, the gent's telling you the God's truth on this. Each claim has to be evaluated separately and combined. The "basic idea" may/may not be sufficient to invalidate the patent as it's written, depending on the nature of what they're claiming. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it won't.
If you've never looked at the body of a Patent, you will not be able to even remotely make a judgement call on the validity thereof.
Heh... I'm guessing that many if not a small majority of the software patents out there would fail on those grounds.
Cool sig you got there. :-D
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Until you have spent hours picking apart the claims, the specification, and the file wrapper, you don't know how broad the claims are or whether you could implement them, or what "basic idea" they cover."
I can implement it, except now I can be sued for implementing it. I'm a good programmer and generally a nice guy, am I supposed to pour over every patent to figure out what I can or cannot write? It's madness. I expect the lawyers to be for this, because it makes them money. But why anyone else would is beyond me or maybe just below me.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody at microsoft just decided to make this and put it in easily, that means that it was totally obvious for someone in the field, which, to me, looks quite like it. At that point there's no arguing necessary...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. The patent is on XML authoring. How is storing any kind of data in XML non-obvious?
Actually, U.S. Patent 5,787,449 [google.com] is a patent on "a computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content; said system comprising: metacode map distinct storage means; means for providing a menu of metacodes to said metacode storage means; and means for compiling said metacodes of the menu by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means; and means for resolving the content and the metacode map into the document." It is also a patent on "A method for producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content and stored in distinct map storage means, the method comprising: providing the mapped content to mapped content storage means; providing a menu of metacodes; and compiling a map of the metacodes in the distinct storage means, by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes; and providing the document as the content of the document and the metacode map of the document." And finally, it is a patent on "A method for producing from a document made up of metacodes and content, a map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content of the document and stored in distinct map storage means, the method comprising: (a) reading the content of the document until a metacode is found; (b) copying the content and storing the copied content in a mapped content storage; (c) noting in the map the found metacode and its position in the content; (d) repeating the processing of (a)-(c) until the entire document has been processed; and then (e) providing the document as the content of the document separately from the metacode map of the document."
Apparently, I cannot say this enough times on Slashdot. A patent's scope is determined by its claims, not by your vague, fleeting impression of the title, or a fleeting summary by some tech editor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well how about the fact that the company is in Canada and the lawsuit is taking place in Texas. You gotta be kidding, you seriously think this is legit? This company is a parasite. Even its "product" is just some crapware which plugs into word and it's suspect that there is even a product, it looks like they made that page simply for the court case.
First of all, what difference does it make if the company HQ is based in Canada or not? Secondly these are all your assumptions, and you have no data nor proof backing up your theories. With all due respect brother, your assumptions are useless to me and all others whom demand empirical data. Right now you're just trolling, and using words such as "parasite" in such rhetorical manner is not going to help your case.
Re: (Score:2)
What about it? Canadian trials tend to pay out much lower amounts than American trials. If I had the ability to sue someone in either country, I'd take the trial to the US, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well how about the fact that the company is in Canada and the lawsuit is taking place in Texas. You gotta be kidding, you seriously think this is legit? This company is a parasite. Even its "product" is just some crapware which plugs into word and it's suspect that there is even a product, it looks like they made that page simply for the court case.
If they just made the page simply for the court case, they've been planning it for over 6 years... http://web.archive.org/web/20030207000848/http://www.i4i.com/x4o.htm [archive.org].
I don't really think they have a case, but a patent troll they are not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you can't be serious. an XML authoring tool? there were tons of such tools a decade ago.
Please understand my point of view. I'm not saying that this is right nor wrong. If you ask me software patents are one of the most worthless products of mankind. However in the current system I don't see why some should be allowed to file suit, and other not. I don't see why MS should be allowed to hold ridiculous [businessinsider.com] patents and others shouldn't. So don't try to convince me that such patents are idiotic, for you are only preaching to the choir. However I don't see any other way to have this changed other than
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This. Their argument was, essentially, that "we infringed, but the law is wrong." This is as effective as Tenenbaum's argument "yes, I distributed your copyrighted songs, but the law is wrong." Fine argument for the legislature, horrible argument for a court.
Re: (Score:2)
One cannot simultaneously claim "the law is wrong" while claiming the very same law is right.
