$338M Patent Ruling Against Microsoft Overturned 238
some_guy_88 writes "The $338 million verdict against Microsoft for violating a patent held by Uniloc has now been overturned. 'Ric Richardson ... is the founder of Uniloc, which sued Microsoft in 2003 for violating its patent relating to technology designed to deter software piracy. The company alleged Microsoft earned billions of dollars by using the technology in its Windows XP and Office programs. In April, a Rhode Island jury found Microsoft had violated the patent and told Microsoft to pay the company $388 million, one of the largest patent jury awards in US history. But on Tuesday ... US District Judge William Smith "vacated" the jury's verdict and ruled in favor of Microsoft.' In his ruling, Smith said the jury 'lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis (PDF).'"
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
I joke! I joke!
kinda...
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course when it's about Microsoft winning a patent troll, it's because they "bribed judge".
This is why Microsoft and other big companies have to patent everything they can. Not to patent troll other companies with them, but to protect themself from said trolls. Actually I haven't still heard any case where MS has gone patent trolling - and before someone comes with the TomTom case, they actually made an aggressive movement against MS first and MS couldn't do anything else than sue them.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Microsoft DIDN'T win. According to the jury, they lost. Then the judge said "The jury is made of dumbasses. It didn't count."
Note how they never do that when the loser isn't big and rich...
Jury problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"cheaper" judge (Score:5, Insightful)
For balance then we need a system where by we, the public, can vacate a judge on the same grounds...
The idiots who hand out prison sentances for missing a council tax payment but give muggers a slap on the wrist need vacating from their benches (or ideally the gene pool).
(And yes, I know this is a US case but jury's and judges do share certain common traits with the UK ... phrases like two short planks act as the link)
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
I always have mixed feelings when I hear that a judge vacated a verdict.
On the one hand, a lot of people are idiots, and I imagine that it's not that unusual to get seven idiots on a given jury at the same time. I kind of like the thought that there's a "fail safe" that has veto power over a bad jury.
On the other, I don't like the thought that one person has absolute power over the process like that. One guy (or gal) can basically overrule everything a jury deliberates on. I've known judges that are idiots, too, and when I see something like this, I can't help but wonder why we even bother to have the trial.
In the end, I suppose I lean more towards taking the power to vacate verdicts or awards from judges. After all, that's what the appeals process is there for, to be that fail safe, and to be honest, I think the odds are more likely that you'd get one idiot judge than seven idiot jurors if I'm the one in the courtroom. Plus, jurors are more likely to account for the human element in such cases than a judge who looks at everything in terms of the black-and-white letter of the law; they're more likely to come up with a right (i.e. moral and ethical) decision, even if it isn't the Right (i.e. legally correct) decision.
And it's not just because it's Microsoft. I'd feel the same way if this happened in the Jamie Thomas case and the judge had smacked down the RIAA. In theory, it shouldn't make a difference, but in reality, I always try to imagine how I'd feel if the tables were turned and the same thing happened.
Problem is this only works here (Score:3, Insightful)
where the loser is wealthy.
How many cases of "computer trespass" have been decided on ridiculous reasoning from the jury and allowed without murmur from the judges WHEN THE DEFENDANT WASN'T RICH?
Privilege used to mean "private law".
Rule of law was supposed to remove that and we would all be equal under it.
But judges vacating juries and judges disallowing nullification and judges disallowing people who know what they are talking about ensures that privilege lives on.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
While that is certainly likely, the jury is there for a reason. They
aren't there just to be ingored later. There is supposed to be a
process in place here and the judge seems to be just ignoring it in
favor of his own personal biases.
This sort of haphazard outcome should bother anyone who ever held a
patent application or is likely to be sued by someone that does.
Excellent news! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I rather watch them beat a stupid patent than see anyone stuck with such a stupid verdict. At least this establishes recent precedent for judges overturning lunacy.
Yeah, I know we all hoped it would be the straw that broke the camel's back and Microsoft would say, "wow, this is idiocy and we need to see the light!" This wouldn't have been that straw. This straw would've left them saying, "wow, I'm glad we can afford it! Too bad for our poorer competitors who can't!"
