Microsoft Found Guilty of Patent Infringement

Spy der Mann writes "Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay a Guatamalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado almost $9m in damages. The US District Court of Central California court ruled that Microsoft had infringed on his intellectual property and ordered it to pay him $8.96m. The patent in question is a method to transfer data between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access using a single spreadsheet."

In other news...

In other news, Guantemala's gross domestic product tripled today...

Re:In other news...

Grover Norquist called - he wants his sense of humor back. Now if you'll excuse me, the 80s is calling, and wants its insult format back...

Re:In other news...

Oh darn, I laughed at it. See, I thought the poster was being facetious, and it therefore struck me as humorous in that it exemplefied the irony of a huge American megacorporation being sued by a small Latin American business on basically their own turf by exaggerating the extent to which Microsoft's own GDP tends to rival entire nations. I feel so dumb now.

Re:In other news...

And for comparison, Gates is worth about 40B$ (as of 2003) according to Forbes (and that's a low-end number, from what I've seen elsewhere). In the first quarter of 2004, Microsoft had revenues of 10B$, and had a total market capitalization of around 250B$.

Re:In other news...

Yeah. I don't understand what world people grew up in that they think that most people make close to $100,000 a year. They don't realize that half the population lives off less than $30,000 a year. I know some people who couldn't survive off that much, and others who would be swimming in money making that much. It's all about understanding how to effectively spend your money.

Does this mean patents are good?

So wait, does this mean patents are good now?

I'm so confused!

Re:Like little children...

Wrong.

The reason it's 'a good thing' is because the more small companies, in some cases companies who are little more then patent whores, can successfully sue the big companies who actually have a say in government policy the better chance we have of reforming the patent system. If this ruling leads to more and more ridiculous rulings costing MS and other big companies millions upon millions of companies, hopefully it will get to the point where the people in power will be hit hard enough in the pocket book to finally have the motivation to change software patents.

No.

The reason it's 'a good thing' is because the more small companies, in some cases companies who are little more then patent whores, can successfully sue the big companies who actually have a say in government policy the better chance we have of reforming the patent system.

No. What will happen is that big companies that have influence over government policy will lobby to have the bar raised so high that small patent holders ("whores", as you say) will not be able to prove a case in the first place.

Re:Like little children...

Yeh, the same double standard that says landmines are always bad, but that we can ignore temporarily if say, Pol Pot gets one accidentally stuffed up his ass.

Oh wait. That's not a double standard, that's just us cheering when bad things happen to bad people. Whooddah thunkit?

Re:Like little children...

Hardly.

The highest rule is that we all have to live by the same rules.

There is nothing wrong with:
(1) Saying a certain rule is bad and should be changed
*and*
(2) Appreciating the JUSTICE of someone being forced to face the consequences of supporting a bad rule

I say Microsoft should not get hit with software patents - ON THE SOLE CONDITION THAT NO ONE GET HIT WITH SOFTWARE PATENTS.

Microsoft supports software patents and they have absolutely no right to complain or play the victim when the very rule they support comes and bites them in the ass.

-

Here's the reason ...

that MS is firing a few thousand patents a year at the USPTO - protecting themselves.

You gotta have some sympathy for MS about this.

Re:Here's the reason ...

"that MS is firing a few thousand patents a year at the USPTO - protecting themselves."

EEEEH! Wrong! All that they have to do is demonstrate prior art if they're charged with patent infringement. If they can show such then they should be able to win just about any lawsuit alleging wrongdoing. The entire point of a patent is to claim exclusive original rights or exclusive use.

Re:Here's the reason ...

All that they have to do is demonstrate prior art if they're charged with patent infringement

Sorry, but that's simply not the case, as I'm currently serving as an expert witness for a defendant in a patent case. It's not enough to have prior art, you must also convince a jury that you have prior art. Good luck getting a jury of everyday schmoes to understand some complex technical issue.

