Microsoft, Autodesk Guilty of Patent Infringement 212
rfunches writes "A Texas jury has awarded $133 million in damages to David Colvin, after finding Microsoft and Autodesk guilty of infringing upon Colvin's two software patents for software antipiracy protection. Colvin's company, z4 Technologies Inc., filed patents for 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' Microsoft was ordered to pay $115 million, and Autodesk $18 million for infringement of the product-activation schemes. A spokesman from Microsoft contends that 'Microsoft developed its own product-activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent.' Appeals are expected."
Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: Well, I don't know about Autodesk, but I think everyone here knows Microsoft's rather dubious track record with patents, as evidenced by this list of previous Slashdot stories:
Sorry, Microsoft, but if you want to play the patent game like this, you can't be too upset when you get played from time to time.
Or, make the other person give up their sword (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, David vs. Goliath only really works on Television.
Re:Or, make the other person give up their sword (Score:3, Interesting)
MSFT routinely pays out hundreds of millions of dollars per case. You want easy money. patent something stupid and sue msft for it. Chances are you will not only win money but enough to cover your time and expenses for the couple of years your in court.
Re:Or, make the other person give up their sword (Score:2)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
They have never sued anyone for patent infringement. But have beenm on the recieving end for the stupidest of patent.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:4, Insightful)
So their "friendly" offers to solicit royalties on the VFAT filesystem from camera vendors is defensive? If the vendors refuse, they have no risk of being sued because Microsoft has never sued anyone yet?
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2, Insightful)
Defensive patents one day. Offensive patents the next. Microsoft doesn't bother enforcing their patent portfolio simply because they are making billions on software, so it isn't worth the effort (or badwill they would gain). If, however, revenue started heading downwards, they could very well start diving through the patents, looking for companies to extort. Didn't Ballmer recently make some noise about Linux, codingly threatening it on the patent front?
Many
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on who (or what) owns the sword.
Maybe if it is owned by a person, you can build up a trust relationshop... but Microsoft is not a person. Microsoft is a corporation; a collective entity that is entirely amoral, constantly seeking a single goal: the increase of shareholder value.
Microsoft will use their patents offensively the very moment that they decide it is profitabl
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Microsoft is on the receiving end of many patent infringement lawsuits because Microsoft routinely steals the technology of others.
MS' iPod patents show no patents are "defensive" (Score:2, Insightful)
how is MS trying to patent parts of the iPod [zdnet.com] in anyway defensive?
iPods were shipping before the MS patent was even filed.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument from Microsoft, IBM, Orale and SUN etc., has been that they have to file for defensive patents or get buried under litigation. Cases like this one prove that they have a point. Somebody in an MS somewhere will be having to explain why MS didn't attempt to aquire this particular patent if it was crucial to them.
MS has no choice but to play the patent game... unless you can suggest an alternative couse of action for them.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Still, they're amongst those who lobby the most in the EU to push the software patents through as quickly as possible. Care to explain t
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Of course they have an alternative course of action: They can lobby against software patents. If companies such as Microsoft push hard enough, software patents will get revoked. Of course, in the past they thought software patents were a good idea and lobbied to get them installed.
I love these patent-attacks against Microsoft. Not because I dislike Microsoft or because I like software patents.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this patent constitute 'obvious' technology, though, and as such is invalid?
The software patent system is completely broken.
Ridiculous lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly the idea of 'defensive patents' only works against other high tech companies with product based revenue streams to protect. It doesn't provide a defense against patent trolls.
The big software companies thought they had a great way to protect them selves from any up and coming, young, innovative start-ups that might compete with them. Create huge war chests of silly software patents and form an old-boys club. All the usual suspects IBM, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others joined in. They've got what they've got and they want to keep it.
If you were already established, you could cross license your patents with the other already established old-boys, and keep doing business. But if some upstart comes along you could charge them money to license your patents, reducing their profitability. That would reduce their ability to threaten your profitability. If the up-start couldn't afford to pay, buy them out cheap. If the people behind the upstart wanted profit, they would either pay or sell because they couldn't profit or gain investors if people thought their products infringed one of the old-boy's patents.
