PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft loses $367 million patent case



Jay_Bee
April 5th, 2008, 11:45 PM
Well, I guess they had a taste of their own medicine.
Whoever thought of such thing as software patents anyway?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/04/05/microsoft_loses_367_million_patent_case/6810/

fatality_uk
April 6th, 2008, 12:05 AM
And it will ge nowhere. Microsoft can appeal till the end of time or the money runs out and I can bet they would do both rather than pay.

The EU is STILL waiting for cash to come from Redmond despite three rulings!!!

In answer to your question:

Whoever thought of such thing as software patents anyway?
Software patents have been around since the early 60's
Mostly used by defence contractors initially to secure the funding from gov's
And of course Mr. W Gates studied a bit of law at Harvard ;) 2+2=?

saulgoode
April 6th, 2008, 01:09 AM
Software patents have been around since the early 60's
Mostly used by defence contractors initially to secure the funding from gov's
And of course Mr. W Gates studied a bit of law at Harvard ;) 2+2=?
Not true. At least not in the United States. USPTO guidelines in the 1960s specifically instructed their examiners to not admit software patents. A dispute over a rejection in 1972 went to the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson), which upheld the rejection of software patents. This rejection of software patents was again upheld by the Supreme Court in 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook).

However, a court case in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr) reversed previous policy and held that software patents were allowable.

It should be noted that throughout this period, no laws were actually changed or enacted to make software patentable; it is just a matter of how the rules are interpreted.

Zeotronic
April 6th, 2008, 02:22 AM
A loss for a corperation... especially one like Mircosoft... is a win for humanity.

fatality_uk
April 6th, 2008, 09:35 AM
Not true. At least not in the United States. USPTO guidelines in the 1960s specifically instructed their examiners to not admit software patents. A dispute over a rejection in 1972 went to the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson), which upheld the rejection of software patents. This rejection of software patents was again upheld by the Supreme Court in 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook).

However, a court case in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr) reversed previous policy and held that software patents were allowable.

It should be noted that throughout this period, no laws were actually changed or enacted to make software patentable; it is just a matter of how the rules are interpreted.

Yes it is true. There have been primary software patents in the UK from the 60's.

It went like this:

Gov: What's this software thing you want to patent?

Boffin at gov lab: 0101001001101010100010101 0101001010 100101010 and then you just plug the cable in.

Gov: *Err what the..* Oh yes I see, OK patent it...

swoll1980
April 6th, 2008, 09:40 AM
What the sense in having a jury trial if some judges can just say " no I don't think you guys no what your doing" and over turn it. seems a little corrupted( the legal system I mean)

samjh
April 6th, 2008, 11:49 AM
What the sense in having a jury trial if some judges can just say " no I don't think you guys no what your doing" and over turn it. seems a little corrupted( the legal system I mean)

Not sure what you're saying here.

In general terms, judges cannot overturn a jury ruling that simply. A judge (or judges) can overturn a previous jury ruling upon appeal, only if there is an error in law.

The role of a jury is to give a verdict based upon the evidence presented in court, applied to relevant laws under the direction of the judge.

However, if that judge gave incorrect directions, laws were wrongly applied or interpreted, etc., inadmissible evidence was considered, or there was some other matters of law that was improper, then an appeal can be lodged and an appeal judge can either overturn the previous verdict/order and/or order a retrial.

Also it is important that the pinnacle courts of a jurisdiction (in the US, that is the US Supreme Court) reserves the right to not follow its own precedents. Laws must evolve according to changes in society. One cannot expect a precedent to remain applicable among changing legal and social conditions. Of course, any decision to not follow a prior precedent should be accompanied by good reason.

To add further to that, most civil hearings do not involve a jury. This might be different in the US (I'm from Australia), but even there I think jury hearing in civil cases are not the norm.

To add even further, Diamond v Diehr may not have overturned a prior precedent, but rather merely judged that prior precedent set for Gottschalk v Benson may not have been applicable to the present case. Precedents are finicky things. Just because a case is similar, doesn't mean its judgement is binding. The facts and the reasons behind the precedent must adequately match the present case for the precedent to be applicable.

LaRoza
April 6th, 2008, 11:57 AM
To add further to that, most civil hearings do not involve a jury. This might be different in the US (I'm from Australia), but even there I think jury hearing in civil cases are not the norm.

It would depend on the case, but juries are common in civil trials. In criminal, trials are relatively rare, but one can waive the jury trial and have a bench trial.

samjh
April 6th, 2008, 12:08 PM
It would depend on the case, but juries are common in civil trials. In criminal, trials are relatively rare, but one can waive the jury trial and have a bench trial.

Interesting. In Australia, a criminal trial must be held with a jury, unless if it is a hearing in a Magistrates Court or an appeal. Civil trials are usually held without a jury unless parties agree to a trial by jury and a right to a jury applies to the type of litigation.

LaRoza
April 6th, 2008, 12:15 PM
Interesting. In Australia, a criminal trial must be held with a jury, unless if it is a hearing in a Magistrates Court or an appeal. Civil trials are usually held without a jury unless parties agree to a trial by jury and a right to a jury applies to the type of litigation.

A jury trial is a right for defendants, but they can voluntarily waive it. Most criminal cases are resolved through pleas as most people accused of a crime are guilty of something, and don't want to have it on display so they plea to a lesser offense which makes things move faster, and usually gets a lesser penalty for the defendant.

For "bigger" criminal cases, a jury trial is usually held.

This is also on the state level, as the states have most of the jurisdiction for criminal matters.

swoll1980
April 6th, 2008, 12:23 PM
in the US a judge doesn't even have to use the jury's verdict. He can immediately set it aside and enter his own judgment. Though this is rarely done