You see both sides will have expert witnesses, and they will both say how much they believe they are right. Both sides will spout technical jargon and the juries eyes will glaze over. And the jury will determine the winner based on things like who most likable. So if you can paint yourself as some poor schlub who got ripped off by MS, then the technical stuff really doesn't matter. Really. It's fucking sad, but that's how it works.

I bet he's thinking....

"Damn! Should have settled. They were offering me $10 million."

Poetic Justice.

'Nuff said.

Re:Poetic Justice.

Poetic justice?! Hardly!

The only good that could come of this would be the remote chance that it could convince MS that software patents are a terrible idea and prod them into backing Red Hat and Oracle's push to reform patents in the US [yahoo.com] and Europe [reuters.com].

Unfortunately if you look

Unfortunately if you look you'll notice that as the number of frivolous patent lawsuits against Microsoft has gradually increased over the last few years, Microsoft's response has been... to suddenly start filing a whole bunch of patents. Lots of patents. Even more than before. And making a big deal in the press about patents and how important they are. And making a big deal to Europe about why they need software patents. Whereas before software patents was something they didn't really give much public indication of caring about one way or the other.

Microsoft obviously isn't doing this for protection, since the only people who've been suing Microsoft have been tiny parasite IP companies-- the kind of people who a patent shield is useless against. Instead it almost kind of seems to me like Microsoft is brushing off the patent judgments like an elephant swatting flies with its tail, but meanwhile going "wait... you mean patents can be used for evil? Interesting...", as if even though the lawsuits may sting a little they don't mind so much because it's given them some ideas of their own.

I hope to whatever Gods may or may not exist that this is just my overactive paranoid imagination.

umm... no.

Patent infringement is not a crime, so they were not, in fact, found "guilty".

Re:umm... no.

Patent infringement is not a crime

Yet.

The cost of waging war on your own terms

Not that MS cares, or anything, seeing as no one can push them around at their own game.

7.5 days

seeing as no one can push them around at their own game

If I ran the numbers right, based on their third quarter earnings this will set Microsoft's profits back 7.5 days. That's profit, not revenue.

That worked out to $329/second, or about $40 grand by time Slashdot will let you post another comment.

WHAT?

So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes.

Then he sued Microsoft???

I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.

You did't get it

So.. he patented a way for Microsoft Excel to work with Microsoft Access.. both products that Microsoft makes. Then he sued Microsoft??? I know.. i patent a way for Apple Intel to work with Apple PowerPC, no one would ever think of that.

You didn't get it:
1. The guy came up with a technique to interact with Access and Excel while doing graduate studies and gets a patent.
2. He approached Microsoft Corp. in the 90s and offered them his patent. Microsoft rejects the idea and say they're not interested.
3. About the same time, Microsoft adds the same technique to his products, makes a great deal of it and gets millions in revenue.
4. Then, and only then, the guy went to court, proved that he was the first to come up with the technique , proved that he approached Microsoft, proved that he showed it to them before they ever thought about it and then gets a fair amount of money.

I don't support software patents, but if Microsoft is promoting that nasty game, they have to obey the nasty game's rules.

Re:You did't get it

Sounds a lot like the claims SCO claimed against IBM. I suppose you're SCO's bitch too. This patent is a joke.

Dude, seriously, try to read once in a while before insulting people. Every software patent is a joke. This is not about the merits of a particular patent, this is about proving a deliberate attempt to profit from someone else's ideas when those ideas have been previously patented, and that makes a huge difference between this guy vs. Microsoft and SCO vs. IBM. SCO has no evidence nor argument whatsoever.

I hate Microsoft, but I hate these guys more

As much as I hate Microsoft, I hate people who think they can use patents to cash in on something after the fact. Rambus did this in its ambush of memory makers. Eolas did this to Microsoft. Intertrust is doing this now to MS.

These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.

At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.

Indeed.

I'm afraid of making any sort of software, even for fun. If it somehow leaves my PC goes public, someone could notice I made it, dig up some old patent, and sue my ass to Hoboken, New Jersey. [google.com] This leeching is far worse than file leeching, and it's always sad to see that something intended to advance science and the arts [house.gov] (see Sec. 8, Clause 8) is impeding it instead. If it can happen to "M$" with their many IP/etc. lawyers, it can happen, and cause far worse damage, to us. That's -1, Scary to me.