This works against upstarts that have actual products to sell, but the patent trolls just want money. Now that the old-boys have created a system that grants and enforces silly software patents, the patent trolls can buy up defunct tech companies for pennies on the dollar just for their patent portfolios. If the old-boys threaten to use their 'defensive patents' to stop the trolls from selling their products, the trolls just laugh. The trolls don't sell any products. They just sue rich old-boys.
The old-boys created a system of software patents that they thought would help them cripple innovative young competitors, and it does work the way they intended. However they also created a system that could be exploited by patent trolls that have nothing to lose. The old-boys have to decide if the benefits of the added government regulation provided by software patents outweighs the cost of paying tolls to the trolls.
Remember what patents are. Patents are government granted, time limited monopolies. Patents are anti-competitive tools. They are anti-free market devices used to reduce competition in the market place. Supporting increased "Intellectual Property" rights is not a conservative economic position, it is definitely a socialist position that believes the government is better at picking winners and losers in the market place than market forces are. If you support increases in patents copyrights and trademarks, you support liberal economic theories. The constitution already set limits on the length of patents. Patents need to be non-obvious and original. I've seen laws that have changed the way patents work, but I haven't seen any constitutional amendments.
Re:Ridiculous lawsuits. (Score:2)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:3, Informative)
a Patent, unlike a Trademark, can be selectively enforced. A trademark has to be enforced against all infringement or else you lose it.
You are right about the stupidity of some of these patents... I blame allowing business methods and software patents in in the fir
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a CAD and PDM systems analyst, and I know for a fact taht Autodesk has been using their current product activation scheme at least since AutoCAD R13 was released, I think in 1996 or so. I think they may also have used it in R12, R11, and R10, but I'm not sure if it's the exact same one they are usi
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
The "chewbacca defense" is no exaggeration.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
No wonder Ubuntu doesn't include something as basic as MP3-playing by default, the US patent laws are all fricked up.
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:2)
Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, that won't help them defend against patent holding companies (also known as patent trolls).
Secondly, they actually paint a nice shiny target on themselves [ffii.org] by getting all those defensive patents, making themselves more likely to be sued (see the Q&A at the bottom of the page)
One one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
On the other, they're taking a bite out of microsoft.
I just don't know how to feel about that.
Re:One one hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Weighing three factors may be easier (Score:2)
With three factors in this case rather than the usual two, you may find it easier to choose your groupthink:
Re:Kind of like... (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Either way it's a stupid patent, but i'm not sure what you're referencing is relevent. (is it?)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
When Was This Filed? (Score:2)
(I do promise that I will read the fine article later on, when time permits.)
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:3, Informative)
The patent for 'a method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use' (patent # 6,044,471) is dated March 28, 2000.
The patent for 'a method for securing software to decrease software piracy' (patent # 6,785,825) is dated August 31, 2004.
Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading the patents (6,044,471 [uspto.gov] and 6,785,825 [uspto.gov]) one is struck by a few things:
Beyond all this, the real question is of economics: did it cost Mr. Colvin $118M to develop this "invention"? Society has no incentive to allow people to monopolize ideas which have a zero development cost: people would invent them anyway since there's a profit motive even if other people can employ the invention. It should therefore be clear that the Patent Clause and US Code Title 35 were not intended to cover this invention. The fact that it was accepted anyway tell us a lot (that we already knew) about the US patent system. For example "non-obvious" has devloved to mean "not already known", a situation which is beyond words.
Re:Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:2)
No, it is not clever. It's not even an original idea. It's obvious to anyone in the field. The idea of using codes / etc. in licensing / activation goes back MANY MANY years. In fact back in the late 80's, we discussed this internally for a software product and decided against the tactic because we felt the users would hate it. The concept has also been used in shareware fo
Re:Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:2)
Didn't PC Write use a technique like this? I seem to remember reading somewhere that if you snet them the shareware
Re:Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:2)
The idea is a bit more than simply using codes in license actibation: the idea is to give a code with the software, that works for a short while. For longer-term use you have to register it and get the "permanent" password. In another variation the password changes periodically as a function of the previous password.
