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.
Topics
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.
Talkback Most Recent of 13 Talkback(s)
-
Maybe there is hope for the patent system yet.
Just hope is all.
Bruizer30th Sep 2009 -
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_User30th Sep 2009 -
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!
mwagner@...30th Sep 2009 -
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?
Cylon Centurion30th Sep 2009 -
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 dodo30th Sep 2009 -
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.mwagner@...30th Sep 2009 -
RE: Court reverses Microsoft patent-infringement ruling
Hooray! Another victory for Microsoft!
Loverock Davidson30th Sep 2009 -
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@...30th Sep 2009 -
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 ZA30th Sep 2009 -
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?mwagner@...30th Sep 2009 -
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 ??
alainlebelge30th Sep 2009 -
formation.companies1st Oct 2009 -
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.
HereInOz9th Oct 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