Re:I hate Microsoft, but I hate these guys more

At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement.

Um. IBM was infamous for filing patents like crazy and then using these to shake down competitors. The worst as called the "fat lines" patent; I think it essentially covered drawing a line twice with a pixel offset. There was a story in Forbes (posted on Slashdot) a few years back about how IBM decided to extort money from Sun for violating the patent. Sun's engineers gave them a lengthy explanation and told them "see, we're not infringing." IBM's lawyers just shrugged and said "We're just going to find something else you're infringing, so you might as well pay us now."

Gates once remarked (back in 1990 or so) that if the patent situation had always been this bad the computing industry would have been stillborn. He also said that Microsoft needed to get patents purely as a defensive measure. As far as I'm aware, despite Microsoft's generally sleazy business practices they've generally been one of the least vicious and exploitative patent holders.

new business strategy

i like this idea you are trying to sell us. but it reminds me of something we are already working on. you may leave now, no need to take your folder with you.

MS, good stuff?

I know people always point out how bad Microsoft is, but, I'm seeing plenty of advertising about all kinds of research sponsorship Microsoft does, and wondering if I should enroll (at least try) in some of them? I also have few new algorithms that people pointed out to me "try selling that to Microsoft".

Can anyone tell me more about their good/bad experiences regarding IP and Microsoft ? And I'm not talking only for the bashing part, Microsoft is a big company and plenty goes on with them, anything positive?

Re:MS, good stuff?

Can anyone tell me more about their good/bad experiences regarding IP and Microsoft ?

Dear rd4tech

I've had a good experience, and I definitely look forward to future business with them.

Sincerely

Carlos Armando Amado

Re:MS, good stuff?

As I pointed out in another comment to another story, among software developers the standard wisdom is, "Get in bed with Microsoft, and expect to get screwed." They have repeatedly managed to extract whatever they want from collaborations or licenses and left the other party wondering how it is that they got nothing.

Good for them

serves them right :->

Actually, that's in Guatemalan Quetzal

That isn't American dollars. He "only" got $1,166,448 [oanda.com]

Re:Erm, actually, it's not

(Don't know if OP was trying to be funny, but mods characterized it as "+4 informative," so...)

No, we use U.S. Dollars, even for civl awards here in Ahnuldh's Cal-eee-fonya.

Coming up later in this newscast...

Jackson found innocent, invites school bus full of children to his ranch to celebrate.

Yahoo decides to give up fight against Google and shifts all it's resources to making small toys for the quarter machines at grocery stores.

Gnome and KDE finally resolve differences and merge, new name to be KnomE

Secluded inventor in Guatamala buys entire country a round.

Disappointment?

Microsoft expressed disappointment at the verdict

Why, aren't they usually happy when software patent rights are recognized?

Re:Microsoft gets sued for using Microsoft product

Microsoft invents Microsoft Excel.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.

I don't know if you remember 1992, but back then, you couldn't get Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word to talk. Believe, I tried. I was going to college back then and for one of my engineering classes, I tried to embed an Excel spreadsheet into Word. The spreadsheet has come complex calculations in it and I didn't want to type in the values by hand. Eventually I had to save Excel as text and then open that up in Word. So this getting two MS programs to interact was non-obvious.

Classic!

Microsoft sued over a patent concerning *its own* products! CLASSIC!

Nandz.

wow.. silly patent

Ok,
so transfering data from an excel spreadsheet to an Access table is patented... Hmmm I've been using copy/paste to do that since forever. What "technology" is this? You've been able to export a spreadsheet to comma delimited and import to Access since forever as well... How do you get a patent on importing a comma delimited file?

Line them up and shoot them all.

Let the rest of us get back to work.

WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

Carlos Armando Amado devised a way to connect Excel with Access using a specially crafted spreadsheet during his tenure as a graduate student at Stanford University. After applying for a patent in 1990, Mr. Amando approached Microsoft to license the software, but was denied.

