$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).'"
Re:Translation (Score:2, Interesting)
For me it seems like the judge was right and the jury didn't understand computer systems.
The Patent Claims [patentstorm.us]
It is basically a serial key registration system that uses online check aswell to validate the key, and that before registering the program runs in demo mode. Surely there we're games/shareware apps that did that before this patent too.
Patent is obvious, and rubbish (Score:3, Interesting)
From the judgment "...fair to describe Microsoftâ(TM)s evidence as more or less
conclusory on this point." I.e. that the patent was an obvious modification to
prior work.
I am glad about this. It shows that the patent system is not so broke as some think.
This patent basically is merely the means by which one can type in a license key
after downloading some free-trial software. Much free-trial software has some kind
of typing-in-of-a-license-key, and if Microsoft lost it would mean no one could do
this in their own products without fear of a law suite - a ridiculous situation.
This guy was just gold-digging. Well done to the judge.
Mixed feelings about judges overturning a jury (Score:5, Interesting)
When judges essentially nullify a jury decision, I find it worrisome as it appears to circumvent the system established by the constitution as I understand it. The whole concept of jury nullification then becomes endangered should a judge decide the jury's actions were inappropriate. There should have to be a much more difficult process involved to have a judge overturn a jury's decision.
My feelings are mixed because it is indeed the case that juries are indeed quite stupid people. There was a new story recently describing a situation that has been ongoing for more than 3 years where a young female became pregnant and never informed the father until just prior to giving birth. (She was probably compelled or otherwise pressured to do so due to legal requirements.) The baby was planned to be offered for adoption by one of the girl's relatives. They asked him to sign the documents and he refused and stated he wanted to keep the baby. The adoption agency proceeded with the adoption process anyway which was a mistake for which they paid a rather large settlement to the father in this case. But the father continues his struggle against this illegal adoption. It was at one point decided by a jury that the child would be better off with the adoptive parents and that the needs of the child outweighed the rights of the father.
This is a seriously questionable decision and one that, off hand, I tend to disagree with. A judge also disagreed with the jury and overturned some of the jury's decisions opening the door for the father of the child to claim him and bring him back home. The law, as it turns out, favors the rights of the natural parents and also favors the law and recognized that procedure and law was broken during the adoption process resulting in extreme injustice. The judge also ruled that there was no evidence that this single father was not capable of raising and supporting this child and that the jury's decision was wrong.
I agree with the judge's actions in this case as it seems to match with my own understanding of justice in this case. However, the ability of a judge to overturn a decision by jury still bothers me.
As to the case with Microsoft? I can't say as I agree one way or the other except on one point -- there should be no software patents. And while this is not a strike against software patents directly, it serves as another example of how they are used and abused and why they are simply bad.
Re:"cheaper" judge (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>For balance then we need a system where by we, the public, can vacate a judge on the same grounds...
We have one. (cocks gun). Or if you want something less messy, you could hire a private investigator to hack the judge's accounts, find the evidence of bribes from Microsoft, and then have the judge removed and the original verdict restored. There was a similar instance in Pennsylvania, resulting in the freedom of many wrongfully-convicted citizens and a judge who is heading towards jail on bribery/corruption charges.
At least he's consistent (Score:4, Interesting)
The judge finds for Microsoft and then on appeal the higher court says "ah no this needed to go to a jury you idiot".
So it goes to a jury, and the same judge then rules the opposite of the jury verdict and finds for Microsoft again.
Surely that's going to make for an interesting appeal...
Jury system doesn't work anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
The jury system was great back when the most complicated thing they had to make judgements on was whether or not a stolen horse had an altered brand - and they all worked with horses.
Today we are asking 12 average joes to make life and death decisions about evidence that even highly trained people would find difficult to follow. The Enron finances, DNA evidence, whether or not some highly technical piece of code is "obvious". This is why juries ignore mountains of technical evidence in favour of bullshit like "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know I don't want Tom, Dick and Harry sitting in judgement on my patent lawsuit.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
Where on earth did you get that idea? I never understand how slashdotters come up with these grand pronouncements. Judges vacate jury decisions plenty of times, and plenty of them are where the loser is small and poor (or even destitute).
Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Surely there we're games/shareware apps that did that before this patent too.
Please name them. I'm not aware of any that predate 1993 (when the inventor originally tried to sell his idea to MS). Most of the software of that time used the following methods to enable trialware: Let you play a level and then type in a "code" from a book or wheel. -or- Allow software to be used but disabled if you did not have the mechanical dongle on the rear of the machine.
This inventor's idea was different in that it allowed online registration via phoneline dialup or internet connection.
Re:Patent (Score:1, Interesting)
The opinions of those who haven't heard or read the evidence and have no knowledge of the applicable laws are totally worthless.
One of the accepted fictions of the legal system is that jury verdicts in highly technical cases like patent disputes, anti-trust violations, medical malpractice, etc. are meaningful. In fact the only purpose of the jury trial is to gather material for the higher courts to base their decisions on.
While this might not be the most efficient legal system its the one we have.
Re:Patent (Score:2, Interesting)
The patent was filed in September 1993, by which time the popular shareware BBS software, door games and their extensions already used external (to the program) hardware (e.g. modem and hard disk characteristics) and software (host/controller versions and their registrations) information in the environment for licensing/serial number purposes. The elder FL/1911/DOD etc. could probably provide comprehensive lists of prior art...
Re:Patent (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"cheaper" judge (Score:3, Interesting)
The bizarre thing is that the judge originally ruled in favour of Microsoft in 2006, but his ruling was overturned on appeal, with the appeals court saying there should've been a jury trial. Now he's overruled the findings of a jury trial and gone against the findings of the appeal to his own 2006 judgement. Surely that won't be the end of it? I'd imagine there's scope for appealing against this. I also find it odd that he only ruled against the jury after they went against his previous personal decision. Surely if he disagreed with the findings of the appeals court he should've appealed against the necessity of a jury trial, not held a jury trial and ignored the outcome when it went against him? From the article:
The judge had ruled in favour of Microsoft in 2006, but an appeals court overturned his decision, saying there was a "genuine issue of material fact" and that he should not have ruled on the case without hearing from a jury.
But in his order today vacating the jury's decision, Judge Smith said the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis".
Re:"cheaper" judge (Score:3, Interesting)
For balance then we need a system where by we, the public, can vacate a judge on the same grounds...,
The problem is that any judge who rules on a sensitive issue which has the tabloids up in arms would therefore be removed. There would be no way to ensure that a sentence was fair if the judge's employment immediately following a sensitive trial would be decided by the tabloid media.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1993, dial-up PPP was still billed by the hour and most Internet use was among government researchers and schools. If anyone had it at home, they were dialing into a UNIX server and using a shell.
Implementing a phone-home activation would have meant millions of dollars in phone lines, trunk hunting, modem banks, technical staff, just to avoid piracy that might've lost a couple hundred thousand sales at the most. It's no wonder Microsoft declined to use the technology.
Did the patented technology involve creating a profile of the PC that would uniquely identify the computer it was installed on, and require re-validation if the hardware configuration changed significantly? 1993 pre-dates the PCI bus and Plug-and-Play, so probably not.
If this case sets a precedence for more software patents being thrown out, then I for one welcome our software-patent-tossing overlords.