Of course this also existed in the 80s in the case of shareware. I still think it's clever, but my main complaint is that this isn't original or non-obviuos.
Re:Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:2)
Well, yes. This is what we are discussing.
Of course this also existed in the 80s in the case of shareware.
Um, yes. I said this already.
Re:Obviousness and other creative uses of language (Score:2)
You have the burden of proof wrong here. A patent does not have to rise to a certain level to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Instead it is assumed to be non-obvious unless a prima facie case of obviousness can be made based on the prior art.
There is no requirement of a certain amount of cleverness to be reached before a patent is granted.
More seriuosly, the patents claim to provide an "appara
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:2)
Microsoft started that crap with their beloved Windows 95 and NT4 (windows95+basic user security) and was not used before then except on their Visual Basic and Visual C products starting with the 3.0 versions. Oh man I feel old now.
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:2)
There was definately a transition period though. I remember getting so frustrated by being asked for the Office 97 key when *removing* Office. "Sorry the key you enter
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:2)
When I return home next month, I'll have to experiment a bit and see if just entering any string of numbers or even leaving that field blank will actually work. I usually use 011-11111111 or something like that.
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:2)
Oh for the love of crap... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone else reminded of the "South Park" election episode, where the only available choices were a big douche or a turd sandwich?
Re:Oh for the love of crap... (Score:2)
How many people with more than a passing knowledge of technology want to put it to work at the US Patent office?
It seems to me that skilled folks who would be really good at making decisions like these can find much better, higher paying, more rewarding and less boring jobs elsewhere in the market.
Tangently, the patent isn't quite as bad as the sum
Microsoft can make that money back in 5 seconds (Score:2)
At least the guy may get compensated for their misdeeds?
Misdeeds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using unique product keys is a misdeed? Individual bank PINs, maybe, too? Come on, it's a plain-as-day concept. There are only two reason companies scramble to patent stuff like this: to actually produce nothing except the capacity to sue people for a living, or to cover their asses while they're in the business of actually providing goods and services to real customers.
Re:Misdeeds? (Score:2)
Re:Misdeeds? (Score:2)
So how would you get investors to put a ton of money into your company so that you can hire and sustain a crew of developers working full time on something high-tech? Do you really think that Google could possibly exist if everything they spent time producing could just be ripped off by someone else? How is it reasonable for some parasite to just run off with your work and do business without having to shoulder the same overhead, years of work and investmen
Re:Misdeeds? (Score:2)
I said that patents for the purpose of protecting yourself from other patent holders are bad.
I may have misunderstood your previous post, but I read your second reason as being the second case I've stated.
Re:Microsoft can make that money back in 5 seconds (Score:2)
Patent Link (Score:4, Insightful)
This patent was filed in September 5, 2003. Here are just a few of the Microsoft products that used this methodology before the patent was filed:
That's not even mentioning the plethora of other Microsoft products for the PC and Mac that used unique IDs. Anything that came with a certificate of authenticity had its own unique number. Microsoft obviously has prior use, and this is a clear case of a computer-illiterate uneducated jury making poor decisions. Surely this will be overturned on appeal.
Date of invention not date of filing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Date of invention not date of filing (Score:2)
Re:Date of invention not date of filing (Score:2)
Wikipedia asserts that Submarine Patents are largely no longer an issue in the US since signed the WTO's TRIPs agreements.
First to Invent does indeed sound like a major deal... What surprises me is that there is so much open source stuff being built these days that it seems like First to Invent should be blowing patents out of the water left and right. Someone makes a one-click shopping site, then Am
Re:Patent Link (Score:2)
Patent 1 [uspto.gov]
Patent 2 [uspto.gov]
Re:Patent Link (Score:3, Informative)
You send the customer the product and a password/key. They enter the password/key and register, and you send them a second password/key, which they use to run the software thereafter.
