$358 Million Patent Judgment Against Microsoft Overturned 76
eldavojohn writes "Last year, Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent hundreds of millions of dollars for patent infringement. Well, that award has just been overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saving Microsoft a considerable sum. But Microsoft isn't in the clear yet; the appellate court said that they did infringe on Alcatel-Lucent patents, but that those infringements did not warrant $358 million in damages. The case needs to be retried."
Yes, it is clear. (Score:2)
It wasn't 358M, rather it was 748M.
Epic win for M$.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
640M ought to be enough for anybody.
Cooperation. (Score:5, Insightful)
The more stuff I read about patent litigation the less I understand why the corporations don't come to the conclusion that it doesn't do them any good. Patent law reformed reasonably, everyone would benefit (and, presumably, profit).
Re:Cooperation. (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree with you. However this will never happen (by way other than the people voting patents out) because all companies need to build the biggest patent porfolio they can just to intimidate other large companies into not suing them. Patents have become weapons of intellectual and economic destruction. IBM has over 50,000 patents, Microsoft has 30,000+ patents. These companies have contract saying they wont sue each other because they could get nothing done. However, they sue the little guys, and the little guys sue them. However the big companies with a load of patents remain in power forever, destroying legitimate competition in the market place. Patent are an invention of the state and are maintained by the state. Patents and copyrights are INEXISTENT in a true free market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the last report I heard was that patents - outside of the drug industry - are a multi-billion dollar net loss for everyone except lawyers. Yes, that is correct - several billion dollars a year more is paid in patent litigation than is earned through rewards, licensing, and settlements.
Thus patent law will never be reformed properly because it would kill a multi-billion dollar industry populated entirely by lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't somebody think of the lawyers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It profits the lawyers I think. Since there are a lot of lawyers around, we need a lot of insane laws to keep them fed.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The same statement could be applied to the US Congress. Bunch of fucking idiots can't even balance a budget. Imagine what would happen if you ran your household finances like the US Congress runs our nation's finances. It's a simple matter, really. If you can't afford something, you tell the people so. And if they bitch, you tell them you'll have to raise taxes to pay for it, which will mean slowed growth, fewer jobs, etc. When their house has just been foreclosed on, what idiot parent takes their kid
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
get ball cancer and die.
Stay classy!
Re: (Score:2)
"Promote the general welfare"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite being posted by AC - that is the most insightful post that is likely to be made on the subject. Lawyers don't WANT the laws to make sense. Who makes laws? Many lawmakers are lawyers. Who tries law? Lawyers, obviously. Who judges law? Judges are generally lawyers. (I'm aware that in some places, judges are elected, and are not necessarily members of the bar.)
Try reading the various legislations that come out of Congress. I struggled through the health care reform that was offered before Congr
Re:Cooperation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It works for the large companies because it prevents small companies from becoming competitive. And, in technology especially, large companies are always disrupted by small companies. So, they have an expensive mechanism for preventing disruption (to a large extent) but it's cheaper to play the government-granted game than to risk being disrupted.
It's only the economy and society that suffers - large corporations and the government make out well.
Re: (Score:1)
hold on a minute there buddy :) (Score:2, Funny)
Are you actually trying to make sense ? .. you got to stop that shit , and i mean now :)
Dang it dude
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, I was taking life seriously... [lights up the bong]
Re:Cooperation. (Score:4, Insightful)
All these years, I wondered what the "???" in those lists was for. Now I know!
Re: (Score:2)
The more stuff I read about patent litigation the less I understand why the corporations don't come to the conclusion that it doesn't do them any good.
In a word: cross-licensing [moneyterms.co.uk]. Read the last paragraph of the page linked to.
No they wouldn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least microsoft on the whole wouldn't...
Take the recent MS Word injunction. Now, we can argue about the validity of the patent in question there, but regardless of that point, everyone *knew* that MS would not have to cease and desist distribution of Word, not because the patent was bs, but because MS is just too resourceful and end the end, perceived as 'too big to fail'.
