Jury says Microsoft owes Alcatel-Lucent $376M in patent damages

Hey, remember that Microsoft / Alcatel-Lucent patent fight from 2006? Yeah, we didn't think so -- but the two companies have been duking it out in court over about ten different patents for a couple years now, and a jury ruled today that Microsoft infringed two user interface-related patents and owes damages to the tune of $376M. The two patents both cover touchscreens, with one describing a system of form data entry, and the other describing stylus data interpretation. Sexy, we know. The jury also found that the Microsoft had not infringed two other Alcatel-Lucent video-decoding patents, but the rulings doesn't mean this is all finally over -- Microsoft is planning on immediately appealing the decision, and there are still several other video-related patents being litigated. Yeah, we're on edges of our seats here -- tune in next time for another excitingly dull installment of Marshall Justice.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Apr 4th 2008 9:51PM]

I'm sorry, but those patents are complete bullshit (as most patents these days are) and for once I'd have to side w/ Microsoft...

[Das @ Apr 4th 2008 9:57PM]

I never really understood why patent damages were decided by a jury. Punitive damages too for that matter. It doesn't seem exactly logical to have some yahoo off the street determining how much money should be awarded for obscure industry workings.

[wasabi @ Apr 4th 2008 9:59PM]

yea this is pretty lame.

[tojfs7931 @ Apr 4th 2008 10:08PM]

Yet another company trying to bleed Microsoft to death... how pathetic.

[R @ Apr 4th 2008 10:41PM]

M$ owes everyone who ever had to fiddle with Windows at least $100.

[Paul @ Apr 4th 2008 10:46PM]

I'm going to patent finger pointing. Then whenever anybody points their finger at something I'll haul them into court.

Like poster Michael said "those patents are complete bullshit." What next will the patent office approve - taking a crap?

[Michael LaFramboise @ Apr 5th 2008 12:20AM]

Nah, they already own all the patents concerning that themselves :)

[Randavance @ Apr 4th 2008 10:58PM]

Intellectual property has started to become a real problem in the software world. I think that the rules need some tweaking, by no means am I an expert on this case or a fan of Microsoft, but a lot of this kind of stuff these days doesn't seem right.

[NovaLand @ Apr 4th 2008 11:16PM]

THAT comment was unnecessary, since ALL patents are f:ing f:ed up nowdays. The patent for dynamite was a good one, since that was the reason for the nobel prize. But since that we're just downhill.

[Loonie @ Apr 4th 2008 11:35PM]

Maybe Microsoft could counter-sue with one of their own bullshit patents, like the "mouse double-click", or the "Portion of a gaming input device having an illuminated region", or the "Wish list", or the "Method and system for installing software on a computer system", oh and you godda love their "Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements", etc etc.

Screw the lot of 'em, I say.

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 5th 2008 12:32AM]

@Randavance: Yes they do. I don't have a problem with patents per say, but I have a problem with patenting an IDEA. If you go to get a patent on a lever, you have to submit a diagram of the lever and measurements. If you patent software, all you need is a description. When patenting software, you should only be able to patent a specific algorithm, and you should have to supply the specs to method they are using. If you want to patent a task bar, you should have to provide details on how it works, what methods for drawing it were used and detail responses from the users. Anyone wishing to implement something similar, will have to come up with their own design that doesn't match your design and reacts differently. It's stupid that people can patent things like "one click purchasing" without detailing how that one click purchase works. Anyone should be able to create an alternative one touch system as long as they don't use the same method you did.

[John @ Apr 5th 2008 5:07PM]

*per se

[jbcaro @ Apr 5th 2008 12:38AM]

I currently have a patent pending on 'leaving a crap'. Not sure why anyone would want to 'take one'.

Discovery on 'pinching a loaf' is currently underway.

[Mehul @ Apr 5th 2008 12:42AM]

I know it sounds evil but I just love when Microsoft loses a law suit.

[Nushio (NDF - Blue) @ Apr 5th 2008 2:14AM]

So do I.

Signed,
Alcatel-Lucent's Lawyer.

[ethana2 @ Apr 5th 2008 1:02AM]

Patents FTL.

All they do is impede the implementation of innovations whose advent otherwise imminent due simply to the nature of the human mind.

They need to just go away.

[Dennis @ Apr 5th 2008 5:51AM]

Too many lawyers looking to sue and too many common citizens on juries that want to stick it to big business.
And then there is Europe all over Microsoft.

[ph @ Apr 5th 2008 6:45AM]

All patents cover ideas. Microsoft is one of those pushing hardest for software patents in Europe. They deserve to be hit by trolls like Alcatel-Lucent, this is the only thing that may get MS to change their strategy of using software patents to create FUD against FOSS and open standards. Every time MS has to pay hundreds of millions in such cases, we stand more chance of seeing software patents killed, as they have to be. Patents in general and software patents particularly, stop innovation. That's why oil firms buy patents on solar power, that's why MS has patents that read on ODF.

[Scott Miller @ Apr 5th 2008 7:38AM]

You mean I would have to admit to using windoze.

[Scott Miller @ Apr 5th 2008 7:40AM]

nice "reply"

[Azayzel @ Apr 5th 2008 12:10PM]

I absolutely agree with you on this too! The whole concept of patenting obscure ideas and meaningless ideas/concepts is pretty lame; whathever happened to patenting a clever concept or something highly original tth cannot easily be confused with a general concept? This is just plain rediculous to be able to patent an idea such as a simple point-touch interface, how about the actual technology behind it and not the friggin layout?! If you do patent an idea such as this, you should have to have a bona-fide product on the market that implements that design before being able to sue someone or some company over it's infraction, and it has to be original!

These petty cases and patents need to be knock in the nads and thrown out. Rediculous! I wonder if they're suing Apple and Palm too?

[roseuz @ Apr 6th 2008 12:10PM]

To Nilay Patel. The title says $367M while the article says $376M. Just thought I would point this out for accuracy sake.