Filed in 1998.
------------------
The second patent extends to DRM to DRM-enable password authentication.
Filed in 2003. Basically makes it so that running the software requires checking a DRM-registered authentication code with a DRM enabled device.
-------------
As it stands this guy is going c
Re:Patent Link (Score:3, Informative)
And I remember seeing DRM keys for -serial- devices for a -while- (since at least 1994); mostly for CASE tools, etc., (stuff that costs $5k per license).
As always, the key to a patent is its specificity. The first patent says
1) We send you the software and a product key.
2) You register
Re:Patent Link (Score:5, Informative)
1) We send you the software and a product key.
2) You register that product with that key
3) We send you a second password for that product
4) You use the second password indefinitely
This sounds just like SGI's key-o-matic. If you buy one of their "licensed" products, you get CDs and an entitlement ID. Send a properly formatted email with the entitlement ID and the system IDs (essentially the ethernet adress of the workstation) to key-o-matic@sgi.com or was that liceses@ ?) and get license passwords back (that's what the license manager software actually calls them) that are locked to those systems back by email. Keyomatic is at least 10 years old, if one is to believe this usenet post [google.com].
Re:Patent Link (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patent Link (Score:2)
Right but 1998 is well before 2001 (Score:2, Insightful)
Another business plan via lawsuits (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.z4.com/ [z4.com] appears to be yet another company that does nothing, but likes to get paid well for it.
I love it how this link, http://www.z4.com/piracy.php [z4.com] , talks about how Microsoft and Autodesk are victims of piracy.
A whois search on z4.com says that Colvin Design Company set up the registrar info. Well, a google search on Colvin Design Company yields nothing. Colvin Design is supposedly located in Commerce Township, MI. z4 is from Oakland County, MI about 12 miles away from Commerce Township.
No products or anything of substance on the z4 site.
Looks like another lawyer trick.
Colvin update (Score:2)
I did find cursory info about Colvin:
http://listings.allpages.com/mi-0010935235-commerc e-township.html [allpages.com]
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-00 01259831-page.html [ecnext.com]
Seems like a company that does web design for someone else should have a webpage of their own, right?
Oh, and they gave $500 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ns/michigan_commerce_township_48382.asp?cycle=00 [campaignmoney.com]
Re:Another business plan via lawsuits (Score:2)
It is obvious they never intend to sell or license anything.
The only reason to have a patent, other than using it for your own products or licensing it to others, is to whore the legal system.
Re:Another business plan via lawsuits (Score:2)
They're a symptom and not a cause. If the patent system worked like it's supposed to, they would be patent *brokers* and respectable businesses.
Imagine some planet, certainly not this one, where you had to work hard and invent something new, nonobvious, and useful in order to get a patent. Imagine that the claims were written in engineerese rather than patentese and would allow someone skilled in the art to take advantage of the innovation. Imagine that patents were usefully searchable o
Oh! The irony!!! (Score:3, Funny)
On one side, we have to rail against software patents...
On the other, here is Microsoft forced to pay a little guy for infringing on his patent...
Re:Oh! The irony!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
So you can be anti-patent and at the same time hope that MS will get hurt by patent violations as much as possible, without contradicting yourself.
Re:Oh! The irony!!! (Score:2)
I like to MS get smacked around as much as the next guy.
But in this case, the patent seems to have been filed WAY after prior art in which people already had unique keys to authenticate their software.
I'm alarmed by the prospect of patents which blatantly can't withstand a prior-art test being upheld -- I don't care who the defendant is.
Th
Prior art (Score:2)
I think a good old "Dongle" will do.
I also think dongles somewhat predate the 2003 registration of the patent in question.
explaination of the patents (Score:4, Informative)
6044471
This one deals with a system where you provide information to the company and are given a code. When you install the software you are required to enter the code or series of codes and it checks with the companies databases and veries that the password and other info is correct. There are clauses in it to deal with multiple passwords, and shutting down software that has incorrectly entered password.