Microsoft then used the same exact method.

Now, while i totally disagree with the idea of patents like this... It changes the story a bit doesnt it?
Heh, after all this is slashdot.

Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

How does it change anything?

Microsoft built a suite of integrated Office applications with built-in functionality that allows seamless transfer of data between the apps. Amado uses the built-in functions to do exactly what those features are designed to do, receives a patent from the braindead patent office, then tries to present his "discovery" to the people who invented the thing in the first place.

There's nothing to understand here except that Amado's idea was exactly why Microsoft put those features into the applications in the first place.

If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will. How can they protect themselves from these fleas? The only way is to hold those patents.

These types of lawsuits are what is leading to the demise of intellectual property, not the other way around. It is when people abuse the system by applying for things that are either obvious or developed by someone else that this type of lawsuit occurs.

I hope Amado is happy with that money because he doesn't deserve it.

Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will. How can they protect themselves from these fleas? The only way is to hold those patents.

Your logic is invalid. Patenting stuff in no way defends you against getting nailed for patent infringment. If this guy came up with it first (which the court ruled he did) then Microsoft COULDN'T have patented it, and filing for other patents in no way helps Microsoft against this. If Microsoft had come up with it first, it STILL wouldn't matter if they patented it or not. Either this guy whould not have been able to patent it, or Microsoft could have gotten the patent tossed out as invalid simply by producing reasonable records documenting that they did it first.

The *only* time patents are useful for "defense" is if you can actually file a counter suit... and you could-have / should-have filed that "counter" suit even if you have never been sued in the first place. You could-have / should-have sued to obtain the money you were owed anyway. Moreover "defensive" patents are usless against "fleas" because the fleas is not offering any product themselves and therefor not infringing any patents at all.

The problem here is that the US SCREWED UP in REVERSING established patent law and EXTENDING patents to software. Math / logic / calculations / mental steps are not inventions.

If patents are going to cover software, well this guy's patent is valid. In fact this guy's patent is better than half the software patents out there. Better than many of the patents Microsoft is getting.

-

Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

So why is Microsoft pushing for software patents in Europe and USA?

They deserve no sympathy, and besides, adding value to existing implementations is all the patent system is about. You cannot invent something in vacuum, it HAS to be built on top of existing technology.

Uhh, they were not an integrated suite of products

Microsoft built a suite of integrated Office applications with built-in functionality that allows seamless transfer of data between the apps.

Bzzzzzzt. They were not an integrated suite in 1990. They were separate products. What allowed them to be integrated into a suite? Maybe ideas like the one this guy patented and Microsoft infringed upon.

Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

It does, but only superficially. What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros? They may have been complex and they may have been non-obvious and they may even have been ingenious. But unless he hand-hacked the bits of the 'sheet, it seems to me he just used existing features built into the software. Even as software patents go, this is sick. He should never have been granted a patent for this.

Re:WAIT WAIT READ WHAT HE DID, THEN SPEAK

Even as software patents go, this is sick.

No, as far as software patents go this is about pretty average.

What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros?

In other words ordinary programming. What you are pointing out is that he happened to do it in a spreadsheet programming language. No different than programming in C or machine language or perl or PHP. And yes, spreadsheet programming language generally is a univeral programming language capable of absolutely anything you can program in any other language. If you can program speach recognition software in C then you can program it in spreadsheet language. It will merely run more slowly in a spreadsheet.

This is exatly why programmers are almost univerally opposed to software patents. They directly SEE that it is the exact same thing, that programming in ANY computer language is no different than filling in equations in a spreadsheet or writing a complex math equation on a sheet of paper. If one is patentable then they all are. Any program is nothing but a fancy math equation. Numbers come in, you do a long list of basic math steps, and numbers go out.

*If* software is a patentable invention, *if* doing math calculations is a patentable invention, well.... then this guy has a perfectly valid patent.

he just used existing features built into the software

Just like any programmer writing in BASIC or any other language is just using the "existing features built into the [compiler or interpreter] software". It's merely writing instructions in a different language to be run on top of a different host system. No difference.