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus all legitimate authority comes from the People. The jury is as close to that ultimate authority as you're gonna get, and as you said there's the appeals process which allows judges to order secondary trials if the original case was somehow flawed. Hopefully this inventor will get a second chance to stand before a jury and plead his case to protect his invention.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Insightful)
Having served on two juries in my lifetime (one civil, one criminal) I can attest that in both cases the idiot ratio was definitely > 50%. At least in the criminal trial, what the jury could do was strictly limited by the judges instructions. In the civil case, most of the jurors wanted to vote based on factors that had NOTHING to do with the case we heard. It was a medical malpractice suit and most jurors let their personal experiences with various doctors (good or bad) dictate how they were going to vote, pretty much ignoring the evidence binders and testimony.
Of course one could easily argue I was one of the idiots since I couldn't B.S. my way out of jury duty....
Re:Jury problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, first of all when I think engineers I tend not to think "critical thinking skills"; I mean, I think "quantitative skills" and "analytical skills", but considering how many of the leading creationists are engineers, how many subscribe zealously to weird political views, and how many are so prone to adopt conspiracy theories (zomg the judge was bribed), "critical thinking skills" doesn't come to mind.
Also do you have any data to back up the idea that engineers are excluded more than other professions?
Re:Excellent news! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
I grew-up in the 70s and played many many games throughout the 80s, and I'm not aware of any program that used this method. They all used a mechanical dongle, or other physical method, to verify a program's validity.
Can you please provide us a list of the games/programs, pre-patent, that allowed for *online* registration using a key? (or else defaulted to a trialware mode)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Insightful)
So this explains the healthcare/insurance problem.
Step 1: Idiot jurors award malpractice patient tons of money unjustly.
Step 2: Lawyer takes most of it.
Step 3: Doctors 'malpractice' insurance becomes nearly unaffordable.
Step 4: Medical prices increase.
Step 5: Medical insurance price increases.
Step 6: Lawyers (politicians) say we need to stop run away spending in healthcare industry.
6+ months from now:
Step 7: The plan to fix everything doesn't involve killing all the scumbag lawyers and politicians so it doesn't work.
Who caused the problem: Idiot people. Who benefits: Lawyers. Who get's screwed: Everyone. Why we allow this system to continue: The lawyers are in charge of changing it.
Re:Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know of any copy protection in the late 80's or early 90's that "the system detects when part of the platform on which the digital data has been loaded has changed in part or in entirety, as compared with the platform parameters, when the software or digital data to be protected was last booted or run". I am no fan of this kind of thing, but it seems novel for the time. Then again, I wasn't working with state of the art software at the time, either :D
Re:Jury system doesn't work anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patent (Score:1, Insightful)
There is definitely prior art to this patent.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
"Surely there were games/shareware apps that did that before this patent too."
Sure if it were any games/shareware apps that did that before this patent, Microsoft would be able to produce them as evidence in the case.
Did they?
Seems to me... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think what's going on here in this thread is some posters lack a grasp of the legal issues before them.
It's not what you WANT the constitution to require of the judicial system.
It's not what you WANT juries to be, what purpose you WANT them to serve.
The fact of the matter is, the judicial action is very legal, however much you WANT it to be otherwise. Look it up. If you can read a programming language grammar, you ought to be able to read the Constitution, and any related legislation otherwise.
Whether you agree with the outcome of the decision doesn't matter.
I'm glad the judicial branch is scarcely accessible by democratic means to the general public, contrary to the dominant opinions I've read in this thread...
Re:Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
"I can do that, let me show you how" is exactly what patents protect against.
If I invent a new way of making solar panels, I describe it fully in a patent application. Based on the abstract, experts in the field might say "I can do that, let me show you how." The difference is, they didn't think of doing it. (Or they did and found out it wasn't worthwhile.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin [wikipedia.org]
"I can do that, let me show you how."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Elevator_Company [wikipedia.org]
"I can do that, let me show you how."
Damned near anything invented before 1700 falls in this category - obvious when someone mentions it, but remains uninvented and unobvious until then.
Supreme Court said this is the correct approach (Score:3, Insightful)
If you patent a universal joint for a car using roller bearings, and I can patent one using ball bearings and a different joint style. Even though my universal joint provides the same function as yours, it does the function differently enough that I don't have to license your design.
