Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

Summary: A US federal court on reversed an earlier ruling that Microsoft's product-activation technology infringed on another company's patent, overturning a $388m verdict in the case.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Legal, Microsoft
13
A US federal court on Tuesday reversed an earlier ruling that Microsoft's product-activation technology infringed on another company's patent, overturning a $388m verdict in the case.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the court vacated the earlier decision and decided the Uniloc case in Microsoft's favor.

Microsoft initially won a summary judgment ruling, which would have ended the case in its favor, but Uniloc appealed that ruling and a federal appeals court last year ruled that the case needed to go to trial with regard to two counts.

Read more of Microsoft gets big patent verdict overturned on CNET News.

Topics: Legal, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Maybe there is hope for the patent system yet.

    Just hope is all.
    Bruizer
    • The patent system is fine

      On the whole, the patent system supports economic growth, as the founders intended.

      The problem lies with extending it to an inapplicable and impractical art, such as software.
      IT_User
      • But the precedent has been set for that ...

        ... inappropriate application of patents, not just of software (which is more appropriately protected by copyright) but also of ideas. People need to be able to invent BETTER mousetraps. This is why the system is broken and it will be hard to reverse these legal precedents.

        Further, why should someone with a patent PENDING be allowed to sue someone else for using that patent when it has not yet been approved. An excellent example is the patent troll which sued RIM.

        The patent wasn't even applied for until after the BlackBerry was an overwhelming success. Only then did the the troll claim that his client's "pending" patent dates back to the pre-RIM days of text-pagers. They ended up extorting 512 million dollars out of RIM.

        That's just not right!
        M Wagner
  • But....

    We ALL know they were bribed.... Lol.


    Since when was MS's activation technology taken to court? They're sued for anything nowadays it seems like. Milking the cash cow I presume?
    The one and only, Cylon Centurion
    • Then

      what is MS excuse for its suing others? Is the claims of MS legit while everyone suing them frivolous or greed?

      I'm certainly no fan of the patent system (as it pertains to software as the poster above pointed out) and don't mind hearing MS get off but they are certainly no victim in the litigation arena.
      Viva la crank dodo
      • Pockets as deep as Microsoft are always ...

        ... subject to predatory lawsuits. Microsoft doesn't pay those lawyers it keeps on retainer, Microsoft's customers pay those lawyers.

        Each case is different but I am sure that Microsoft is not blameless either.
        M Wagner
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    Hooray! Another victory for Microsoft! :)
    Loverock Davidson
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    A victory for Professional Truth Management?
    "PTM: when the fugly truth simply won't do!"
    My Bad ;-)
    bputersznit@...
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    Software patents are ridiculous. If I use words in a different way in a sentence can I apply for a patent? Essentially that is what is being done when applying for software patents.
    Barry ZA
    • It's not even that clear.

      Your example would apply to copyright, which is a lot easier to demonstrate.

      UNIX is protected by copyright, which is the only way that Linux could exist under current application of patent law since Linux is effectively a UNIX 'clone'.

      Had UNIX been patented, under today's court precedents, Linux would be violating most UNIX patents.

      And you're right. Patenting 'functionality' is ridiculous. What if Henry Ford had patented the steering wheel? Would each brand of automobile have a different mechanism for guiding it down the road - or would Ford Motor Company be collecting royalties from all of the other automobile manufacturers?
      M Wagner
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    I believe the only persons or companies who should "own" software, are the holders of the programing code. Anyone using writing software applications and programs written using C, C+, C++, Unix etc...are actually using bits and pieces of codes that does not belong to them. So how can they patent their software ??
    alainlebelge
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    Very nice, that was to happen

    http://www.formationshouse.com
    formation.companies
  • RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling

    What you all seem to forget is that Uniloc appoached Microsoft back n the 1990s with their technology to protect software.

    Microsoft had a good look at it and then refused to purchase a licence for it.

    They then used exactly that technology to impose the Windows XP Product Activation on all of us.

    So they see the technology, don't buy it, use the technology for free, and then lock up Windows XP and make us pay for it, and make a million out of it.

    How is that fair? Please enlighten me.
    HereInOz