This is why software patents are fundamentally broken.

-

How Microsoft Sees This Fine

Just another cost of doing business. Put it down in the books as a business expense for a tax write off.

Would they notice it?

And does anyone think Microsoft would even notice a $9 million bill? Their phone bills are probably larger than this.

Sad state of affairs.

As much as I hate the company and its products, and believe me I do, this is a case that should've either been thrown out or used to nullify the patent. Instead the judgement strengthened the concept of software patents and non-novel patents, which in turn strengthens Microsoft's position as a monopoly, for a sum of money that's just barely half a single day's take.

Great idea!

1) Invent something
2) Sit on your invention and never plan to market it
3) Let someone else use your invention and keep quiet
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

Re:Great idea!

2) Sit on your invention and never plan to market it
3) Let someone else use your invention and keep quiet

RTFA, after he invented and applied for a patent, he approached MS with it. They declined to buy it. He was awarded the patent. He claims that MS used his patent. When he found out, he sued.

Patents

Now I like Microsoft as much as the next IT geek (ie. not at all) but I no longer have a clash of conscience over patent issues. The patent system is completely out of control and is causing terrible damage to the industry. As a small developer, patents terrify me. And who are patents supposed to protect in the first place?

Now I don't know the specifics of the case, but given the current rampant abuse of the patent system I'm going to side with the Evil Empire here by default, until I see a decent argument over why this is a fair patent. Most are not. Mind you, MS probably do deserve this sort of thing given their support for software patents.

MS is still the devil, but...

As much as I like to see Microsoft lose one, I'd say this case is actually, on balance, a bad sign. Let's review: A patent is awarded covering data portability between two microsoft products, Microsoft is sued when they actually implement this pretty obvious idea. I don't know about you, but I'm thinking maybe I should grab a patent on the idea of using a PSP to wirelessly control a home game console (the PS3) and suing Sony just in time for Christmas 2006 so that I can afford to buy one of each.

Anyway, the end result of this is that yet another frivolous patent is financially rewarded, at a cost which is a mere pittance for a company the size of Microsoft. The damage that is done is that software patents which are both general and trivial have another piece of judicial precedent to bolster them. In the end, companies with stores of thousands of patents (companies just like Microsoft) can exploit this imbalance in the judicial system for a quick buck (pretty trivial on the balance sheet, though) and, more importantly, to force much smaller potential competitors straight out of business by offering them the choice to go to court and have their coffers drained by legal fees and possibly by damages awarded, or to settle under terms which require them to cease their competitive activity.

Sorry folks, but this is not a win.

Carlos the time-traveller!

In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database

Wasn't Microsoft Access 1.0 released in 1993 or so?

This really sucks.

I hate to write in sympathy for MS, but this exploitation is something that I personally wouldn't wish on anyone.

It seems to me that this guy just thought of something that he knew Microsoft had to implement on their own sometime and then blackmailed them for it. This tactics of explicitly mentioning someone's products in a patent and demanding that they pay to simply add an obvious feature is something that not even MS has stooped to yet. I really hope that this teaches Microsoft that patents are not their friends, rather than simply learning a new trick out of it.

I hope this guy spends his new money on cigarettes and hookers with VDs.

Hoist by they own petard

I guess that's what they get for being ubiquitous.

Kind of ironic and strange that they can be sued for patents on interactions between their own software packages.

Could I patent, just as an example, methods for converting between PDF and PSD files, and then sue Adobe for infringing when they do the obvious?

Something not right about this; I guess it's just showing up yet another problem with copyright law. Pretty thorny one if you think about it.

"The patent in question"

So, we know what this guys invention accomplished, but did he actually get a patent on moving data from a database to a spreadsheet? Or did he patent some method for doing this? The link doesn't lead to the patent or mention the patent number.

This is a really annoying habit in /. patent stories. Yeah, we all hate them. But the patent at stake is seldom described very precisely. In fact, it's usually mis-described to make it sound even worse than it is.