6785825
This is kind of like the first but instead you are provided a key with the software which provided use for a limited time. Then during that time you are required to call the registration company and provide information and you receive an additional code which then unlocks the software for future use.
This is not your average enter the 16digit code/password to use the software it is the Windows XP thing where internet access is required.
Re:explaination of the patents (Score:2)
Sort of true, but in reality its exactly the same but instead of the code being a simple hash and that is it, it does a remote authentication of the hash to validate it. This remote validation is either done at the initial point (patent 1) or using a timer (option 2).
Sort of like a dongle, but on a bloody long cable. Patent 1 does the validation by going to the dongle,
Re:explaination of the patents (Score:2)
Strange... care to explain why there is no mention of the word "Internet" in the claims of either patent then?
Prior art (Score:2)
Pace Anti-Piracy [paceap.com] was using this type of technology before then. Sounds like this could be invalidated by contact with the right people. For those that don't know, PaceAP supplies the registration and protection code for most Pro Audio applications. I first ran across their stuff in 1994/1995.
MPS: Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 (Score:2)
The Inq. Article [theinquirer.net] Right To Create blog [blogspot.com] Bob Jacobsen's site [sourceforge.net]
Dilemma (Score:3, Funny)
Software patents = bad
Product activation = bad
I'm torn ...
Two Wrongs Make a Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the pessimist in me says that removing that feature will force something infinitely worse.
If Microsoft made it prior to their patent... (Score:2)
Microsoft thinks "first to file" is a good idea. (Score:2)
But then Microsoft is behind the idea of a "first to file" system according to this [microsoft.com] page.
Regarding legal reform, the United States is the only country in the world that applies a "first-to-invent" standard for awarding patents. Under a first-to-invent system, the first actual inventor is given priority even though that inventor ma
As a side note... (Score:2, Funny)
this hurts everyone.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wrote this exact kind of thing into some of my software as early as 99 and i think ive seen it in other applications as well
its an obvious idea but not very easy to impliment, if someone managed to do it without stealing someone elses c
Yeah, No Kidding (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:2)
And if that were the case and they had some evidence of this at all or any documentation then the patent would be invalid and they would have never lost... so it's a random claim.
-M
Missing info... who was first? (Score:2)
z4 Technologies also developed its product-activation technologies before it filed for its patent.
The question is, who was first?
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
How many software companies sell software where the real purchase you make is the "CD-key" or "activation key". This means all of them are violating this persons patent. There's no way this was a recent invention. And wouldn't it go back further to the early Netware days with serial numbers then? I think this gets to the point or an idea which is basic enough that it doesn't warrant a patent as as "non common sense"
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Nope, common sense would be reading and understanding the issue at hand before commentint on it. For example, read the claims of the patent and then compare those claims to the CD-key/activation key system you are describing.
Let the bloodletting continue (Score:2)
They should have listened to Knuth.
Texas is the reason (Score:2)
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death in Texas. - Oscar Wilde
Unfortunately (Score:2)
But patents are good! (Score:2)
Re:No activation codes? (Score:2)
Re:No activation codes? (Score:2)
XP Product activation is actually pretty forgiving of hardware changes. Usually only a motherboard swap or a complete rebuild will cause a problem.
That's generally true. However, product activation can be somewhat arbitrary on when it decides to bug you. For example, I changed my video card, and Windows thought it was ok. When I changed my sound card, though, Windows said that I had to reactivate. What gives?
Re:No activation codes? (Score:2)
Re:No activation codes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Good point. I still haven't purchased a copy of XP for that reason alone. I don't mind hte price, I just don't want to have to reactive everytime I change hardware.
Re:No activation codes? (Score:2)
Can you explain your reasoning here?
Re:FP (Score:3, Funny)
Rejected: Too much prior art.
Re:FP (Score:2)
You're making that up. There's no way the real U.S. Patent Office would reject a silly patent with tons of prior art behind it!