On the flipside, MS can crush a threatening smaller company even if the patent is flimsier. The smaller company will not have the benefit of as many legal resources to start with, and also would not have people thinking "I can't be the one to screw the largest software company in the US".
As it stands in the software industry, a vast majority of the financial resources are controlled by companies that can abuse their disproportionate share to game the patent system enough to win more than lose and feel confident they will always win more than lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Because for all the damage it does them, the benefits of keeping the cost of entry high for any competition are much, much greater.
It's too bad (Score:2)
Every time the bastards get slapped with an as ginormous as ridiculous patent infringement judgement as this, I hope they see the light and start opposing software patents.
Hey, a boy can dream.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Every time the bastards get slapped with an as ginormous as ridiculous patent infringement judgement as this, I hope they see the light and start opposing software patents.
Hey, a boy can dream.
My dream is that the ginormous penalties might somehow result in their ethical behavior.
Too bad they didn't share a few MP3's (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 'funny' how a consumer can rack up a fine of a couple of million for sharing a few MP3's, to "send out a clear signal to copyright infringers". But for a repeat offender like Microsoft a fine of a few million (which is peanuts really) is somehow too high. It's great how the American justice system has its priorities straight like that. (Not only the American justice system btw, huzzah for lobbyists).
Re: (Score:1)
You know, this needs a car analogy. I can't think of one right now 'cause I just woke up...
Car analogy: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute...DAMN YOU ONTARIO!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks...now I understand.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny , being the reminder that billo and stevio offer us peanuts instead of a straightforward product . Not that peanuts don't provide a high protein alternative to an honest business practice .
Re:Too bad they didn't share a few MP3's (Score:4, Insightful)
You're witnessing the difference between patent infringement and copyright infringement. Patents deal with a concept, idea, etc. Copyrights deal with actual products, be they physical (as in a car, processor, or pen) or intellectual (as in a movie, sound recording, etc). You would probably call the latter "imaginary", but regardless, at the current state of law, they are still considered copyrightable property.
Patents don't automatically translate into profits through sale of goods or services. Patents make up products, but there are many patents that don't ever make it to market in a product. Copyrights, on the other hand, deal with an actual product. Copyrights have intrinsic value because the product in question is available for sale or will be available for sale. Copyrights provide an exclusive right to sell, distribute, and produce a product, not an idea. Therefore, infringement of a copyright is much more damaging to the copyright holder than infringement of a patent, at least in theory. Thus the "harsher" penalties.
Keep patent reform separate from copyright reform because they are different things.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like you believe that patents should really work like US patents work.
See, I believe in real usable patents, based on physical inventions, such as Tesla's remote controlled boat patent [google.com]. In fact, as long as something's implemented in practice, is viable in the long term, does not appear to stifle further research in related areas, and isn't obvious and generic -- it's a valid patent to me.
If a patent satisfies the aforementioned, doesn't it have an intrinsic value in itself? Doesn't it then descri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The case needs to be retried (Score:5, Insightful)
The case needs to be retried , so a great win for the lawyers on both sides.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, only the damages portion is to be retried, so it wasn't a COMPLETE win for the lawyers. The opinion itself can be found on the appeals court website here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1485.pdf. (see conclusion on second-to-last page.)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the summary, Micro$oft is still guilty of infringment.
Only the amount of the damages have been overturned. The appeal court sent the case back to the lower court to rethink the amount that M$ has to pay but still found that M$ was guilty of stealing from Alcatel-Lucent.
Mod me flamebait if you like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing America is interested in is profit and fear mongering.
What more do you need?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hookers and blow, of course. And blackjack.
On second thought, let's forget about the blackjack...
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The fact is that the EC is a group whose philosophy is based on socialistic/fascist economic beliefs. The EC, with great podding by Opera, is attempting to force Microsoft to include it in its distribution. Maybe next they will require Mercedes Benz to include Chevrolet engines in their cars.