Internation Patent Reform goes both ways

Just as US companies can put the pressure internationally on other countries with patent reform, the opposite works as well. Imagine that, other countries create and patent stuff too.

In capitalist America; after you beat the system, the system beats you.

This is great news.

Delicious irony, but don't ask me to explain why.

This is ridiculous.

Basically, it went like this:

Microsoft obtains software product A.
Microsoft obtains software product B.
Microsoft begins making them work together.
Guy beats Microsoft to market.
Microsoft continues making their products work together.
Guy sues Microsoft, wins millions for being first to patent obvious method made "novel" by the fact that it works on those confusin' new computers.

This would work against Linux.

This crap would work on anything.

Microsoft did *NOTHING* wrong here. They didn't steal his stuff or anything. They just made their own products work together. It probably wouldn't even have been an issue if Excel and Access had been marketed under the same freaking product name.

Ludicrous.

Re:This is ridiculous.

Microsoft did *NOTHING* wrong here.

Sure they have. Not only do they actively support and defend this sort of patent as valid, they are actively pressuring and extorting other countries to change their laws to make this sort of patent valid.

As far as software patent go, this one is pretty typical. He wrote some software to transform data in a new and useful way. He merely wrote it in spreadsheet programming language rather than BASIC or C or perl.

I agree this should not be a valid patent - NO software patets shoudl be valid. But so long as Microsoft wants a FUBARed patent system then they deserve what they get when they are forced to live inside that system.

-

Real Men of Genius

Slashdot salutes you Mr. Excel and Access method of transfer inventor guy.

He actually gets paid in Windows!

Clarifying the judgement, MS said the inventor would receive more than 1.6 million dollars worth of Windows licenses (non transferable, of course)!

Isn't this how MS is paying all its fines slapped by various government bodies?

Haha.

Yesssss.......

i wanna go home!

apple goes to intel!

microsoft found guilty of patent infringement!

i've woken up in bizzaro world!

Curious thought....

Ya know, it seems Micro$loth seems to steal a lot of ideas only hoping they'll never get fined or have to pay fines that are very miniscule, and usually they steal ideas from 3rd party developers rather then big companies. Ain't it a perfect world we live in?

Er...

Yay! Another judgement for a totally retarded patent awarded!

Er... no... wait...

(Apparently) the patent in question

5,537,590, 16 July, 1996 [uspto.gov]

The same guy appears to have been granted a more recent patent for a related process:

5,701,400, 23 December, 1997 [uspto.gov]

The wording of the second one is very buzzword-laden and overblown ("artificial intelligence"? whatever). I'm still looking over both of them.

The news articles seem to have a number of other things wrong. First, no one with the last name Amado applied for a patent in 1990. The patent which appears to be being discussed was filed for in 1993 (After Access was released).

Correction

5,293,615, 8 March 1994 [uspto.gov]

His last name is spelled differently, but this appears to be the one. I was an Amiga user in 1990, but this sounds like basic database/spreadsheet usage to me.

One small step for small business...

And a giant slap for the Giant. Seriously, audacity that microsoft displays every now and then and the attitude that they are above the law must turn off any good sensible person in this world. I am glad the judge saw them through for what they really are. A bully and a killer of innovative spirits.

Damn! I'm going to be rich!

I developed a way to transfer data from Excel to FileMaker, it's called typing. Can I have a check also?

Spelling, spelling

Not that anybody on slashdot cares about things like this, but the correct spelling is Guatemalan [reference.com]

taste of their own medicine

While I don't like anybody getting sued over silly patents, this is good. Microsoft is a major proponent of software patents, and if they find out how bad it is for their business, maybe they will lobby to abolish them.

Of course, $9m isn't going to hurt them, but we can keep our fingers crossed that someone will be awarded $9b. In all that Microsoft software, there must be lots of patent infringement.

this is good, but not in the way you think

As long as patents like these keep getting enforced against the big players like MS, we'll all be better off sooner. No, it's not because it's nice to see MS et al getting their just deserts (though there is some humour derived there from, I must admit) - we all know these kinds of patents are basically... crummy. And having the big pushers for these kinds of patents actually getting stung by them... repeatedly... from "unexpected sources", may convince them that it was all a bad idea to begin with and THEN perhaps they'll reverse there positions and actually use their immense political purchasing powers to reverse the laws.

