Chinese Court Rules Microsoft Violated IP Rights

angry tapir writes "A Beijing court has ruled that Microsoft violated a Chinese company's intellectual property rights in a case over fonts used in past Windows operating systems. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Windows that use the Chinese fonts, including Windows XP. Microsoft plans to appeal the case. Microsoft originally licensed Zhongyi's intellectual property more than a decade ago for use in the Chinese version of Windows 95, according to Zhongyi. Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95, but that Microsoft continued to use the intellectual property in eight versions of Windows from Windows 98 to Windows XP. Vista and Windows 7 are not involved."

Stop selling to China

[Haxzaw]

MS should just stop selling Windows in China, it isn't like anybody actually buys it over there anyway.

Hmmmm

[Vinegar Joe]

Will the capitalist running dog Steve Balmer kowtow to the Chinese after writing a self-criticism?

Pass the eggrolls.....this is going to get interesting.

Re:Do unto others...

[Vainglorious Coward]

But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it.

In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge, which I think is not the analogy you were shooting for. Maybe try something with cars?

Why fight it?

[Reason58]

Why fight it? It seems like a much cheaper solution would be for Microsoft to pay a fee for each copy of Windows sold in China.

Not really, andnot insightful at all

[ifwm]

How is this insightful? He didn't even make a coherent point?

Are you saying MS doesn't give a shit about IP?

Why does that matter when they'reneither a sovereign nation nor a court of law, thereby making it impossible for their opinion to be interchangeable with the court of law of a sovereign nation?

Please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here.

Re:Sothe guy who AGREES get insightful...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental note: I must remember to check the the "Anonymous" box when whinging about moderation of my posts.

Re:A bit late?

[digitig]

Without seeing the actual documents it's hard to tell.

And you can't see the actual documents because they're in Chinese and the fonts are copyright?

Re:Do unto others...

[argent]

Zombie vs Zombie action: "Aww man, you trashed my hoodie" [deadeyesopen.com].

Lol @ U

[ifwm]

"So I think the delay in prosecution was likely reasonable."

Who cares what you think, you openly lie all thetime, like here for instance

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137984 [slashdot.org]

The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic

Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...

Oh, I DID, here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137250 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

And here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137472 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.

"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."

It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.

Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?

So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."

Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?

So, again,why should anyone care what you think when you'll openly lie about something everyone else can see in black and white?

I mean, you try to flame someone for not getting the point, when YOU YOURSELF COMPLETELY FAIL TO READ THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOU WRONG IN THE VERY THREAD YOU'RE REPLYING TO despite claiming you had?

Why would anyone care what you think?

Re:10+ years?

[prockcore]

It took them over 10 years to acquire enough legit Windows licenses for their company to not be countersued.

Re:A bit late?

[BrokenHalo]

In any case, I would have thought Microsoft could simply use the defence that it never sells Windows in that country, since the Chinese prefer to pirate it. ;-)