Microsoft is trying to claim XOR and AND at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
The USPTO says, "We don't have the resources of domain knowledge to figure out if all patents are valid, so we'll just approve anything that looks reasonable, and then let the courts haggle it out."
For the most part (unless the lawyers specifically steer the case in a different direction), the Courts say, "Well, we're experts in the LAW, not in patents, so if the USPTO granted the patent, then we'll just
Re: (Score:2)
That would be terrain the company is totally unfamiliar with.
Re:Damnit! I'm torn! (Score:5, Informative)
I RTFA (sorry, I know I shouldn't) before making the comment about contempt of court. The summary is roughly a duplicate of the first half of TFA, but the telling phrase is in the second half:
"All these arguments were persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions," Davis said.
Directly violating a court's instructions is generally contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, pretty much the entire computer industry has held the Marshall, TX district courts in utter contempt for at least a decade. It's the patent troll venue of choice because it is so favorable to patent trolls. They've decided incorrectly on nearly every patent troll case that has ever been posted on Slashdot. Note that they are almost inevitably filed in that district. When you see a few wrong decisions from a district, it's a fluke. When you see consistently wrong decisions made by a d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pissing off the judge is very bad form and is likely to, at the very least, get you thrown out of the court room.
Pissing off the judge is a standard part of the Microsoft playbook. For reference, please see Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand, it's fun to see Microsoft getting punished, on the other, I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
Yes, but if you want a law changed, the proper venue is through your lobbyists in Washington DC, not in the courtroom.
As you said, the MS lawyers could have argued on a broader scale, but chose not to. Guess why.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true, you can rely on jury nullification to keep a law in place (for your competitors) but give you a free pass. I'm betting the judge didn't like the hinting about nullification - any time the people of the country can just decide laws don't apply, that tends to put the legal profession on edge.
The PROPER way to do it is to change the law, but it won't get changed retroactively unless this particular case gets all the way to the supreme court. Plus, it's not in Microsoft's best interests to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See it like this: No matter which one of them gets hurt, you always win. :D
I am not in the least Torn (Score:2)
Given Microsoft's record of persistent misconduct in litigation, eg lying at the Anti-Tust trial, contempt in EU procee
Re: (Score:2)
I think we all agree that the laws are pretty borked. Even Microsoft has said as much, from time to time. It would behoove Microsoft to actively lobby for sane laws, no? Of course, sane laws work against the most well intentioned people from time to time - but they don't enable deadbeats to rape and pillage established enterprises.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to agree with Microsoft's argument with regard to patent trolls.
But they should address that argument to the legislature, not try to tell the court that the law is something other than it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But i4i is a real company, who wrote specialized add-ons to Word, and they patented some method of XML Authoring. I don't see how this is patent trolling. Patent trolling consists of getting something patented, not doing anything at all with said patent, waiting for a major corporation to infringe, and then sue. Microsoft was well aware of i4i and blatantly infringed on the patent. i4i didn't wait some unreasonable amount of time before taking Microsoft to court on this subject.
Dumb law, dumber jury and dumbest lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Educating juries is a slippery slope. If you do that, they might expect that every time from now on and that wouldn't be too good an idea for MS in the long run.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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."
Oh, absolutely. Anything you say creates estoppel, even back in prosecution of a patent. "You said here that this is patentable because it requires a specific machine and the patent issued on that basis... But now you're arguing that any machine infringes."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of trying to educate the jury that the whole point of "Extensible" markup language is to extend and customize the files the lawyers were pulling stunts.
Please bear in mind that this case was being conducted in Eastern Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas [wikipedia.org]
This court has long history of being friendly to patent trolls because of the aging population who will make up the jury and Pro-IP jugdes. Do you really want to try and teach a bunch of 50-60 year olds XML in front of a judge who is bias in favour of the opposing lawyer? Chances are the judge himself has no idea about XML, and any time you brough
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the quality of the drivers out there at present, I really don't think it would make a difference if all driving examiners were 6 year-olds with developmental disorders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm all for requiring a college degree to serve on a jury.
How would that help?
My point was regarding specialist knowledge, not that the average texan jury did not have any education. The older population of eastern texas are probably equally likely to have been through college, just not as likely to have been through college recently enough to have been exposed to technology based courses.