Or not.

Man...not good.

Yeah one person "got paid" but this also strengthens MS resolve to patent everything they possibly can so this doesn't happen again.

amd...

this is news becuase why?

Honestly - this is the anti thesis of most Slashdot - where's the news? I'm sure if you dug hard enoguh, you'd find a patent for booger-picking... (owned by me) and therefore gates is in violation, and owes me 1 trillion dollards.... and stuff...

Reform!

Which might be one of the reasons that Microsoft is backing proposals for a reform of the patent systems, according to this article [zdnet.com].

Microsoft is now getting one of those giants like IBM who will constantly be bugged by private patent owners (bogus or real) for money. My experience is that though large companies have many patents, the quality of their portfolio is relatively low as they like big numbers. Small companies, on the other hand, have either a completely worthless portfolio or a small but very powerfull portfolio. And a small production, so the backfire risk of a patent lawsuit towards Microsoft is negligible.

But I do not think a (the?) new US patent system backed by Microsoft will solve that problem for Microsoft. It will probably make it worse. Suffer, dudes...

wait a sec...

Does anyone find the irony of a company is being sued for infringing on a patent that revolves around the way you use their own products just a little much?

And perhaps a bit troublesome?

Next: patent awarded on universal Turing machine

Oh, wait...

Re:David vs Goliath

Well, the giant isn't exactly falling. I'm sure that to the winner of the lawsuit, it felt great to get paid loads of money for his patent.

To Microsoft and the billions upon billions of dollars under their control, however, it's like trying to drain a lake by siphoning it through a straw.

Re:David vs Goliath

doesnt bill have that much in his couch ?

Re:Oh...

Now he'll buy two.

Re:David vs Goliath

I think at this point, fell might be a little strong of a word.

Re:David vs Goliath

Sorry, the giant tripped over a giant turtle and spilled some cash.

Re:Little Guy

It's not ince at all. If software patents are wrong, they're wrong regardless of who sues whom. You know, that guy may have a similar parent for Open Office.

Re:David vs Goliath

"and with one small stone, the giant fell..." ... to his knees laughing.

Not exactly felled

$9M to Microsoft is less hurt than you dropping a penny.

Re:Little Guy

Hardly...this "little" guy did a dick-ish thing. I hate M$ as much as the next slashdotter, but it doesn't mean I agree with what has happened. This kind of crap is wrong no matter who uses it on who.

Re:patents

You also can't patent mere ideas.

You are just soooooo pre-Cheney

Re:Most amazing thing is...

We know M$ gets aways with all sort of things, so EVEN if this guy is taking advantage of software patents and is intentions are bad, he WON against the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. That's something to CELEBRATE. It tells all those little guys somewhere, that there's hope on their processes. Yes, you CAN beat a giant at their own game.

I don't think Microsoft really lost here.

Think with me: if Microsoft really wanted to win this case, they would just appeal. They've got the money, they've got the lawyers, there is NO WAY Joe Smallpotatoes would win in the end. Especially not this ridiculous patent, which should be easy to overthrow on the grounds of obviousness.

So, I can only conclude that Microsoft is actually happy to lose this one. And why would that be? My guess is that they simply have lots of these obvious patents themselves, which they hope to apply tactically in the near future to bring down small entrepreneurs. Since they now lost this case, in the future, when someone they sue tries to tell the judge that a Microsoft patent is obvious, Microsoft can reply by pointing out the historic case in which a judge upheld a similar patent, which is therefore non-obvious.

This is a tactical loss for Microsoft. And I see a bleak future.

Re:Ignorance

Ain't that a fact, and a gentleman from Guatemala is a Guatemaltec, and this even when he is not a technician. 'Tis a strange world, 'tisn't it.