Re:Mod me flamebait if you like... (Score:5, Funny)
.. I've got karma to lose
Wow, you go on Slashdot and make a post that's both anti-US and anti-Microsoft? You really are taking a huge risk with your slashdot karma there!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you go on Slashdot and make a post that's both anti-US and anti-Microsoft? You really are taking a huge risk with your slashdot karma there!
Fuck FOSS, kittens, and beer! (not necessarily in that order)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Or maybe even +1, Should Be Modded Down.
Reducing awards in cases like these is a good thin (Score:3, Insightful)
Reducing the award in a case like this makes sense. Part of the problem with software patents (actually patents in general whenever you have complex devices) is that it's easy to step into the territory of several of them.
The "free-market" answer to this case would be that Microsoft should have licensed the patent from Alcatel. Assuming that Microsoft could have even figured out its product would be found infringing (it is not necessarily obvious in patent cases), Outlook probably involves hundreds of poten
I've got a better idea : (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but that's why they call them 'punitive damages'. Punative as in punishing. Punishing as in 'Don't do that again, dummy!" They're designed to make the loser think about what they're doing and change their ways.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing my point. If you have a complex product that might infringe on 100 patents, and you don't want to infringe and face these penalties, you're supposed to go to each patent holder and negotiate a license.
Not only is that time-consuming and expensive to do; not only might you not be able to track down each patent holder; not only might you miss some patent you might potentially infringe upon; not only might 99 patent holders be willing to license and 1 patent holder be unwilling; but even if ever
Punitive == make OTHERS think about what they do (Score:2)
Actually, they're meant to make OTHERS think what they're doing. Punishing as in 'Look, everyone, we punished them, but if you do that, we would punish you!'
The same as with jail for murder. It helps noone but the society: 'Look, if you kill, you go to jail! Wanna risk? Think again!'
Re: (Score:2)
this pisses me off moreso because despite how many fantastic things Lucent has come up with, they never quite seem to do well. strange that considering that it's apparently completely ok to steal their work.. I'm just hoping that since they're now a (mostly) french company that this can be rehashed in a non US court where it might be somewhat useful to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
but when a US court of appeal overturn the damages awarded by a lower court to a rightful holder of a patent, it's just sheer justice done to a strategic company.
You must not hang out here very much. Pretty much the entire Slashdot crowd hates process patents. In the scheme of things--i.e., to the degree that we, the gallery, can have a scheme of things--the rationale behind the hatred of process patents is pretty good. I.e., those of us you are accusing of siding with the "convicted monopolist" in favor o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> I've got karma to lose, but when the EU take a couple of months to review the buyout of Sun by Oracle to assess the impact on competition, it's evil protectionism
Exactly how long did the EU take to review the acquisition of Business Objects by SAP two years ago? Of course there was no problem, after all SAP is a German company and Business Objects was French.
As for the Sun/Oracle thing, if you want my opinion, it did not help that a German product, MySQL (which already suffered a tragic takeover by ev
Re: (Score:2)
The finding of patent infringement was upheld. The remand is, as you mention, to address the appeals court's concern that the process in setting the award amount was incorrect. There isn't going to be any reopening of the facts regarding infringement.
$300M+ All in a few days work. (Score:1)
lawyers +1, everyone else - a lot. again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why another trial? (Score:2)
If the court determined that the verdict was sound but the penalty was too high, why not simply set a "sentencing hearing" to
determine a more suitable fine. Sending it back to trial means that it's back to square one.
list of MS's patent infringements (Score:2)
This escaped my list somehow. I'll add it now.
If anyone has others, it's a publicly editable wiki.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets hope you do better at editing the wiki than you do posting URLs to slashdot. Do you mean Microsoft's patent infringements [swpat.org]?
Moderate how you feel. (Score:1, Troll)