To put it in terms of my example on my taxation and healthcare: I am a college graduate who is highly technically literate, however my knowledge of tax law and accounting as pret
Re:Dumb law, dumber jury and dumbest lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
What the transcript could tell us (Score:5, Informative)
If we had the transcript, maybe we could see:
The court transcript, even though it's a public domain document, is only provided to people by the court if they make an account and pay 8c per page. Once you have the page, since it's public domain, you can post it anywhere. RECAP [recapthelaw.org] is a Firefox or IceCat [gnu.org] plugin that can automatically post those public domain transcripts to archive.org so that we can all read them and link to them, and that would help with documenting case law in the USA [swpat.org] on swpat.org, among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly you meant Jury in those two points.
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.
Fol de Rol (Score:2)
Re:Fol de Rol (Score:5, Informative)
Its just that this company isnt a patent troll. Its a former close partner to Microsoft.
Re:Fol de Rol (Score:4, Insightful)
How should I picture this? MS stopped paying, so instead of trolling for them we're trolling against them now?
Re:Fol de Rol (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-biblical-vengeance-of-i4i/article1253054/ [theglobeandmail.com]
Six years ago, an unusual and powerful alliance approached a tiny Toronto software company with a fateful proposition. Microsoft was helping U.S. intelligence sift through relentless mountains of documents relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks but had few means to sort them out. This firm, i4i, had the software that could intuit crucial, revelatory patterns that its own software could not.
It wasn't long before Microsoft recognized the value of the firm's technology, and, as it is now famously alleged, pinched it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a plaintiff need to employ a judge when the law is on their side? Sometimes the injustice/corruption exists in the legislative branch of government, you know.
Re:Fol de Rol (Score:5, Insightful)
the law is on their side
Extending the "Extensible markup language" seems like a no-brainer. It is in the name of XML!!! And I thought patents had to be non obvious !
Not really sure on which side the law is on that one. That said, explaining this to a judge might prove to be a complex situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because XML is eXtendible, doesn't mean that a particular idea implemented through that extension isn't non-trivial (lots of negations, I know...) and hence, patentable.
This is like saying that sailing and navigating a ship was a known skill at the time of James Cook, so his discovery of New Zealand and Australia aren't really discoveries at all. But in fact, he used a lot of skills and was a talented navigator (often stated as the best of his time) to successfully perform his journeys and draw maps th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Extending the "Extensible markup language" seems like a no-brainer. It is in the name of XML!!! And I thought patents had to be non obvious !
A common misconception on Slashdot is that patents are solely defined by their titles. The mere fact that XML has the word "Extensible" doesn't mean that anything you could ever write to extend it is therefore obvious. Consider - once the internal combustion engine was invented, did that make all engine improvements obvious? Fuel injectors? Catalytic converters? How about the new sparkplug-less engines?
Why are American Judges demanding so much money? (Score:5, Insightful)
$2 million for mp3s, $40 million for a bad argument.
Do these judges send a $10 million bill to toilet paper companies when they have to wipe their backside?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$40m is still about a million copies of Windows to sell... that's like losing all the revenue stream from sales to a major city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why are American Judges demanding so much money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just use the 8th amendment.
Re:Why are American Judges demanding so much money (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have points to mod you up, but the judges do need to have their heads and their asses examined.
In this case, I completely disagree.
Microsoft made the argument that a company having a patent but not producing anything shouldn't be able to ask for monetary damages. That is wrong. I can make an invention even though I know clearly that I don't have the money, talent and intention to turn this into a product that can be sold at profit. If I am better at inventing than at marketing it would be ideal to invent things and sell those inventions to others who are better at marketing. The fact that Microsoft uses the invention proves that it is worth money and that damages should be paid.
This is of course completely independent of the question whether the patent should be invalidated, or whether Microsoft is infringing on the patent. It is quite possible that a court outside Texas would have judged in favor of Microsoft, and stupid software patents should be (but are not) invalid, whether they are owned by Microsoft or used to extract money from Microsoft. But that wasn't what the judge complained about: He complained that Microsoft repeatedly told the jury to not award damages for reasons that were not in agreement with the law.