Uniloc patented a licensing system. Yes. Microsoft built their own licensing system that provides the same function, but there was no evidence that Microsoft used any part of Uniloc's software to do that function. Therefore, Microsoft didn't violate Uniloc's patent
For many years the Patent courts have upheld business model and software function patents as valid, but the Supreme Court ruled that style invalid last year. The Judge in this case is just apply the time tested rules about mechanical patents in the method that the Supreme Court has instructed them to apply to software.
Re:Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
(a) verify anything online (since there was no universal online network, just some proprietary networks like CompuServe, Genie, etc. and private BBSes). The majority of PC owners didn't even have modems in those days. Making them dial-in to a proprietary activation network would have been a nightmare, and having been around in those days and installing a LOT of software back then, I never recall one doing so. And...
(b) lock itself to the hardware platform
These two distinctions are what appear to make this quite likely a novel patent at the time, and again while I don't care for much of the current state of patent law, patent trolls, et al, this does seem to fit the requirements for a novel and unique way to do something, and thus be protectable by patent. It's NOT just a conglomeration of existing patents or schemes.
Think about it from the following perspective:
- Someone has this idea about how to lock a software activation to the user's hardware AND require them to validate the activation online, years before it can even be practically implemented
- Years later, after successfully licensing said scheme to the gaming industry, this person approaches Microsoft with this activation scheme as a suggesting for protecting upcoming versions of of their software
- MS says "No Thanks!"
- MS then proceeds to implement a virtually identical protection scheme on their new Windows XP release.
How could anyone criticize the patent holder, and find MS not liable, given that information (assuming it is all correct, I just listed it as I understand it)? It's a classic case of bully infringement, one that mega-corporations often do against little guys who they figure won't have the guts/resources to sue, and if they do, they'll just wear them down in litigation costs. They have little to lose other than their integrity, which most don't really care about when it doesn't affect their bottom line, and even then they have a massive PR machine to vilify the victim as a greedy, money-hungry lech.
The only issue I have is with the way the legal complaint was written, claiming that "The company alleged Microsoft earned billions of dollars by using the technology in its Windows XP and Office programs." MS didn't earn billions because of this activation scheme -- in fact if you believe some of the anti-DRM folks, it cost them some sales, though likely negligible. They would have earned billions without it as well. And hell, the activation scheme they implemented was hardly successful against piracy anyway. So at least that part of the claim is disingenuous at best.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the car analogy but what does that have to do with malpractice suits? That is another issue with the medical system: sense of entitlement. Why does every average person believe they should get the attention of ten nurses, a doctor, millions of dollars of equipment, etc just because they are a citizen. I am sorry but if you want this type of care you should have to save for it, forgo other expenses, like nice cars, or work more/harder and make provide more for society.
Bluntly: Why should an expertly trained team of doctors and nurses using expensive facilities be used to cure the cancer of a crack addict McDonald's employee?
If everyone were to have this care everyone would have to be a doctor or nurse and we would all be caring for each other while we were weren't sick and never get to enjoy a day of our lives. Health care is a service or product just like everything else. If you want it you should have to pay for it, just like everything else. If you want more or better health care you should buy a less expensive house or car so you can afford it.
You may say a society should protect its citizens. I agree, we should protect our productive, intelligent, high value generating citizens from paying for a bum to get multimillion dollar procedures. Not everyone provides equal value to a society so why should everyone be treated equally?
Anyway... you just spurred a large rant from me, not really directed at you. But that 1% number is bullshit. Malpractice costs are high enough to keep doctors from starting their own practices in many cases. Maybe 1% of the heath care budget is allotted to AWARDS from malpractice lawsuits, but its cost is more far reaching than that. Fighting a legal battle that the doctor wins still costs tons of money and would not factor into that at all, not to mention thousands of other activities that revolve around the business that lawyers have created around malpractice suits.
Re:Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
The Heretic CD used an almost identical scheme to protect encrypted versions of other games.
The activation/decryption process effectively hashed the hard disk contents to come up with a unique serial number, which you converted into a key by calling Id, paying for the game, and getting back the key. If it validated, the program would decrypt the game.