And since they tried to influence a court decision that was about $200 million, making them pay 20 percent for trying to convince the jury to do something that is clearly wrong seems fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Contempt of court charges are typically issued when a judge feels someone is challenging or ignoring the court's authority,
you'd think that bringing the judicial system into disrepute would be grounds for a contempt charge - he should sentence himself to 6 months immediately!
Only when patents bite Microsoft... (Score:2)
will they wake up and fight for abolishing software patents. Good to see....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not like Microsoft is not a patent troll themselves. They made more money over monopolies they hold thanks to the current patent system than they will ever lose by being sued by other companies.
It would take truly revolutionary government leadership to change something like patent system in US. I'd honestly rather
ODF is immune? According to Groklaw? (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant passage:
"Custom XML" refers to content within the file that is of a different XML format, with a separate "custom schema" to describe that content. The problem with such content is that there is no way for a standard to describe how such data should be interpreted, as it is by definition in a "custom format" and can be any kind of data. That is why "custom XML" is not allowed in ODF documents, and that is one of the reasons why OOXML is such a miserable standard.
And this
Interesting, no? There's one more headline, but only to debunk, Matt Asay's Microsoft's 'Custom XML' patent suit could put ODF at risk. Actually, it doesn't, so far as I know. Custom XML was one of the reasons ODF folks thought the OOXML "standard" was crudely designed, and that it had no place in a standard. It was a big discussion, and basically, to the extent I understood it, the issue was this: that it was a short cut on Microsoft's part, so it wouldn't have to do things in the usual standard way but could just keep things as they were, dumping a lot of processing stuff into the format, where, ODF folks said, it didn't belong. The very name should tell you why.
The lawyer should pay the $40M portion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree in principle, and maybe Microsoft should sue their law firm for damages.
But then again, that misconduct might be Microsoft's idea in the first place. In the last antitrust ligitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft [wikipedia.org]) they were caught submitting faked videos as evidence. So this could just be another instance of Microsoft playing games with the courts.
Penalize client? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know a lot about the intricacies of the legal system, but why is the client penalized for the behavior or mistakes of the attorney? Does the client dictate or approve every word that comes out of the attorneys mouth in court? If the attorney used misleading wording then shouldn't the attorney be censured or fined and not have that penalty included in the actual judgment?
Maybe this isn't applicable at all, but what if an attorney represented someone guilty of committing a crime, and the judge tacked a few extra years onto the sentence because he didn't like the attorney or what they said?
Re:Penalize client? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know a lot about the intricacies of the legal system, but why is the client penalized for the behavior or mistakes of the attorney? Does the client dictate or approve every word that comes out of the attorneys mouth in court? If the attorney used misleading wording then shouldn't the attorney be censured or fined and not have that penalty included in the actual judgment?
It happens because it is the client who hired the lawyer. If you do something wrong while acting for your company, the company will quite likely be held responsible for what you do. Same with the lawyer. There is always the possibility to sue your lawyers in a situation like this, if you think that they were reckless or guilty for you losing the money. Let's say if your lawyer appears in court drunk and you lose the case because of that, you might very well have grounds to sue.
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?
penalize the crook (Score:2)
"what if an attorney represented someone guilty of committing a crime, and the judge tacked a few extra years onto the sentence because he didn't like the attorney or what they said?"
If the lawyer wilfully lied to the Court, then the Judge is fully entitled to issue a fine, for contempt of court.
Let me guess ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, WordPerfect is the defacto standard in the legal world. Don't ask me why...
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The State of Texas has no income tax.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm beginning to think that the entire legal system is a scam to make money flow from people outside the system into people that are inside the system.
Most banks DIDN'T want TARP money, asshole (Score:2)
If the transcripts have proven anything since the TARP was initiated, it's that the majority of banks didn't want the TARP money, and that the Fed and the government practically forced it down their throats. As a result of TARP, many of the banks had to take the money and pay the government a material (i.e. large) amount of interest, dividends, and warrants.
The only institutions which needed and wanted the TARP funds are AIG and C. The rest wish they could have not been forced to take it.
Re:First post? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First post? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the job of judges to determine the value of a law, only to interpret them.
Patent law doesn't say you have to be using the patented device to sue. It never even hints at it. The judge has no authority to make it say that. Microsoft was fined for pretending the law does say or hint at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeding them after midnight - THATS when the problems start!